January 10, 2016 This publication was produced by International Development Group LLC, for review by the United States Agency for International Development. Partnership for Growth (PFG) Mid-Term Evaluation: Ghana and Tanzania Crosscutting Report Learning, Evaluation and Analysis Project-II (LEAP-II) Work Order #2: Partnership for Growth (PFG) Midterm Evaluation Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-12-00042/AID-OAA-TO-14-00046 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. i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Mid-term Evaluation Purpose ...................................................................................................... 2 Cross-Cutting Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................ 2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 3 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Crosscutting Evaluation Question 1: What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of the PFG whole-of-government approach to development assistance? .......................................... 3 Crosscutting Evaluation Question 2: To what extent has PFG affected the workload of national government and US government staff as compared to the workload created by traditional forms of development-assistance delivery? ........................................................... 4 Crosscutting Evaluation Question 3: What contributions has “non-assistance” made to the PFG process and how can it be utilized moving forward? ...................................................... 4 Cross-Cutting Recommendations ................................................................................................ 5 Process Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 8 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12 PFG in Ghana and Tanzania ...................................................................................................... 13 Evaluation Purpose .................................................................................................................... 14 Cross-Cutting Questions ........................................................................................................ 14 Evaluation Methodology ........................................................................................................... 14 Methodological Limitations ...................................................................................................... 16 Evaluation Findings .................................................................................................................... 18 Overview of the Ghana and Tanzania PFG Initiatives .......................................................... 18 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................ 19 Detailed Findings ........................................................................................................................ 20 Overall Advantages & Disadvantages of the PFG Initiative ..................................................... 20 1. PFG represents an improvement over previous development assistance strategies .......... 20 2. PFG has facilitated progress in policy reforms that promise to augment investment and economic growth ................................................................................................................... 20 ii 3. Initial planning through the CA activity was important for progressing activities and policy reforms ........................................................................................................................ 21 4. The PFG approach has been mainstreamed into other development initiatives ................ 21 5. PFG led to increased coordination and dialogue between and within USG and partner governments........................................................................................................................... 21 7. Effectiveness at the constraint and outcome levels depends on exogenous factors .......... 22 Cross-Cutting Question 1: What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of the PFG whole-of￾government approach to development assistance? .................................................................... 22 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 23 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 26 Cross-Cutting Question 2: To what extent has the PFG affected the workload of national government and US government staff as compared to the workload created by traditional forms of development assistance delivery? ............................................................................... 27 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 28 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 32 Cross-Cutting Question 3: What contributions has “non-assistance” made to the PFG process, and how can it be utilized moving forward? ............................................................................. 33 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 34 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 36 Process Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 37 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 40 Annex 1. Statement of Work Partnership for Growth (PFG) Mid-term Evaluation: Ghana and Tanzania ............................................................................................................................... 42 Annex 2. Overview of Growth Diagnostic Approach Developed by Hausmann, Rodrik, and Velasco (2005) .............................................................................................................................. 66 Annex 3. Methodology and Data Analysis Methods ................................................................ 68 Annex 4. Data Collection Instruments ...................................................................................... 71 Annex 5. Semi-structured Interviews ........................................................................................ 72 Annex 6. Confidential Online Surveys ...................................................................................... 99 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS BOG Bank of Ghana BRN Big Results Now CA Constraints Analysis CDCS Country Development and Cooperation Strategy CEPA Center for Policy Analysis (Ghana) DCM Deputy Chief of Mission (USAID) DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom) EWURA Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority EXIM Export-Import Bank of the United States FINSSP Financial Sector Strategic Plan FTF Feed the Future GOG Government of Ghana GOT Government of Tanzania (includes the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar (RGZ)) IRRIP Irrigation and Rural Roads Infrastructure Project JCAP Joint Country Action Plan LOA Line of Action LRDF Local Roads Development Fund M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation METTS Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Support Services MOF Ministry of Finance OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation PDB Presidents Delivery Bureau PFA USAID Program Foreign Assistance PFG Partnership for Growth PPD Presidential Policy Directive PSDS II Private Sector Development Strategy II (Ghana) SBA Small Business Association SME Small and Medium Enterprise SOW Scope of Work TANROADS Tanzania National Roads Agency TANESCO Tanzania Electric Supply Company TOC Theory of Change USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WGA Whole of Government Approach Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Partnership for Growth (PFG) initiative seeks to leverage US government (USG) resources in support of a shared development program delivering accelerated, sustained, and broad-based economic growth in partner countries. It involves rigorous joint analysis of constraints to growth, the development of joint action plans to address these constraints, and high-level mutual accountability for implementation. The PFG embodies the principles set down in the September 2010 Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on Global Development.1 PFG is based on a shared commitment to implementing the key institutional and regulatory reforms required for unleashing private investment. One of PFG’s signature objectives is to engage governments, the private sector, and civil society with a broad range of tools to unlock new sources of investment, including domestic resources and foreign direct investment. By improving coordination, leveraging private investment, and focusing political commitment throughout both governments, the PFG enables partners to achieve better development results. Ghana and Tanzania are two of the four partner countries2 with the selection based, in part, on the countries’ commitment to reform and successful implementation of their first Millennium Challenge Compacts. The PFG recognizes that achieving sustainable growth will require significant increases in private investment and commits the USG to supporting the countries that enter into a commitment “to set in place good policies, and make investment conducive to development.” In this model both the USG and the Governments of Ghana (GOG) and Tanzania (GOT) respectively are enablers for the private sector which is the “economic growth driver.” The PFG draws on the whole-of-government approach (WGA) technical resources and adopts a country-led approach with the objective of mobilizing investment capital. However, the PFG does not have incremental financial resources earmarked. Rather, the PFG process aims to unlock additional funding from both the public and private sectors to implement the agreed reforms. In February 2011, the Governments of Ghana and Tanzania committed to work with the USG to accelerate and sustain broad-based and inclusive growth in Ghana and Tanzania through the PFG initiative. This included a commitment to jointly prepare a Constraints Analysis (CA) using the Growth Constraints approach of Hausmann, Rodrik, and Velasco (2006). The CA’s for Ghana and Tanzania were finalized in August and September 2011 respectively. These were used as the basis for the development of the five-year Joint Country Action Plans (JCAP) for Tanzania 2012-2016, issued in April 2012 and for Ghana which was finalized in March 2013 with the five-year program running to February 2018.                                                              1 The Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on Global Development views development as an issue of prime importance to U.S. National Security, and as a strategic, economic, and moral imperative for the United States. It prioritizes Development as the core pillar of American power and envisions how development, diplomacy and defense can mutually reinforce and complement one another. 2 The other two partner countries are El Salvador and the Philippines. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 2 The objectives of the Tanzania JCAP are to strengthen the power sector and to improve transport connectivity in rural areas. The Tanzania JCAP identified the key binding constraints to private investment and economic growth as unreliable and inadequate supply of electric power and rural roads. In Tanzania under each of the two binding constraints, the JCAP allocated the development interventions into two root constraints that addressed underinvestment as well as institutional and technical capacity in both the energy sector and rural roads. Each root constraint was assigned a series of goals aimed at relaxing the constraint, and each goal has multiple Lines of Action (LOA). The objectives of the Ghana JCAP are to strengthen the power sector and improve access to finance and strengthen the financial system. The Ghana JCAP identified the key binding constraints to provide investment and economic growth as unreliable and inadequate supply of electric power and insufficient access to credit in the weak financial system. In Ghana under each of the two binding constraints, the JCAP allocated the development interventions into five goals, which addressed policy, regulatory, capacity and competition issues affecting private investment and efficiency in the power sector and access to finance. Each goal was assigned a series of LOAs aimed at removing the constraint. There are a total of 90 LOAs to be carried out by the GOG and the USG. MID-TERM EVALUATION PURPOSE The mid-term evaluations of the PFG initiative in Ghana and Tanzania seek to determine whether the PFG process represents an improvement over the pre-PFG assistance approach. The evaluations also examined whether PFG analyses and activities are sufficient for addressing the identified constraints, realizing the desired outcome and attributing the impact of PFG interventions on reducing the constraints. See Annex 1 for the statement of work for the mid￾term evaluations. CROSS-CUTTING EVALUATION QUESTIONS Each mid-term evaluation addressed the three cross-cutting evaluation questions shown below: 1. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of the PFG whole-of-government approach to development assistance? 2. To what extent has PFG affected the workload of national government and US government staff as compared to the workload created by traditional forms of development-assistance delivery? 3. What contributions has “non-assistance3 ” made to the PFG process and how can it be used moving forward?                                                              3 Defined by USAID as “diplomatic engagement, convening authority, and other forms of non-monetized assistance to engage both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in support of catalytic policy change and development priorities.” This definition may be extended to include, under the PFG, the provision of high-level technical advice to Tanzanian counterparts by USAID energy experts during the design and procurement phase. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 3 METHODOLOGY The evaluation team conducted a desk review of all the available program information and conducted over 140 semi-structured interviews with key PFG stakeholders including high￾level leadership, program designers, goal leads, implementers and independent experts in the US, Ghana, and Tanzania.4 The evaluation team also conducted an anonymous on-line, closed-ended survey as a complement to the detailed semi-structured interviews and confirmed findings by triangulation of multiple sources of evidence. It is important to note that several findings were largely based on participant’s perceptions and are therefore subjective in nature. FINDINGS Crosscutting Evaluation Question 1: What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of the PFG whole-of-government approach to development assistance? The whole-of-government approach was integral to the PFG process and resulted in positive changes in the delivery of development assistance related to the power sector in Ghana and Tanzania by increasing consistency and coherence in the programming and policy objectives of both USG and GOG/GOT interventions. Interviews with GOG/GOT and USG officials who were actively engaged in preparing the CAs and the JCAPs stated that the process contributed to a deeper mutual understanding of the development challenges. Further, both GOG/GOT and USG officials believed the process of active engagement lent support to a shift in policies and practices involving increased development dialogue and analysis as partners rather than through the terms and conditions attached to a loan or a grant. Interviews with other bilateral donors highlighted their awareness of the benefits of the PFG approach, with one donor indicating they had begun to integrate the approach into their modus operandi. The PFG process contributed to improved and deeper dialogue between the USG and GOG/GOT as partners in a shared commitment to promoting increased growth and private investment. All the host government and USG senior leaders and technical officials interviewed, reported that the process of preparing the CA and the JCAP brought them together and led to a deeper mutual understanding of the development challenges in the energy sectors. A leader within the GOT described the process as “one of the best experiences of donor cooperation in his career,” going on to state that he believed the CA and JCAP process contributed to a shift in policies and practices through development dialogue and analysis rather than through the terms and conditions attached to a loan or a grant. He also noted that other bilateral donors have also recognized the benefits and changed their modus operandi.5 A senior USG official stressed that the PFG constraints analysis and the joint approach resulted in learning on both sides. During interviews, two of the USG officials involved in the preparation of the CA commented that it increased their understanding of the context-specific development challenges and increased inter-agency cooperation between the GOT and USG.                                                              4 Sixty interviews for the Tanzania study and more than 80 for the Ghana study. 5 This personal and subjective statement was said in a quasi-structured interview. This may reflect positive bias if the interviewee believes expressing such support would contribute to mobilizing additional funding. However, a senior DFID official reported that their decision to implement a new rural roads program had been influenced by the CA and JCAP. Further, numerous senior GOT officials confirmed the influence of the CA and JCAP on the Tanzania Development Plan and reported that they were still distributing copies of the CA.   Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 4 A much more limited response was observed at the technical level when the activities aimed at addressing the constraints were not linked to a significant increase in the financial envelope from USG. For example, in Tanzania this positive response was not observed among technical officials working on the road sector.6 In Ghana, similarly modest progress was observed in addressing access to finance constraints. Both GOG and USG respondents identified the absence of significant additional financial resources and the limited dialogue with other donors who were actively involved in addressing access to finance issues. Crosscutting Evaluation Question 2: To what extent has PFG affected the workload of national government and US government staff as compared to the workload created by traditional forms of development-assistance delivery? All the senior officials interviewed, from both the host governments and USG, considered time spent on the PFG productive and necessary for effective implementation, however, technical officials engaged in sectors which did not receive significant additional financing were less positive. The PFG initiative required a significant investment of time by senior officials from both the USG, GOG, and GOT in preparation of the CAs and the JCAPs. Leadership and senior officials considered the PFG process to be more effective than traditional development assistance because the “upfront, lively constructive discussion” clarified thinking on complex policies and paved the way for tackling difficult and important issues. In Ghana, the CA report was launched at a well-attended public event in Accra and subsequently was distributed widely. Furthermore, much of the analysis and findings were incorporated into the new Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda. Similarly, in Tanzania the GOT distributed the CA widely, with the key analysis and findings incorporated into the new Tanzania Five Year Development Plan. In Tanzania, following the launch of the JCAP, both USG and GOT technical personnel working on power issues integrated implementation and monitoring of the LOAs into their job. However, this perspective was not shared by all the senior technical officials, with some questioning the approach in the absence of significant increased funding to implement the identified activities. For example, several USAID and GOT officials working at the technical level on rural roads saw the PFG as an additional donor administrative and reporting requirement with limited added value. In Ghana, technical officials working on access to finance made similar comments. Crosscutting Evaluation Question 3: What contributions has “non-assistance” made to the PFG process and how can it be utilized moving forward? The concept of “non-assistance” was clearly understood, and valued, by USG, GOG and GOT leaders, but it was much less clear to many stakeholders, particularly mid- and low￾level technical staff. The GOG leadership appreciated the value of non-assistance through the PFG and cited the importance of high level visits from Washington, DC to discuss policy                                                              6 Both the GOT and USG respondents ascribed the limited response in the roads sector to the PFG not being linked to a financial envelope, although USG remains the largest single donor for rural roads many other donors are actively engaged. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 5 reforms, and the use of USG convening power to engage high-level stakeholders, including leading US private companies to discuss investment in Ghana and Tanzania. Effective use of “non-assistance” requires the active engagement of the U.S. Embassy and the USAID Mission. In both Ghana and Tanzania, the Ambassadors and the Mission Directors were pivotal in leveraging the PFG initiative to deepen the development dialogue and place Ghana and Tanzania firmly on the map for potential U.S. investors in the petroleum and natural gas sectors. Virtually all USG interviewees understood the concept of “non-assistance” and gave similar examples of how high-level engagement had enabled them to advance understanding of complex policy issues. However, this was not the case with technical mid-level and junior GOG personnel, who viewed PFG as an “aid project” and focused on whether the process had leveraged additional USG technical and financial assistance. The senior technical representatives from GOT who actively participated in the meetings and work leading to the JCAP also understood the concept of “non-assistance” but made it clear they expected the process to lead to additional finance from USAID. CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Incorporate the PFG M&E systems for each LOA into the relevant complementary USG Presidential Initiatives, including Power Africa and in Tanzania the FTF monitoring system to promote systematic tracking. This recommendation would advance the WGA goal of promoting shared objectives within governments, including the USG, and would set up integrated accountability mechanisms to foster the WGA. USAID should ensure that the M&E systems are adequate and carried out effectively, allowing tracking for each LOA. This may be best led by a goal-level implementation team and formalized in goal-level work plans. Incorporating PFG M&E systems across USG initiatives would provide a cohesive USG response, knowledge base, and accountability structure surrounding interventions. 2. In Tanzania, refocus the WGA work groups/committees (now operating within the Power Africa and Feed the Future initiatives) on seeking to achieve agreed goals explicitly identified in log frames or other theory of change (TOC) documents. For instance, in Tanzania a technical working group for rural roads could be created and charged with delivering specific outcomes to designate clearer responsibility for results. 3. Initiate linkages and coordination with other donor and development organizations. Partnerships with likeminded development organizations would provide new opportunities for growth, capacity development, and information sharing. For example, in Ghana coordinating with the GIZ, DFID, and the Swiss Embassy may increase the GOG’s access to the financial resources necessary to address credit access challenges identified through the PFG process. In Tanzania the evaluation team recommends considering reactivating the Annual Joint Energy Sector Review to be funded by all the donors supporting the power sector. 4. In Ghana provide guidance for enhancing GOG and USG interagency coordination. This could include organizing training on PFG processes, discussions and decision-making for mid￾and junior-level government officials. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 6 5. Conduct training in Ghana, as necessary for USG and partner government staff to raise awareness about the goals of the PFG initiative and ensure that they integrate PFG activities into their current work. Although increased dialogue among GOG Ministries will take time and effort, it is important that PFG stakeholders understand the advantages of increased interagency coordination and the long-term benefits of a more inclusive process. This training could help prevent misunderstandings about the overall purpose of the PFG and encourage participants to take full advantage of PFG activities. The training should draw upon the successes of the work in the electricity sector, emphasizing that while PFG processes take time to establish, they have the potential to reduce workloads in the long-term by increasing the speed and likelihood of interagency consensus. Government officials should view PFG activities as a means of enabling and implementing difficult policy reforms to encourage private sector investment. Therefore, training should be used as opportunities for GOG staff to determine how PFG activities can complement and reduce their current workloads, as well as change perception of the value of the activities on which staff are spending greater time. 6. Consider utilizing new types of IT to hold PFG planning and coordination meetings virtually. Given the infrastructure challenges in Ghana and Tanzania – including poor roads, power outages, and traffic – enabling virtual meeting participation has the potential to reduce travel, mitigating increased time spent on meetings and coordination. However, insufficient bandwidth and power outages limit the opportunities for DVC, but lower tech options involving conference calls and using VOIP should be considered for small group meetings. While PFG planning and coordination meetings should ultimately be integrated into the daily schedules of relevant USG and GOG stakeholders, this initiative would reduce the startup costs of establishing long-term PFG processes and reduce the amount of staff time on meetings and coordination activities. 7. Reframe coordination meetings to increase their efficiency, and encourage regular monitoring and evaluation activities to view the JCAP as a living document to ensure adaptability and responsiveness. Given the perceived increase in staff time spent on coordination activities, reframing meetings may help staff perceive greater opportunities and value in coordination. In particular, meetings should be viewed as an opportunity to raise the visibility of agencies and promote awareness of each agency’s unique and complementary capabilities. Secondly, early coordination and regular meetings on monitoring and evaluation of activities will ultimately decrease staff commitments without jeopardizing interagency cooperation. As the JCAP should be viewed as a living document that can be adjusted to reflect shifts in the regulatory policy environment, PFG meetings should be utilized to ensure that existing programs respond accordingly. 8. Improve reporting and public awareness on non-assistance activities. Public engagement and messaging has, to date, not been widely used, which represents a missed opportunity. Host government officials and Power Africa and FTF would benefit from becoming more knowledgeable about the many forms that non-assistance takes and their value to a wide range of stakeholders. Given the potential for substantial benefits from non-assistance, USG and GOG/GOT management teams should conduct training and other knowledge-sharing and communication activities related to non-assistance. However, this needs to be interpreted as bringing US technical experience and expertise to support Ghanaian and Tanzanian initiatives. It is important to ensure that extensive dialogue and high level coordination is not perceived Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 7 negatively by the public (possibly as interference in internal government business). Public awareness campaigns should be conducted to focus on collaboration to find local solutions and produce results benefitting the Ghanaian and Tanzanian people. The knowledge sharing should include preparation of case studies showing past examples of non-assistance which would assist staff to identify future opportunities and help shape the message of the contribution of the PFG and USG involvement in supporting partner government initiatives. 9. Provide USG staff with training on the diversity of non-assistance tools and their value for various partnerships. As the evaluation team found that many staff below upper￾leadership levels, staff were less likely to identify opportunities to employ non-assistance tools. Given non-assistance’s importance within the PFG approach, its mainstreaming in subsequent USG development initiatives, the evaluation team recommends that USG officials conduct training related to non-assistance for new and existing staff, both technical and operational. This could be addressed by mainstreaming non-assistance into the USAID Program Foreign Assistance (PFA) courses. This is particularly important because despite the importance of this approach, almost all of the technical and operational staff interviewed did not fully understand the concept of non-assistance. Clearly defining the term would represent a first step to developing training activities. The training should address past examples of non-assistance and types of activities that are best suited for non-assistance. Such training would aid technical staff in identifying opportunities for non-assistance and effectively translating examples of non￾assistance to the larger stakeholders within their goals and LOAs. 10. Consider replacing “non-assistance” with a more transparent term. The term “non￾assistance” is perceived to be bureaucratic and not clearly understood by many people. Two options that would comprise the elements of this term are “Political Leadership for Development” (to capture the idea of involving political leaders to move development action agendas forward); and “Leveraging Resources for Development” (to capture the idea of using available USG or GOG/GOT resources for development activities). Rebranding the term with a more transparent phrasing would enable USG officials to better understand the term, think more clearly about the range of non-assistance tools available to them, and more often identify situations in which non-assistance tools would be effective. 11. Incorporate identification of non-assistance opportunities into the responsibilities of existing staff hired as part of the Local Solutions Initiative for Power Africa or FTF. As only 11 of 41 respondents to the online survey could recall a non-assistance tool being used to support a PFG activity, creating clearer expectations and responsibilities for staff to identify and use non-assistance would incentivize greater use of these tools. Responsibilities for staff (working on Power Africa and FTF) should include identifying non-assistance opportunities, especially public information and stakeholder mobilization within Power Africa and FTF. These responsibilities should be incorporated into those of existing staff. Also, it would be beneficial to work with the relevant stakeholders to highlight and report on such activities in a uniform manner. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 8 PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS 12. In both countries, develop explicit logical frameworks (“log frames”) for the two major constraints and related activities, with clearly linked and systematic objectives, indicators, assumptions, and measures, in the context of a TOC. The absence of a formal TOC that links LOAs, goals, and constraints, and explanation of how the proposed reforms would lead to the intended development outcomes suggests that there may be unrealistic confidence that the LOAs and goals will lead to the removal of the constraints, raising expectations while not accurately gauging the challenge at hand and under-allocating resources. The power, access to finance and the rural roads activities were all premised on an implicit TOC. There was no documentation that explained why specific activities were prioritized over alternatives. This makes it challenging to identify how goal-level commitments are intended to achieve the desired constraint mitigation outcomes. A project design tool such as a log frame forces more rigorous thinking on the causal linkages between inputs, outputs, and desired outcome/s (or purpose). It also provides a structure for identifying the assumptions and preconditions necessary for achieving goals and the assessment of risks. Without having these items thought through and in writing there is possibly an unrealistic confidence that the LOAs will lead to the intended results. 13. Revisit the constraints to increasing private investment within the CA to consider all links in the chain of causality. As noted above, the JCAP should be considered as a living document that is updated to reflect the changing circumstances and analytic work. The evaluation shows that both the real and perceived effectiveness of PFG initiatives is affected by exogenous factors, such as available funding or, in Ghana, the macroeconomic situation. Given these findings, the JCAP and TOC should be updated regularly to better identify changing circumstances and enable better estimates of resources necessary to effect change. For example, in Tanzania the implicit assumption that fixing rural roads would be a catalyst for stimulating rural economic growth would benefit from further review. The evaluation team notes recent applied research which highlights the importance of increasing demand for rural transport for reducing the price of transport services. Increasing agricultural productivity through bringing in inputs (seeds, fertilizer) and trading the surplus will increase the demand for transport services. However, the CA notes that absence of security in land tenure represents a constraint to private investment in the rural sector. While devoting more resources to investment in and maintenance of rural roads is necessary, it is unlikely to be sufficient for encouraging additional private investment in the absence of an improved business enabling environment. Similarly, for Ghana a more detailed analysis of the causal pathways for the access to finance constraint would serve to highlight the significance of macroeconomic stability which is exogenous to the JCAP. 14. USAID and MCC should provide training for goal-level implementation teams on the process and the importance of systematic M&E, where needed. Monitoring and evaluation to drive evidence-informed decision making and accountability is a cornerstone of the PFG. USAID and MCC can facilitate the M&E process and conduct training for implementing partners. This should be done in a collaborative manner where all PFG partners discuss what would be most useful for them to ensure that new procedures are relevant and adopted. In Ghana the mandate of the Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Support Services (METSS) which provides independent M&E inputs needs to be clarified. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 9 15. Provide clear guidance on the role of the goals (called “measures” in the Tanzania JCAP) to address constraints and corresponding indicators to measure progress toward achieving goals. In Tanzania there has been some confusion among goal leads and implementers about the role and meaning of the six constraint-level goals and indicators to measure them. Written guidance is needed on translating the PFG LOA level activities, goal level indicators, and scorecards relate to overcoming constraints to facilitate achievement of desired outcomes into the Tanzania Power Africa and Feed the Future initiatives. 16. Increase transparency through updating scorecards and making them publicly available. The scorecards should contain sufficient information to enable an independent observer to track progress. This requires the scorecards to be standardized across sectors with progress clearly linked to the indicators. All scorecards should provide information on outputs and outcomes, and present baseline, target and actual data for each reporting period. Scorecards should use graphics to illustrate developments. 17. Improve public awareness and access to PFG documents. Many of the documents relating to the PFG in Tanzania are not readily available. In Ghana while the CA and JCAP are available the progress reports are less readily available. All the PFG documents and specially written articles, including an explanation of the approach and reports on meetings and outcomes, success stories, a listing of the technical working groups, etc., should be made readily available on both USG and host government websites. It is recommended that content be created for dissemination through existing USG and host government communication channels and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). To a large extent the rebranding of the PFG in Tanzania has rendered this somewhat moot, however, many of the earlier documents (including the CA and the JCAP) remain useful references and it would be useful to explain the transition and rebranding of PFG to the FTF and Power Africa. 18. Increase engagement with civil society, the private sector, and other stakeholders. Increasing awareness, publicity and engagement outside government has the potential to increase the success of PFG and its successor initiatives. Civil society, private sector, and other stakeholder input and support for PFG and successor programs could be improved. These stakeholder groups are often not aware of the goals and objectives of USAID initiatives. In Tanzania the evaluation team recommends close interaction with the BRN President’s Delivery Bureau to ensure a wider awareness and understanding of Power Africa goals and activities. Ultimately greater awareness on the development approach embodied in Power Africa has the potential to result in greater and deeper stakeholder mobilization and increased public awareness of the positive effects of the GOG and GOT reform agenda (e.g., within the power sector, public information campaigns on the importance of cost reflective tariffs, and the key role of private investment in improving infrastructure efficiency). This may help overcome a public opinion locked into the belief that either “nothing” is being done, or that public investment and subsidized power tariffs are the only options for a capital-constrained economy. 19. Mobilize additional financial resources for leveraging interventions in the priority sectors. Implementing the JCAP at the sector level requires additional financial resources for the LOAs. In Tanzania and with the absence of significant financial resources, it has proved challenging for the PFG process to implement the rural roads activities. Participants in the CA process should have met Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 10 with participants in the Irrigation and Rural Roads Infrastructure Project (IRRIP) which took over responsibilities for rural roads in 2014. Unfortunately, there were insufficient funds to cover the cost of gas for vehicles and this curtailed the involvement of important participants in the IRRIP initiative. Transitional funding should be provided in the budget for introduction of new processes.7 CONCLUSIONS The USG, GOG and GOT leaders, architects and goal leads all considered the PFG initiative to be a successful development approach relative to traditional project aid. As interested stakeholders, this positive response may reflect their vested interests, although all the respondents provided specific examples in support of this statement. Almost everyone interviewed mentioned the WGA and the positive externalities arising from the process of working together on the CA and the JCAP. In the words of key informants, the preparation of the CA represented “genuine teamwork” and “technical arguments carried the day”, which assisted in finalizing the JCAP and advanced the policy reform agenda. Reaching consensus on challenging regulatory and policy reforms required an extensive dialogue between the GOT and USG and GOG and the USG. The whole-of-government approach was frequently mentioned by officials from both the USG and the GOG as one of the most important elements of the initiative, along with the process of working together on the CA and the JCAP. Determining the path to removing the constraints was facilitated by the extensive dialogue with partners working together as a team. Other donors have taken note of the PFG process. A key challenge going forward is the need to mainstream the PFG into the overall government development process and work more closely with other like-minded donors. All parties involved in the PFG process considered it had contributed to improved and deeper dialogue between the USG and GOT/GOG as partners in a shared commitment to promoting increased growth and private investment. Continued high level participation from both the GOG and USG at the Bi-Annual Steering Committee Meetings signals the continued commitment to the PFG process in Ghana. The evaluation team concluded the PFG worked to support the GOG in their commitment to embark on challenging regulatory reforms aimed at increasing future economic growth rates. Representatives from the large scale private sector were invited to a public event to discuss the Constraints Analysis but subsequently have had limited involvement. Using a more rigorous project design tool such as a logical framework (logframe) would encourage more thinking on the causal linkages between inputs, outputs, and desired outcome (or purpose). It also provides a structure for identifying the assumptions and preconditions necessary for achieving the goals and assessing the risks. Without having these items thought through and in writing, the evaluation team considers there may be an unrealistic confidence that the LOAs will lead to the intended results. The initial five-year time horizon for the PFG encouraged officials to adopt an overly ambitious and optimistic JCAP when moving from analyzing the constraints to designing                                                              7 See the PFG Interim Evaluation: Tanzania Report Annex 2: Case Study Underinvestment in the Rural Roads Sector. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 11 interventions. For example, the time scale envisaged in the JCAP for realizing substantive changes in the financial sector was over-optimistic given the large government budget deficit, decline in commodity prices, and structural and regulatory pre-requisites for improving access to finance. The GOG is making progress in reducing the budget deficit, augmenting the Bank of Ghana’s (BOG) monitoring and supervision of the banking sector, and strengthening public debt management policy. Equally, experience from power sector programs requiring extensive regulatory reform, and significant tariffs increases, as a precursor to encouraging large scale private investment elsewhere in the world would caution against delivering significant outcomes within the first two years. The PFG initiative in both Ghana and Tanzania fully embraced power sector work. The GOG and GOT have integrated the principles of partnership, country ownership, and a commitment to a strong M&E framework into their approach to the power sector, which is now mainstreamed into the Power Africa and the MCC Compact. However, in Ghana USAID funding for addressing the credit constraints has been limited. While the PFG’s access to credit activities are complementary with the Financial Sector Strategic Plan II (FINSSP) II and Private Sector Development Strategy II (PSDP II), there is also a need for more active engagement of multilateral development banks and other bilateral donors in the financing sector. Further, the deteriorating macroeconomic situation in Ghana adversely impacted interventions aimed at increasing the access to finance. In Tanzania the PFG initiative succeeded in mainstreaming itself into the modus operandi for development cooperation, however, it may be premature to conclude that this will continue to apply. The integration of the CA into the Five Year Development Plan and the subsequent incorporation of many of the core features of the PFG into the GOT-led BRN illustrate the powerful positive impact of the PFG initiative. The principles of partnership, country ownership, and a commitment to a strong M&E framework were all incorporated into Tanzania’s BRN initiative. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 12 INTRODUCTION The U.S. Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development was issued on September 10, 2010.8 It recognized that global economic development “is vital to U.S. national security and is a strategic, economic, and moral imperative for the United States,” and elevated “development as a central pillar of [U.S.] national security policy, equal to diplomacy and defense.” The directive was based on the premise that “where leaders govern responsibly, set in place good policies, and make investments conducive to development, sustainable outcomes can be achieved.” The directive called for:  Elevating broad-based and sustainable economic growth;  Increasing the focus of resources, policy tools, and engagement in support of select countries and sub-regions where the conditions are right to sustain progress;  Increasing investment and engagement in development-focused innovation;  Underscoring the importance of country ownership and responsibility; and  Reorienting the USG approach to prioritize partnerships from policy conception to implementation. The Partnership for Growth (PFG) initiative is based on the principles of the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development. This whole of government initiative was established to achieve accelerated, sustained, and broad- based economic growth in selected partner countries through bilateral agreements between the United States Government (USG) and the partnering countries’ national governments. The core principles of PFG include:  Country ownership and partnership;  High-level political leadership and commitment to development progress;  Rigorous, evidence-based joint analysis on constraints to growth conducted by integrated teams of U.S. Government and PFG country officials;  Joint decision-making on where to focus and prioritize resources;  Use of a broad range of tools, including catalytic policy change, institutional reform, aid, diplomatic engagement, and other ‘non-assistance’ policy tools; and  Transparency, mutual accountability and fact-based monitoring and evaluation. A defining characteristic of PFG is the active participation and coordination of more than a dozen USG agencies, including MCC, the State Department, and USAID. In the context of PFG, these agencies are purposefully identifying opportunities to complement and leverage each other’s work toward achieving common PFG goals. One of PFG’s signature objectives is to engage governments, the private sector and civil society with a broad range of tools to unlock new sources of investment, including domestic resources and foreign direct investment. By improving coordination, leveraging private investment, and focusing political commitment throughout both governments, the PFG enables partners to achieve better development results.                                                              8 President Barack Obama’s September 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development embodies and builds on the global best practice principles for Managing Aid as adopted by the Paris Declaration (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008). Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 13 Using PFG requires rigorous joint analyses of countries’ individual constraints to growth, joint country action plans (JCAPs) to address the most pressing of these constraints and high￾level mutual accountability for the goals and activities selected to alleviate them. The PFG process includes the following steps:  Agreement to initiate PFG with selected partner countries;  Joint analysis of the constraints to economic growth, followed by broad consultation and dialogue on the findings;  Development of joint country action plans (JCAPs) that outline potential tools, reforms, technical assistance and resources that can be applied over the next five years to address highest-priority constraints to growth;  Implementation of priority initiatives; and  Monitoring and evaluation. PFG IN GHANA AND TANZANIA In the fall of 2010, Tanzania, Ghana, El Salvador, and the Philippines were selected as the first group of PFG countries. These selections were based in part on each country’s record of accomplishment in implementing ongoing Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compacts. In February of 2011, the USG made commitments with the Governments of Ghana (GOG) and Tanzania (GOT) to work together to accelerate and sustain broad-based and inclusive economic growth in each country through the PFG. The first step was completing a constraints analysis (CA) of the key inhibitors to growth. The Ghana Growth Diagnostic was finalized in August 2011 and was used as the basis for the development of a five-year JCAP 2013-20189 , which was published in February 2013 and signed on March 1, 2013. The JCAP identified the key binding constraints to private sector investment and economic growth as unreliable and inadequate supply of electric power and the lack of access to credit. The objectives of the JCAP are to strengthen the power sector and to improve access to credit and strengthen the financial system. The Tanzania Growth Diagnostic was finalized in September 2011 and was used as the basis for the development of a five-year JCAP 2012-2016, which was published on April 23, 2012. The JCAP identified the key binding constraints to private sector investment and economic growth as unreliable and inadequate supply of electric power and rural roads. The USG members of the CA discussed including improving the business enabling environment as a binding constraint, however, it was decided that the PFG could more effectively address these issues through specific interventions at the sector level (power and rural roads). Accordingly, the objectives of the Tanzania JCAP are to strengthen the electric power sector and to improve connectivity to the rural areas.                                                              9 The original dates were 2012-2016, however, the actual period of performance is from March 2013 to February 2018. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 14 EVALUATION PURPOSE The mid-term country evaluations focus on the first two years of the PFG in Ghana and Tanzania, as does this cross cutting report, to provide evidence and analysis on whether the PFG process demonstrates improvements over pre-PFG assistance approaches. In particular, the evaluation seeks to examine the extent to which the PFG’s WGA and CA led to a change in the manner of USG delivery of development assistance and whether these changes demonstrated improvements in terms of operational efficiency, selection, coordination, design and management of development interventions. Through examining if and how the PFG approach affected these areas, the conclusions will help determine whether the PFG indicates an improved model for providing assistance. Each evaluation consisted of seven principal questions (three cross-cutting and four country-specific) to guide the evaluation.10 The evidence gathered for the three cross￾cutting questions listed below form the basis for this cross-cutting report. Cross-Cutting Questions 1. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of the PFG whole-of-government approach to development assistance? 2. To what extent has the PFG affected the workload of national government and U.S. government staff as compared to the workload created by traditional forms of development￾assistance delivery? 3. What contributions has “non-assistance” made to the PFG process and how can it be utilized moving forward? EVALUATION METHODOLOGY For the country evaluations, all data collection and analysis activities were undertaken in conformity with USAID Evaluation Policy: January 2011.11 While the evaluation team sought to obtain quantitative and objectively verifiable information where possible, it is important to note that several findings were largely based on perceptions and are therefore subjective in nature. Because the PFG is a new initiative and the JCAP is intended to be a living document, semi￾structured interviews provided a unique insight into the progress and status of these processes. To complement qualitative findings with unbiased responses, the evaluation team conducted an anonymous, web-based survey. The evaluation team used three data collection methods:  Desk review: A desk review based on the program documentation received primarily from USAID for the PFG initiatives as a whole, as well as documents that refer exclusively to the core focal areas addressed under the PFG in each country.                                                              10 The country-specific questions were: (1) For each of the constraints, are the goal-level commitments set forth in the JCAP capable of achieving the constraint-level objectives and outcomes? (2) Is quantitative and objectively verifiable information being used to manage JCAP implementation in order to achieve and measure results? (3) At the midterm, were the selected PFG interventions on target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes? (4) If performance was not on target or might not achieve the desired outcomes, why? 11 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2151/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 15  Semi-Structured Interviews: The evaluation team conducted semi-structured interviews with key PFG stakeholders, including high-level leadership, leadership, architects, goal leads, implementers, and independent experts in the United States, Ghana, and Tanzania. USAID identified the initial list of stakeholders and the evaluation team expanded the list following the desk review and meetings in Washington, DC and Ghana and Tanzania. The team spoke with 83 people in Ghana and 129 people in Tanzania.  Web-based Survey: The evaluation team conducted a web-based survey of officials and technical specialists. This was a closed-ended survey where respondents had to select from a series of suggested responses. The web-based survey supplemented the more detailed quasi￾structured interviews. The Ghana survey received 23 responses, and the Tanzania survey received 21 responses. The cross cutting report drew on the data collection and analysis that occurred in the country evaluations to analyze the cross-cutting evaluation questions, as summarized in Table 1 and detailed in Annexes 3-6. Table 1: Methods of Collecting and Analyzing Data for Cross-Cutting Questions Evaluation Questions Type of Answer Needed (e.g. descriptive, normative, cause- effect) Data Collection Method(s) Gender Disaggregation of Data, where possible Sampling or Selection Criteria Data Analysis Method(s) 1. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of the PFG whole-of￾government approach to development assistance? Descriptive Normative Semi￾Structured interviews and online survey with close￾ended questions Yes Identify key Leadership figures involved in the PFG process Mixed Methods 2. To what extent has Partnership for Growth affected the workload on national government and U.S. government staff, as compared to the workload created by traditional forms of development assistance delivery? Descriptive Normative (i) Semi￾Structured interviews and (ii) online survey with close ended questions Yes Identify key Leadership figures, Architects and independent experts involved in the PFG process Mixed￾Methods Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 16 Table 1: Methods of Collecting and Analyzing Data for Cross-Cutting Questions Evaluation Questions Type of Answer Needed (e.g. descriptive, normative, cause- effect) Data Collection Method(s) Gender Disaggregation of Data, where possible Sampling or Selection Criteria Data Analysis Method(s) 3. What contribution has non-assistance made to the PFG process and how can it be utilized moving forward? Descriptive Normative (i) Semi￾Structured interviews and (ii) online survey with close ended questions Yes Identify key Leadership figures, Architects and independent experts involved in the PFG process Mixed￾Methods Note: Mixed-methods refers to the use of both quantitative and qualitative data and information. See Annex 3 for additional information. METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS The country evaluation methodologies, which inform the cross-cutting evaluation findings and recommendations, have the following limitations: Lack of a Counterfactual: High staff turnover, long-term recall problems, and the evolving approach to incorporating country ownership and sustainability principles into donor policies and practices made the development of a counterfactual problematic. Subjectivity and Semi-Structured Interviews: The semi-structured approach to the interviews created the opportunity to explore specific issues and themes in more depth. This increased flexibility, but may also have introduced more interviewer subjectivity. The evaluation team sought to mitigate this problem by carefully evaluating the available data through triangulation. Online Survey and Limited Responses: The confidential nature of the online survey invites open responses. Most questions were generally close-ended (yes/no) and ordinal (rank on a 1-5 scale in order of importance). This structure facilitated quantification, but limited responses, potentially increasing instrumental bias. The online survey was sent to 128 stakeholders in Ghana and 128 in Tanzania (256 total). Because only 23 responses were collected in Ghana and 21 in Tanzania, the survey sample size was too small for extrapolation or rigorous statistical analysis. In addition to the limitations above, the nature of the cross-cutting report is to compare the experience of the PFG in two countries despite the fact that implementation and context in both those countries affected perceptions of the value of the PFG. For example, the macroeconomic situation in Ghana has, so far, affected the realization of access to credit goals, or the lack of a set M&E framework in Tanzania may have affected perceptions of the value of the PFG’s focus on Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 17 M&E. Comparing the value of the PFG given varying country contexts, which invariably affect stakeholder perceptions of the PFG relative to other development approaches, is a recognized challenge. Nonetheless, there is great value in comparing the opportunities and challenges in carrying out the PFG in Ghana and Tanzania, which allows for discerning common themes and lessons learned, and the evaluation team made an effort to account for exogenous factors whenever possible. The mitigation measures included conducting semi-structured interviews with a wide range of stakeholders including both officials no longer involved and those who only began to participate in the process just prior to the mid-term evaluations. The relatively large number of semi￾structured interviews from a wide cross-section of stakeholders mitigates the risk of a biased sample. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 18 EVALUATION FINDINGS The remainder of the report details the key findings and conclusions from the Ghana and Tanzania mid-term evaluations, focusing first on general information drawn from the interviews and meetings, and then details the findings from the three main cross-cutting evaluation questions. Overview of the Ghana and Tanzania PFG Initiatives Table 2 below provides a summary of the two PFG initiatives, noting key milestones and features. Table 2: Key Factors of the Ghana and Tanzania PFG Initiatives Characteristics Ghana PFG Tanzania PFG Constraints Analysis Finalized August 2011 September 2011 Signing of the JCAP March 2013 April 2012 Selected Constraints Power, Access to Finance Power, Rural Roads Number of Goals/Measures 10 12 Number of LOA/Activities 90 59 Type of Projects included in PFG initiative Combination of new and legacy project Combination of new and legacy projects USG/Host Joint Government Leadership entity Steering Committee Co￾Chaired by US Ambassador and Minister of Finance PFG Coordinated by the US Ambassador and Prime Minister’s Office Management Coordination PFG Secretariat in MOF and USAID/Ghana Now USAID/Tanzania and Presidential Delivery Bureau as mainstreamed through Power Africa and Feed the Future and the BRN Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Yes Drafted but not formally adopted, now using FTF and Power Africa M&E Additional Finance Mobilized Yes for Power; No for Access to Finance Yes for Power; No for Rural Roads Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 19 Summary of Findings The PFG initiative was viewed as a positive experience in both countries. The initiative was welcomed as a progressive shift towards delivery of development assistance in line with the Paris Principles which emphasized buy-in and coordination by the host government with the USG. At the mid-term, key stakeholders engaged on the power sector, which benefited from significant additional funding, reported positive outcomes. However, technical stakeholders from working on the constraints (access to finance and rural roads) which have not mobilized additional funding reported a much more limited impact. The personnel from the host governments and the USG who were engaged in the preparation of the CA and the development of the JCAP appreciated the approach of the PFG and reported positively on the benefits of a “more rigorous and focused” process. Leaders from both Ghana and Tanzania and USG identified the process of identifying key constraints and then prioritizing them to be a key benefit. USG and the host governments also viewed the WGA positively. Bringing together all the stakeholders to discuss the priority actions and reform agenda deepened understanding and strengthened the commitment to implement the reforms. The commitment to WGA brought together agencies that had not previously worked together and contributed to arriving at more effective solutions. This process assisted in resolving some of the coordination problems both within and among governments (for both USG and the host governments). Overall, the PFG process was viewed as more time consuming, particularly during the design stage, however, this was viewed as worthwhile by most participants. Non-assistance tools were leveraged in both Ghana and Tanzania. Among the leadership non￾assistance was known and used to positive effect, however, many technical PFG stakeholders found the term confusing. The PFG process implementation challenges included ensuring effective coordinated management and monitoring and evaluation. The M&E process in both Ghana and Tanzania did not proceed as envisaged. Not all the indicators were relevant which compounds the challenge of tracking progress and addressing the impact of the PFG. In Tanzania the PFG M&E Addendum was not formally adopted, although the USG technical coordinators prepared the Scorecards. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 20 DETAILED FINDINGS OVERALL ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF THE PFG INITIATIVE 1. PFG represents an improvement over previous development assistance strategies This finding is based on subjective information collected through the semi-structured interviews, and interview participants had varying times and degrees of involvement with PFG and potential recall problems. In both Ghana and Tanzania, all the respondents involved in the CA and most of the respondents engaged in the JCAP and subsequent activities agreed that the PFG initiative was positive for the economic development of Ghana and Tanzania. The respondents who responded less positively were technical officials working on access to finance issues in Ghana and rural roads in Tanzania. This view was largely consistent across both USG, GOT, and GOG participants.12 The GOG and GOT participants were very positive about the process of identifying and agreeing on the binding constraints through the CA and the subsequent JCAP. A representative of the Bank of Ghana noted that the PFG’s WGA has been extremely useful in identifying where assistance is needed, selecting interventions, aligning agencies’ objectives to achieve common objectives, and coordinating implementation between the USG and GOG. Officials working on the power sector in both Ghana and Tanzania highlighted how the PFG process had improved coordination between the line Ministry, the power utility companies and regulatory agencies. This has enabled both governments to move forward on difficult and demanding policy reform agendas in the power sector. 2. PFG has facilitated progress in policy reforms that promise to augment investment and economic growth The PFG process provided the US Embassy (including the Ambassadors and Deputy Chiefs of Mission) with a framework for bringing together senior management from USG agencies, with senior policy makers within the GOG and GOT. This created the space for an ongoing dialogue and information exchange. The CA and the development of the JCAP assisted in the emergence of a consensus among USG and partner government staff on a range of critical policy and institutional reforms necessary for increasing private investment and economic growth. The continued engagement of the US Embassies has been a significant positive factor in enabling power sector work in both countries to progress. From partner governments, senior policymakers13 appreciated the time provided by USG senior technical experts and believed that the CA and JCAP processes were critical to ensuring that Ghana and Tanzania were approved for second MCC Compacts and included as priority countries in the Power Africa initiative.                                                              12 While there was no formal counterfactual the quasi-structured interviews asked respondents for their opinion of PFG relative to their experience with pre-PFG aid initiatives. Those (GOG and USG) respondents who had been actively involved in the PFG through the CA and the JCAP considered it was positive in ‘aligning agencies’ objectives to achieve common goals and worked to improve coordination. 13 This was the personal opinion of the senior officials interviewed in both Ghana and Tanzania. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 21 3. Initial planning through the CA activity was important for progressing activities and policy reforms Virtually all interviewees in Ghana and Tanzania considered the CA processes to be a useful technical approach to identify and prioritize PFG activities aimed at addressing the priority constraints. Partner country respondents recognized this process presented an opportunity to leverage additional resources from the USG and other international cooperating partners and mobilize private investment. The CA process was discussed as challenging, as different technical perspectives on development were debated and assessed. Reaching agreement on the key constraints forced participants to make decisions and move away from the traditional model of listing all the constraints in a “long list.” The CA in Ghana identified four binding constraints to growth: power, access to finance, urban water systems, and access to secure land rights. However, both access to clean urban water and land tenure issues were not considered to be “as severe as the constraints in the financial markets and the power sector.” Lack of other key transport infrastructure and lack of vocational, technical, and professional skills were listed as additional constraints to investment and growth. The Tanzanian CA identified three major constraints - power, rural roads, and access to secure land rights - with lack of other key transport infrastructure and lack of vocational, technical, and professional skills listed as additional constraints to investment and growth. Through dialogue during the preparation of the CA, stakeholders bought into the chosen priorities. This consensus facilitated the development of more detailed actions and interventions identified in the JCAP. 4. The PFG approach has been mainstreamed into other development initiatives New USG development initiatives in both countries, including Power Africa, incorporated the principles enshrined within PFG into their work plans and activities. In Ghana and Tanzania, the designs for the countries’ Power Africa initiatives incorporated PFG development principles, as did the second MCC Compact in Ghana. The GOT took this approach further, drawing on the CA and the JCAP as foundational documents and incorporated the development principles of WGA, dialogue, targets, and regular monitoring and reporting into the BRN structures, a Tanzanian Presidential initiative to support economic development in six key areas. The integration of PFG approaches throughout other development initiatives demonstrates the perceived value of the PFG in unifying approaches and priorities. 5. PFG led to increased coordination and dialogue between and within USG and partner governments The PFG process required joint preparation of a CA by USG and partner government representatives. The CA provided the basis for agreement on the key priority areas in each country, followed by preparation of the JCAP outlining the goals and LOAs to address the key constraints. The architects and leaders involved with the early stages of the PFG process saw the preparation of the CA as essential in fostering the WGA. Interviewees actively involved in the CA saw it as a useful exercise that deepened understanding of Ghana’s key development issues, Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 22 constraints, and possible approaches. One implementer in Ghana commented that the WGA brought together ministries with occasionally conflicting mandates and goals to discuss a wide range of policy issues and apply their technical expertise across sectors. The debate over the causes of high interest rates, resulting from the Center for Economic Policy Analysis (CEPA) study which was commissioned under the PFG, was cited as an example of increased informed debate on economic policy issues. In contrast to conventional economic development approaches that targeted one agency at a time, WGA facilitated coordination among the BOG, MOF, and SEC to address financial challenges. Similarly, a GOT leader noted that the PFG’s WGA has led to enhanced inter-agency coordination between the GOT and USG. Examples included increased coordination within GOT between TANESCO, the Ministry of Energy and EWURA, and within USG weekly meetings were set up between all the USG agencies working on energy issues. Senior policy makers in Ghana and Tanzania explained that the processes increased collaboration and coordination, resulting in greater mutual buy-in for all stakeholders to achieve the development objectives identified through the PFG process. Moreover, USG leaders in both countries reported that the PFG process has encouraged a deep understanding of difficult development challenges and has enabled a rich dialogue. Leaders from both the USG and the GOG considered the CA process instrumental in the MCC’s decision to commit to negotiating a second Compact with electric power as the main focal activity. The CA process was also instrumental in USAID’s selections of Ghana and Tanzania as two of the six focus countries for Power Africa. 7. Effectiveness at the constraint and outcome levels depends on exogenous factors While interviews and survey responses identified the CA and JCAP analysis and planning processes as well as the increased coordination and cooperation as benefits of the PFG approach, results at the constraint and outcome levels varied widely by country and sector. The achievements of the PFG process have been influenced by exogenous factors. In Ghana the deteriorating macroeconomic balances constrain the ability of the GOG to realize many of the goals under the access to credit constraint. Similarly, mobilizing large amounts of capital for infrastructure investment is influenced by the recent development history of both countries. The evaluation team finds it important to evaluate the value of the PFG approach on more that development outcomes and achievements given the role of exogenous conditions (i.e. macroeconomic stability). CROSS-CUTTING QUESTION 1: WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES AND/OR DISADVANTAGES OF THE PFG WHOLE-OF￾GOVERNMENT APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE? The WGA is a term describing methods of aligning formally distinct organizations in pursuit of agreed objectives. More simply, it may be thought of as a way of ensuring a government has an integrated response to an issue and speaks with one voice. The USG’s WGA approach in the PFG reflects efforts to align agency activities to achieve common Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 23 objectives. The PFG approach sought to help the USG and partner governments be more comprehensive, creative, and go beyond conventional aid approaches to help unlock economic growth potential. There are three main components needed to demonstrate an effective WGA:  A shared interest and objectives by multiple organizations and/or agencies;  Leadership that promotes WGA within management and coordination; and  Accountability mechanisms for fostering the approach. The evaluation team analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the WGA as a core component of the PFG initiative in Ghana and Tanzania, as well as PFG’s alignment with WGA. The information on the advantages and disadvantages of PFG’s WGA came from the semi￾structured interviews primarily conducted with PFG staff and USG and GOG representatives and independent experts. The evaluation team also administered online surveys, which allowed respondents to provide their impressions of the WGA. Due to low response rates, however, it is difficult to confirm attribution through the online survey results alone. Moreover, it is difficult to attribute certain processes and communication mechanisms to the PFG WGA since several aspects of the approach had been implemented previously in Ghana. The theory behind integrating a WGA into the development process is that it enables each of the stakeholders to develop a more rounded understanding of the opportunities and constraints operating within their specific technical area. This creates additional opportunities to leverage scarce technical and financial resources for the identified LOA and, over time, contributes to more sustainable interventions. Ensuring that all the key stakeholders are effectively engaged throughout the policy process reduces the risk of policy or regulatory reversal. Findings 1.1 The WGA approach increased dialogue and cooperation within and between governments Most of the senior GOG respondents interviewed noted that the WGA encouraged productive conversations on key PFG areas within and among GOG ministries at high levels. The Vice President of Ghana was responsible for internal coordination of the PFG initiative. One implementer commented that the WGA brought together ministries with occasionally conflicting mandates and goals to discuss a wide range of policy issues and apply their technical expertise across sectors. The debate over the causes of high interest rates, resulting from the CEPA study which was commissioned under the PFG, was cited as an example of increased dialogue on important policy issues. The WGA was well regarded by most implementers and positive impacts were identified in governance, accountability, and transparency. In contrast to conventional economic development approaches that targeted one agency at a time, WGA facilitated coordination among the BOG, MOF, and SEC to address the root causes of high interest rates and access to credit in a holistic manner. The BRN in Tanzania prioritized energy within a PFG framework with clear targets and reporting deliverables, however, rural roads were not explicitly included in the BRN. Perhaps PFG was set up to enable private investment, as electricity brings in revenue from consumers. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 24 Rural roads, in contrast, are managed by programs addressing food security. BRN has been supported by DFID and not USAID. The specific LOA in the JCAP were included in the Power Africa and FTF initiatives. Similarly, a GOT leader noted that the WGA has led to inter-agency coordination between GOT and USG. Examples included increased coordination within GOT between TANESCO, the Ministry of Energy and EWURA, and (within GOT) weekly meetings between all the USG agencies on energy issues. Furthermore, the PFG was instrumental in the decision to increase USG technical personnel with a Treasury Advisor assigned to the MOF (to focus on PPP). The benefits of coordination extended to work with other development actors. The PFG process included open dialogue, flexible implementation through updating activities and amending work plans to take account of changing circumstances, inclusion of new ideas, and an inclusive approach to ensuring stakeholder participation. This represented a significant advance over previous development approaches. Tanzania’s JCAP LOAs in both energy and rural roads had the full support of both the GOT and USG along with other bilateral and multilateral development partners that were already providing technical, advisory, and financial support to both sectors, either directly or indirectly through Budget Support14 (e.g., the World Bank and African Development Bank). Such coordination creates the best chance for creating impact and improving development outcomes. Within the USG, PFG similarly created clear priorities and a platform for coordinated action. The USG staff interviewed in Tanzania cited that increased coordination under PFG had led to more consistent messaging to GOT counterparts. More regular coordination and technical support meetings enable USG staff working for different agencies to reduce the risk of duplicating efforts and to draw on the deep technical resources within the USG. Tanzania￾based USG personnel working on Power Africa meet on a weekly basis to ensure effective coordination and share information on progress and challenges. However, the broad inclusion of stakeholders through PFG WGA processes is not always supported equally by agencies and ministries, leading to delayed implementation. While the WGA is supported widely as a concept by USG Ghana and GOG staff, it can be difficult to obtain the necessary consensus15 support for any single decision from all GOG and USG bodies, which delays implementation. For instance, most of the USG Ghana and GOG stakeholders working on finance expressed the view that certain solutions for addressing the five goals associated with access to credit identified in the JCAP have only received intermittent support from USG agencies including SBA, SEC, USAID, and Treasury through the FINSSP II Financial Strategy for Ghana. Moreover, virtually all respondents expressed that it can be difficult to attribute support for JCAP solutions directly to PFG. A PFG leader with experience working with USAID and the US Department of Treasury similarly expressed concern about a lack of united support between                                                              14 Budget Support is an aid modality in which money is given directly to a recipient country government usually by a donor. 15 Consensus is not the same as unanimity but does require agencies not to formally object which takes time, however, regular dialogue and information exchange both formally and in formal Working Group meetings will, over time, build confidence which will hopefully lessen this constraint. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 25 USG and GOG for processes intended to increase access to credit. Further, the GOG has continued to prioritize decisions based on parallel initiatives and processes (such as the necessity of concluding a facility with the IMF, although all the conditions were consistent with the JCAP), which have not always been perfectly harmonized with the process, actions, and timelines agreed under the JCAP. This finding refers specifically to the access to credit constraint in Ghana. 1.2 Relevance and understanding of the WGA varies among staff and stakeholders The evaluation team found that knowledge of the PFG WGA is concentrated in particular pockets of relevant ministries in Ghana, specifically within ministry leadership. While PFG activity implementers often have technical and programmatic expertise, the evaluation team found that most of the technical implementers have a basic understanding of PFG WGA, except for those who were also involved in the CA and JCAP process16. For example, one supervisor covering credit bureaus at the BOG had little knowledge of the PFG initiative and was unaware that a PFG scorecard was being used to regularly monitor, evaluate, and assess the performance of activities and indicators within his department. This lack of knowledge may limit goal alignment and understanding within and between ministries. In Ghana, the evaluators also found no evidence of Ministers explaining to CEOs of publicly owned utilities the rationale, objectives, and expected outcomes from the PFG or its relevance to their operations. Similarly, the evaluation team did not find any official memos issues by GOG ministries publishing the targets, indicators, or commitment to monitoring results. The PFG essentially exists parallel to other GOG ministries and with the high level support of the GOG, but it has not been mainstreamed and disseminated into the day-to-day reporting of government ministries. In Tanzania the evaluators found evidence that the technical staff addressing the power constraint understood PFG and its relevance. However, this was not the case for the district engineers working on rural roads except for those directly involved in the CA and JCAP processes. PFG’s perceived relevance also varied among USG agencies. Actively involving a wider range of agencies from the USG presents challenges when the staff has little or no understanding of the development context in either Ghana or Tanzania. In practice, most of the USG and GOT interviewees noted that the ‘heavy lifting’ was carried out by either USAID or MCC with specialist support from the Treasury and the Department of Commerce. 1.3 The WGA was most effective when accountability for implementing solutions was integrated throughout government work plans and responsibility was clearly designated Unlike conventional development assistance, which established programming needs without assigning direct responsibility for implementation, the PFG in Ghana established a coordination committee consisting of the technical teams for power and access to finance. The power technical team and the access to finance technical team are coordinated by the PFG Secretariat                                                              16 Interestingly technical officials in both countries who were involved in the CA and JCAP had a positive view of PFG even if they were working on the constraints which did not receive significant additional grant finance. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 26 located at the MOF. The technical team role is to ensure that relevant PFG activities were carried out effectively. Specifically, this group included representatives from various entities involved in developing the JCAP and responded directly to a steering committee, co-chaired by the Vice President of Ghana and a Senior USG official (Ambassador or Deputy Secretary) responsible for coordinating the PFG initiative. The WGA increased accountability for power programming by integrating solutions into GOG work plans and assigning a specific group to oversee implementation. In Ghana, the power technical team17 met irregularly during Year 2 (March 2014 – February 2015) and was sub-optimally engaged in monitoring the JCAP implementation. However, since March 2015 this has improved with regular meetings to track progress. The access to credit technical group has not met regularly. This has resulted in stakeholders often viewing the PFG initiative as creating additional work for GOG staff, when time invested does not correlate with expected development returns. Several access to credit respondents expressed that the WGA requires additional external funding to address solutions outlined in the JCAP, indicating that they view the PFG and GOG activities as separate and even competing rather than integrated. Without comparable resources or context in addressing the identified constraints and LOAs, investing staff’s limited time appears to have yielded varying perceptions of the value of PFG’s WGA relative to other initiatives. The rebranding of Tanzania PFG into complementary initiatives while retaining the overall development approach may be interpreted positively as the new Power Africa and FTF initiatives integrated a commitment to WGA and open and transparent reporting. It also reflects the concern of both the GOT and USAID to utilize scarce technical resources efficiently by avoiding duplicating initiatives. The rebranding was welcomed by the GOT as an opportunity to streamline USAID initiatives. Recommendations 1. Incorporate the PFG M&E systems for each LOA into the relevant complementary USG Presidential Initiatives, including Power Africa and in Tanzania the FTF monitoring system to promote systematic tracking. This recommendation would advance the WGA goal of promoting shared objectives within governments, including the USG, and would set up integrated accountability mechanisms to foster the WGA. USAID should ensure that the M&E systems are adequate and carried out effectively, allowing tracking for each LOA. This may be best led by a goal-level implementation team and formalized in goal-level work plans. Incorporating PFG M&E systems across USG initiatives would provide a cohesive USG response, knowledge base, and accountability structure surrounding interventions. 2. In Tanzania, refocus the WGA work groups/committees (now operating within the Power Africa and Feed the Future initiatives) on seeking to achieve agreed goals explicitly identified in log frames or other TOC documents. For instance, in Tanzania a technical working group for rural roads could be created and charged with delivering specific outcomes to designate clearer responsibility for results.                                                              17 It is worth noting that all the members of the Power Technical Team were drawn from the Public Sector. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 27 3. Initiate linkages and coordination with other donor and development organizations. Partnerships with likeminded development organizations would provide new opportunities for growth, capacity development, and information sharing. For example, in Ghana coordinating with the GIZ, DFID, and the Swiss Embassy may increase the GOG’s access to the financial resources necessary to address credit access challenges identified through the PFG process. In Tanzania, the evaluation team recommends considering reactivating the Annual Joint Energy Sector Review to be funded by all the donors supporting the power sector. 4. In Ghana provide guidance for enhancing GOG and USG interagency coordination through organizing training on PFG processes, discussions and decision-making for mid￾and junior-level government officials. CROSS-CUTTING QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE PFG AFFECTED THE WORKLOAD OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND US GOVERNMENT STAFF AS COMPARED TO THE WORKLOAD CREATED BY TRADITIONAL FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE DELIVERY? To assess how the PFG has altered the workload of USG, GOT, and GOG offices, the evaluation team used semi-structured interviews to survey USG architects and program managers based in Ghana and Tanzania, along with PFG leadership from both countries.18 Although survey data on time usage and records from meeting attendance and activity-coded timesheets were either not available or not collected, the interviews provide insight into the estimated additional workload. As respondents did not keep records of their time allocation before and while working on the PFG, findings are subject to recall bias and are qualitative and based on respondents’ perceptions. Respondents with fewer than three years of involvement lacked a comparison to a pre-PFG approach. The evaluators identified seven categories of PFG activities:  Coordination with colleagues within my government (intra-government);  Coordination with colleagues in the partner government (inter-government);  Monitoring progress;  Communicating management and senior leadership in their government;  Management;  Design and procurement; and  Other administrative tasks (preparing for meetings/logistics).    Approximately half all of the GOG and GOT respondents responded that their workload had increased under the PFG initiative. However, this is rather misleading because respondents were commenting on the time they spent in PFG meetings and events during the preparation of the CA and the JCAP and assuming this was simply additional time rather than comparing PFG                                                              18 USG includes staff from both the Ghana and Tanzania Mission and in Washington, DC. As a result, it is important to note that Washington, DC staff may have other PFG country responsibilities outside of Ghana and Tanzania. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 28 activities relative to “traditional forms of development assistance.”19 As long as the PFG is perceived as ‘another initiative’ rather than as an approach that is integrated into the existing GOG systems and processes the workload will be considered ‘additional.’ When questioned in more detail, the GOG, GOT and USG respondents all considered that the more inclusive PFG approach increased time spent on coordination and communication at the intra- and inter-governmental level. Introducing a new strategy or changing the ways routine tasks are implemented usually comes with some perceived increase in workload for related staff. However, the online survey implies there is only a marginal increase in workload due to the implementation of PFG. There does not appear to be a significant increase in workload of staff as they implement PFG. Five respondents online survey respondents perceived that their workload increased somewhat or significantly and three felt that it was about the same. Asking officials involved in the design of the PFG process, specifically the preparation of the CA and the drafting of the JCAP, questions related to their workload resulted in slightly more than half of respondents indicating an increase in workload. This question implicitly treats PFG as an additional activity for partner government staff, however, it should be noted that partner government and USG staff work on development tasks as part of their regular responsibilities. Findings 2.1 Approximately half of the partner government stakeholders viewed the PFG as creating additional work with the remainder considered their total workloads remained unchanged, except the time allocated to particular tasks shifted. The commitment to the PFG initiative required a significant investment of time by senior USG, GOG, and GOT staff during the design phase through to the finalization of the CA report and the JCAP. Following the launch of the JCAP, technical personnel were responsible for implementation and the time allocated was mainstreamed into their routine work tasks. The PFG process requires a significant upfront investment of time and resources, which could result in additional workload or crowding out of other tasks. USG stakeholders who were actively engaged in the priority sectors expressed that they have experienced an increased workload since the beginning of PFG. Two USG officials based in Ghana said that they spent additional time completing scorecards and presentations to be used in Joint Steering Committee meetings. The USG contracted existing implementing partners USAID/Ghana Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Support Services (METSS) and the Center for Policy Analysis (CEPA) to provide support for the completion of future GOG scorecards and to carry out macroeconomic research (for example, the study of interest rate spreads), respectively. The METSS work is considered an interim activity, with GOG assuming this responsibility as they integrate the M&E into their routine work responsibilities. One USG program manager felt the USG was proactive in PFG activities, but GOG counterparts on the access to finance constraint were not sufficiently proactive.                                                              19 A better question might have been “Did PFG take additional time compared to other forms of assistance?” Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 29 Similarly, in Ghana interviews with GOG PFG leadership, Architects, and Program Managers stated that the PFG increased workload for all levels of participating GOG staff. One member of the PFG leadership from the MOF estimated a thirty percent increase in workload due to PFG and explained that GOG officials are required to complete their ‘normal agency and ministerial tasks’ in addition to PFG activities. The respondent stated that sometimes GOG officials postpone working on their ‘regular activities’ in order to undertake PFG work, such as planning for Joint Steering Committee Meetings. These perspectives reinforce the above finding that the WGA is most effective when PFG responsibilities are effectively integrated into USG and GOG work plans and responsibility is clearly designated to specific stakeholders. The PFG should be perceived as a means through which GOG ministries can achieve their goals rather than as an additional and separate source of work. While PFG startup activities, such as developing the JCAP, may require a special effort from USG and GOG staff, PFG activities are intended to be incorporated into the schedules of the ministries they support. Senior government officials in Tanzania mentioned the time expended on the CA which was ‘added on to their existing workload’. However, the same respondents considered their time spent on the CA ‘to be very valuable’ and believed it would be useful to repeat the exercise to update the analysis. Following the adoption of the JCAP in Tanzania, the day-to-day implementation was handed to technical personnel who integrated the specific work activities into their daily routine. Some GOT technical officials involved in the Power Sector noted that PFG was enabling them to be more efficient and effective. However, GOT technical officials working on rural roads had not perceived any change in their modus operandi. Several Senior GOT officials involved in rural roads, who participated in the CA, indicated that they found the rural roads deep dive and the JCAP experience positive, but subsequently reported no change in their work approach and were unable to respond to any questions relating to PFG effectiveness and efficiency. Figures 1 shows that six of the 12 respondents actively involved with the PFG in Ghana did not feel that the PFG has had a significant impact on their workloads. This may indicate that they have been able to successfully integrate PFG implementation into their daily routines rather than perceiving it as a separate responsibility. In Tanzania, Figure 2 shows that half of the respondents to the online survey thought their workload had increased somewhat as a result of PFG. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 30 Figure 1: Effect of Involvement with PFG on Workload in Ghana Figure 2: Effect of Involvement with PFG on Workload in Tanzania 2.2 The PFG initiative has resulted in staff allocating more time on intra￾government coordination and communication Both USG and partner government staff considered this a positive feature and were committed to maintaining the approach under future development initiatives, though the finding was somewhat weaker for Access to Finance staff in Ghana. Figures 3 and 4 present changes in workload by task in each country, according to the online survey. Most tasks performed by PFG implementing staff reportedly required about the same level of effort as before, except for those that required collaboration and coordination. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 increase significantly increase somewhat stay about the same 0 1 2 3 increase significantly increase somewhat stay about the same Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 31 Figure 3: Changes in Workload by Tasks in Ghana Figure 4: Changes in Workload by Tasks in Tanzania 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 PFG task coordination with colleagues within my government PFG task coordination with colleagues in other (partner) governments Monitoring progress (indicators, site visits, milestones) of PFG tasks Communicating on PFG with my superiors and senior leadership in my government Managing PFG activities Designing and/or procuring PFG activities Other administrative tasks Increase significantly Increase somewhat Stay about the same 01234567 Other administrative tasks Designing and/or procuring PFG activiites Managing PFG activities Communicating on PFG with my superiors and senior leadership in my government Monitoring progress (indicators, site visits, milestones) of PFG tasks PFG task coordination with colleagues in other (partner) governments PFG task coordination with colleagues within my own government Increase significantly Increase somewhat Stay about the same Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 32 2.3 PFG is operationally more efficient because even though the collaboration results in “a lot more talking” this is a prerequisite for addressing difficult issues The PFG process (which is now embodied in the working practices of the BRN in Tanzania) created the framework for bringing relevant stakeholders together and initiated a “healthy constructive discussion” on difficult and important policy and regulatory issues in both countries. This had been missing from earlier “more traditional projects” which had tended to focus on “bite- sized” deliverables that could be implemented. PFG enabled a more comprehensive and holistic approach which often “took officials outside their comfort zone” as they were confronted with the necessity of tackling the “agreed constraints” to progress. Recommendations 4. 5. Conduct training in Ghana, as necessary for USG and partner government staff to raise awareness about the goals of the PFG initiative and ensure that they integrate PFG activities into their current work. Although increased dialogue among GOG Ministries will take time and effort, it is important that PFG stakeholders understand the advantages of increased interagency coordination and the long-term benefits of a more inclusive process. This training could help prevent misunderstandings about the overall purpose of the PFG and encourage participants to take full advantage of PFG activities. The training should draw upon the successes of the work in the electricity sector, emphasizing that while PFG processes take time to establish, they have the potential to reduce workloads in the long-term by increasing the speed and likelihood of interagency consensus. Government officials should view PFG activities as a means of enabling and implementing difficult policy reforms to encourage private sector investment. Therefore, training should be used as opportunities for GOG staff to determine how PFG activities can complement and reduce their current workloads, as well as change perception of the value of the activities on which staff are spending greater time. 6. Consider utilizing new types of IT to hold PFG planning and coordination meetings virtually. Given the infrastructure challenges in Ghana and Tanzania – including poor roads, power outages, and traffic –enabling virtual meeting participation has the potential to reduce travel, mitigating increased time spent on meetings and coordination. However, insufficient bandwidth and power outages limit the opportunities for DVC, but lower tech options involving conference calls and using VOIP should be considered for small group meetings. While PFG planning and coordination meetings should ultimately be integrated into the daily schedules of relevant USG and GOG stakeholders, this initiative would reduce the startup costs of establishing long-term PFG processes and reduce the amount of staff time on meetings and coordination activities. 7. Reframe coordination meetings to increase their efficiency, and encourage regular monitoring and evaluation activities to view the JCAP as a living document to ensure adaptability and responsiveness. Given the perceived increase in staff time spent on coordination activities, reframing meetings may help staff perceive greater opportunities and value in coordination. In particular, meetings should be viewed as an opportunity to raise the visibility of agencies and promote awareness of each agency’s unique and complementary capabilities. Secondly, early coordination and regular meetings on monitoring and evaluation Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 33 of activities will ultimately decrease staff commitments without jeopardizing interagency cooperation. As the JCAP should be viewed as a living document that can be adjusted to reflect shifts in the regulatory policy environment, PFG meetings should be utilized to ensure that existing programs respond accordingly. CROSS-CUTTING QUESTION 3: WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS HAS “NON-ASSISTANCE” MADE TO THE PFG PROCESS, AND HOW CAN IT BE UTILIZED MOVING FORWARD? For this evaluation, USAID defined non-assistance tools as those including “diplomatic engagement, convening authority, and other forms of non-monetized assistance to engage both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in support of catalytic policy change and development priorities.” The evaluation team defined non-assistance tools to include the following, as well as how they contribute to the PFG’s objective: The evaluation team sought to identify whether non-assistance has made any contributions to the PFG initiative in Ghana and how it can be utilized going forward. Leadership, Architects, Program Managers, and Independent Experts within both the USG and the GOG were asked about non-assistance in the semi-structured interviews. Based on the information gathered, which is detailed subsequently, the evaluation team found that while non-assistance activities do exist within the PFG initiative, there is no clear system for documenting these activities and similarly no clear understanding of the term among all PFG stakeholders. The evaluation team defined non-assistance tools to include the following, as well as how they contribute to the PFG’s objective: Table 3: Contribution of Non-Assistance Tools to PFG Non-Assistance Tool Anticipated Contribution to PFG Objectives Example One-on-one engagement of USG officials with partner governments Increase diplomatic engagement to engage support for policy change Discussions on Power Sector Reforms in both Ghana and Tanzania Providing meeting space and logistics support for task forces and other PFG activities Provide non-monetary support to support PFG activities Support to the M&E process in Ghana and support to the PFG Secretariat Conducting studies Create a greater knowledge base from which policymakers and implementers can draw to more effectively and appropriately address policy issues The study on high interest rates in Ghana Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 34 Table 3: Contribution of Non-Assistance Tools to PFG Non-Assistance Tool Anticipated Contribution to PFG Objectives Example Providing PFG scorecard support to partner governments Produce a standard system against which to measure progress and results, incentivizing and enabling more results-driven policy choices Strengthen M&E process Public information activities Support public accountability for policy choices based on measurable results Increase awareness and understanding on policy choices Stakeholder engagement Bring together stakeholders to identify and address goals, increasing buy in and for more cohesive, effective, and sustainable results Promotes dialogue, transparency and assists with building a consensus for policy reforms to encourage more private investment Findings 3.1 The concept of “non-assistance” is not clearly understood by all stakeholders The GOG and GOT leadership appreciated the value of non-assistance through the PFG and cited the importance of high level visits from Washington, DC to discuss policy reforms, and the use of USG convening power to engage high-level stakeholders. In Ghana, this included bringing together leading US private companies to discuss investment. In Ghana, the Ambassador and the Mission Director were pivotal in leveraging the PFG initiative to deepen the development dialogue and place Ghana firmly on the map for potential U.S. investors. This demonstrates how effective use of “non-assistance” requires the active engagement of the U.S. Embassy and the USAID Mission. Virtually all USG interviewees understood the concept of “non-assistance” and gave similar examples of how high-level engagement had enabled them to advance understanding of complex policy issues through increased engagement and deeper dialogue on the country specific political economy issues underpinning policy and regulatory reforms with partner government officials and experts. However, this was not the case with technical mid-level and junior personnel in partner countries, who viewed PFG as an “aid project” and focused on whether the process had leveraged additional USG technical and financial assistance. Respondents from commercial banks in Ghana knew little about the PFG initiative and its approaches or goals. Five of the 23 respondents in the online survey in the Ghana evaluation were unsure whether or not non￾assistance tools had been used in the PFG activities in which they were involved. In Tanzania, the majority of respondents from the online survey (13) had not seen “non-assistance” utilized under the PFG initiative. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 35 Several respondents did not fully understand how non-assistance without monetary support could be used to sustain solutions outlined in the JCAP in Ghana. Although most respondents largely supported diplomatic solutions to development and felt that the JCAP collaboration process was beneficial, many suggested combining non-assistance with financial assistance to maximize its effectiveness. One USG Ghana Program Manager indicated that while access to credit should primarily be solved diplomatically, resources could be put into implementation of certain aspects through FINSSP II. One GOG stakeholder expressed that WGA solutions involving training and capacity building would benefit from monetary support. During the in-depth interviews in Tanzania, discussions tended towards the position that many staff in collaborating ministries, departments and agencies could not understand some of the terminology used under the PFG initiative, and non-assistance was one such term. 3.2 Non-assistance led to an increase in engagement and sharing of advice between the USG and partner governments Leaders who understood non-assistance and its use, both within partner governments and USG commented favorably on the value of non-assistance as part of the PFG process. Several respondents expressed strong support for a non-assistance approach to development and emphasized its long-term benefits. In Ghana, the Ambassador and the Mission Director were pivotal in leveraging the PFG initiative to deepen the development dialogue and place Ghana firmly on the map for potential U.S. investors. Tanzanian Embassy leadership throughout the launch of the PFG, and subsequently throughout the transition to mainstreaming the approach into Power Africa and Feed the Future are examples of the successful use of non-assistance. One PFG Architect in Ghana expressed that non-assistance encourages diplomatic engagement at high levels of the USG and GOG and helps bring stakeholders together effectively. An independent expert maintained that the World Bank and IMF successfully use this approach to implement their programs in Ghana. Others expressed that non-assistance has effectively changed behaviors by encouraging discussions on key issues, including the definition of SME, along with idea exchange around best practices within each sector. Examples of non-assistance cited in interviews include use of USG photocopiers, computers, and meeting venues by GOG staff, along with increased access to, and communication with, high￾level USG stakeholders. Examples of non-assistance cited in the PFG online survey include the use of USAID METSS to assist with monitoring and evaluation, engagement of the Chief Executive of CEPA in the Ghanaian negotiating team with the IMF, access to USG expertise by GOG Agencies, and other informal engagements between GOG and U.S. officials from USAID and MCC. Among 16 respondents that participated in the online survey in Ghana, 10 cited use of expertise as the most commonly utilized PFG non-assistance approach and six cited use of a convening authority. The PFG process enabled the engagement of expertise from a wide range of USG agencies including State, DOC, EXIM, OPIC, and the MCC. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 36 Recommendations 8. Improve reporting and public awareness on non-assistance activities. Public engagement and messaging has, to date, not been widely used, which represents a missed opportunity. Host government officials and Power Africa and FTF would benefit from becoming more knowledgeable about the many forms that non-assistance takes and their value to a wide range of stakeholders. Given the potential for substantial benefits from non-assistance, USG and GOG/GOT management teams should conduct training and other knowledge-sharing and communication activities related to non-assistance. However, this needs to be interpreted as bringing US technical experience and expertise to support Ghanaian and Tanzanian initiatives. It is important to ensure that extensive dialogue and high level coordination is not perceived negatively by the public (possibly as interference in internal government business). Public awareness campaigns should be conducted to focus on collaboration to find local solutions and produce results benefitting the Ghanaian and Tanzanian people. The knowledge sharing should include preparation of case studies showing past examples of non-assistance which would assist staff to identify future opportunities and help shape the message of the contribution of the PFG and USG involvement in supporting partner government initiatives. 9. Provide USG staff with training on the diversity of non-assistance tools and their value for various partnerships. As the evaluation team found that many staff below upper￾leadership levels, staff were less likely to identify opportunities to employ non-assistance tools. Given non-assistance’s importance within the PFG approach, its mainstreaming in subsequent USG development initiatives, the evaluation team recommends that USG officials conduct training related to non-assistance for new and existing staff, both technical and operational. This could be addressed by mainstreaming non-assistance into the USAID Program Foreign Assistance (PFA) courses. This is particularly important because despite the importance of this approach, almost all of the technical and operational staff interviewed did not fully understand the concept of non-assistance. Clearly defining the term would represent a first step to developing training activities. The training should address past examples of non-assistance and types of activities that are best suited for non-assistance. Such training would aid technical staff in identifying opportunities for non-assistance and effectively translating examples of non-assistance to the larger stakeholders within their goals and LOAs. 10. Consider replacing “non-assistance” with a more transparent term. The term “non￾assistance” is perceived to be bureaucratic and not clearly understood by many people. Two options that would comprise the elements of this term are “Political Leadership for Development” (to capture the idea of involving political leaders to move development action agendas forward); and “Leveraging Resources for Development” (to capture the idea of using available USG or GOG/GOT resources for development activities). Rebranding the term with a more transparent phrasing would enable USG to better understand the term, think more clearly about the range of non-assistance tools available to them, and more often identify situations in which non-assistance tools would be effective. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 37 11. Incorporate identification of non-assistance opportunities into the responsibilities of existing staff hired as part of the Local Solutions Initiative for Power Africa or FTF. As only 11 of 41 respondents to the online survey could recall a non-assistance tool being used to support a PFG activity, creating clearer expectations and responsibilities for staff to identify and use non-assistance would incentivize greater use of these tools. Responsibilities for staff (working on Power Africa and FTF) should include identifying non-assistance opportunities, especially public information and stakeholder mobilization within Power Africa and FTF. These responsibilities should be incorporated into those of existing staff. Also, it would be beneficial to work with the relevant stakeholders to highlight and report on such activities in a uniform manner. PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS 12. In both countries, develop explicit logical frameworks (“log frames”) for the two major constraints and related activities, with clearly linked and systematic objectives, indicators, assumptions, and measures, in the context of a theory of change TOC. The absence of a formal TOC that links LOAs, goals, and constraints, and explanation of how the proposed reforms would lead to the intended development outcomes suggests that there may be unrealistic confidence that the LOAs and goals will lead to the removal of the constraints, raising expectations while not accurately gauging the challenge at hand and under-allocating resources. The power, access to finance and the rural roads activities were all premised on an implicit TOC. There was no documentation that explained why specific activities were prioritized over alternatives. This makes it challenging to identify how goal-level commitments are intended to achieve the desired constraint mitigation outcomes. A project design tool such as a log frame forces more rigorous thinking on the causal linkages between inputs, outputs, and desired outcome/s (or purpose). It also provides a structure for identifying the assumptions and preconditions necessary for achieving goals and the assessment of risks. Without having these items thought through and in writing there is possibly an unrealistic confidence that the LOAs will lead to the intended results. 13. Revisit the constraints to increasing private investment within the CA to consider all links in the chain of causality. The JCAP should also be considered as a living document that is updated to reflect the changing circumstances and analytic work. The evaluation shows that both the real and perceived effectiveness of PFG initiatives is affected by exogenous factors, such as available funding or, in Ghana, the macroeconomic situation. Given these findings, the JCAP and TOC should be updated regularly to better identify changing circumstances and enable better estimates of resources necessary to effect change. For example, in Tanzania the implicit assumption that fixing rural roads would be a catalyst for stimulating rural economic growth would benefit from further review. The Evaluators note recent applied research which highlights the importance of increasing demand for rural transport for reducing the price of transport services. Increasing agricultural productivity through bringing in inputs (seeds, fertilizer) and trading the surplus will increase the demand for transport services. However, the CA notes that absence of security in land tenure represents a constraint to private investment in the rural sector. While devoting more resources to investment in and maintenance of rural roads is necessary, it is unlikely to be sufficient for encouraging additional private investment in the absence of an improved Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 38 business enabling environment. Similarly, for Ghana a more detailed analysis of the causal pathways for the access to finance constraint would serve to highlight the significance of macroeconomic stability which is exogenous to the JCAP. 14. USAID and MCC provide training for goal-level implementation teams on the process and the importance of systematic M&E, where needed. Monitoring and evaluation to drive evidence-informed decision making and accountability is a cornerstone of the PFG. USAID and MCC can facilitate the M&E process and conduct training for implementing partners. This should be done in a collaborative manner where all PFG partners discuss what would be most useful for them to ensure that new procedures are relevant and adopted. In Ghana the mandate of the Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Support Services (METSS) which provides independent M&E inputs needs to be clarified. 15. Provide clear guidance on the role of the goals (called “measures” in the Tanzania JCAP) to address constraints and corresponding indicators to measure progress toward achieving goals. In Tanzania there has been some confusion among Goal Leads and implementers about the role and meaning of the six constraint-level goals and indicators to measure them. Written guidance is needed on translating the PFG LOA level activities, goal level indicators, and scorecards relate to overcoming constraints to facilitate achievement of desired outcomes into the Tanzania Power Africa and Feed the Future initiatives. 16. Increase transparency through updating scorecards and making them publicly available. The scorecards should contain sufficient information to enable an independent observer to track progress. This requires the scorecards to be standardized across sectors with progress clearly linked to the indicators. All scorecards should provide information on outputs and outcomes, and present baseline, target and actual data for each reporting period. Scorecards should use graphics to illustrate developments. 17. Improve public awareness and access to PFG documents. Many of the documents relating to the PFG in Tanzania are not readily available. In Ghana while the CA and JCAP are available the progress reports are less readily available. All the PFG documents and specially written articles, including an explanation of the approach and reports on meetings and outcomes, success stories, a listing of the technical working groups, etc., should be made readily available on both USG and host government websites. It is recommended that content be created for dissemination through existing USG and host government communication channels and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). To a large extent the rebranding of the PFG in Tanzania has rendered this somewhat moot, however, many of the earlier documents (including the Constraints Analysis and the JCAP) remain useful references and it would be useful to explain the transition and rebranding of PFG to the FTF and Power Africa. 18. Increase engagement with civil society, the private sector, and other stakeholders. Increasing awareness, publicity and engagement outside government has the potential to increase the success of PFG and its successor initiatives. Civil society, private sector, and other stakeholder input and support for PFG and successor programs could be improved. These stakeholder groups are often not aware of the goals and objectives of USAID initiatives. In Tanzania the evaluation team recommends close interaction with the BRN Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 39 President’s Delivery Bureau to ensure a wider awareness and understanding of Power Africa goals and activities. Ultimately greater awareness on the development approach embodied in Power Africa has the potential to result in greater and deeper stakeholder mobilization and increased public awareness of the positive effects of the GOG and GOT reform agenda (e.g., within the power sector, public information campaigns on the importance of cost reflective tariffs, and the key role of private investment in improving infrastructure efficiency). This may help overcome a public opinion locked into the belief that either “nothing” is being done, or that public investment and subsidized power tariffs are the only options for a capital￾constrained economy. 19. Mobilize additional financial resources for leveraging interventions in the priority sectors. Implementing the JCAP at the sector level requires additional financial resources for the LOAs. In Tanzania and with the absence of significant financial resources, it has proved challenging for the PFG process to implement the rural roads activities. Participants in the CA process should have met with participants in the Irrigation and Rural Roads Infrastructure Project (IRRIP) which took over responsibilities for rural roads in 2014. Unfortunately, there were insufficient funds to cover the cost of gas for vehicles and this curtailed the involvement of important participants in the IRRIP initiative. Transitional funding should be provided in the budget for introduction of new processes.20                                                                 20 See the PFG Interim Evaluation: Tanzania Report Annex 2: Case Study Underinvestment in the Rural Roads Sector. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 40 CONCLUSIONS The USG, GOG and GOT leaders, architects and goal leads all considered the PFG initiative to be a successful development approach relative to traditional project aid. As interested stakeholders, this positive response may reflect their vested interests, although all the respondents provided specific examples in support of this statement. Specifically, almost everyone interviewed mentioned the WGA and the positive externalities arising from the process of working together on the CA and the JCAP. In the words of key informants, the preparation of the CA represented “genuine teamwork” and “technical arguments carried the day”, which assisted in finalizing the JCAP and advanced the policy reform agenda. Reaching consensus on challenging regulatory and policy reforms required an extensive dialogue between the GOT and USG and GOG and the USG. In interviews other international donors reported they had taken note of the PFG process. The whole-of-government approach was frequently mentioned by officials from both the USG and the GOG as one of the most important elements of the initiative, along with the process of working together on the CA and the JCAP. Determining the path to removing the constraints was facilitated by the extensive dialogue with partners working together as a team. Other donors have taken note of the PFG process. A key challenge going forward is the need to mainstream the PFG into the overall government development process and work more closely with other like-minded donors. All parties involved in the PFG process considered it had contributed to improved and deeper dialogue between the USG and GOG as partners in a shared commitment to promoting increased growth and private investment. Continued high level participation from both the GOG and USG at the Bi-Annual Steering Committee Meetings signals the continued commitment to the PFG process. The evaluators concluded the PFG worked to support the GOG in their commitment to embark on challenging regulatory reforms aimed at increasing future economic growth rates. Using a more rigorous project design tool such as a logical framework (logframe) forces more thinking on the causal linkages between inputs, outputs, and desired outcome (or purpose). It also provides a structure for identifying the assumptions and preconditions necessary for achieving the goals and assessing the risks. Without having these items thought through and in writing, the evaluators consider there may be an unrealistic confidence that the LOAs will lead to the intended results. The initial five-year time horizon for the PFG encouraged officials when moving from analyzing the constraints to designing interventions to adopt an overly ambitious and optimistic JCAP. For example, the time scale envisaged in the JCAP for realizing substantive changes in the financial sector was over-optimistic given the large government budget deficit, decline in commodity prices, and structural and regulatory pre-requisites for improving access to finance. The GOG is making progress in reducing the budget deficit, augmenting the Bank of Ghana’s (BOG) monitoring and supervision of the banking sector, and strengthening public debt management policy. Equally, experience from power sector programs requiring extensive regulatory reform, and significant tariffs increases, as a precursor to encouraging large scale Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 41 private investment elsewhere in the world would caution against delivering significant outcomes within the first two years. The PFG initiative in Ghana and Tanzania was fully embraced in the power sector work. The GOG has integrated the principles of partnership, country ownership, and a commitment to a strong monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework into their approach to the power sector, which is now mainstreamed into the Power Africa and the MCC Compact. However, in Ghana USAID funding for addressing the credit constraints has been limited. While the PFG’s access to credit activities are complementary with the Financial Sector Strategic Plan II (FINSSP) II and Private Sector Development Strategy II (PSDP II), there is also a need for more active engagement of multilateral development banks and other bilateral donors in the financing sector. Further, the deteriorating macroeconomic situation in Ghana adversely impacted interventions aimed at increasing the access to finance. In Tanzania the PFG initiative succeeded in mainstreaming itself into the modus operandi for development cooperation, however, it is premature to conclude that this will continue to apply. The integration of the CA into the Five Year Development Plan and incorporating many of the core features of the PFG into the GOT-led BRN illustrates the powerful positive impact of the PFG initiative. The principles of partnership, country ownership, and a commitment to a strong M&E framework were all incorporated into Tanzania’s Big Results Now (BRN) initiative. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 42 ANNEX 1. STATEMENT OF WORK PARTNERSHIP FOR GROWTH (PFG) MID￾TERM EVALUATION: GHANA AND TANZANIA I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Partnership for Growth (PFG) is a set of bilateral partnerships between the United States and a select group of four countries (El Salvador, Ghana, the Philippines, and Tanzania) to accelerate and sustain broad-based economic growth by putting into practice the principles of President Obama’s September 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development. It involves rigorous joint analysis of constraints to growth, the development of joint action plans to address these constraints, and high-level mutual accountability for implementation. One of PFG’s signature objectives is to engage governments, the private sector and civil society with a broad range of tools to unlock new sources of investment, including domestic resources and foreign direct investment. By improving coordination, leveraging private investment, and focusing political commitment throughout both governments, the Partnership for Growth enables partners to achieve better development results. Core principles of the Partnership for Growth include:  Country ownership and partnership;  High-level political leadership and commitment to development progress;  Rigorous, evidence-based joint analysis on constraints to growth conducted by integrated teams of U.S. Government and PFG country officials;  Joint decision-making on where to focus and prioritize resources;  Use of a broad range of tools, including catalytic policy change, institutional reform, aid, diplomatic engagement, and other ‘non-assistance’ policy tools;  Leveraging the whole of the US government;  Transparency, mutual accountability and fact-based monitoring and evaluation. The PFG process consists of several steps, including:  Agreement to initiate PFG with selected partner countries;  Joint analysis on constraints to growth, followed by broad consultation, dialogue on the findings;  Development of joint country action plans (JCAPs) that outline potential tools, reforms, technical assistance and resources that can be applied over the next five years to address priority constraints to growth;  Implementation of priority initiatives by USG agencies and partner governments;  Regular monitoring and evaluation, which includes semi-annual scorecards  Transparency and consultation with private and public sectors. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 43 II. CONTEXT An important aspect to bear in mind at all times is that PFG is a bilateral partnership at the country level. The evaluation will be conducted by an external evaluator agreed upon by the U.S. government (USG) and, for evaluations in their countries, the governments of Ghana and Tanzania. II.a Timing Considerations This evaluation will only focus on Ghana and Tanzania, as the PFG programs in El Salvador and the Philippines were the subjects of mid-term evaluations in 2013 and 2014. It will span the U.S. government and national (i.e. Ghanaian and Tanzanian) government leadership, implementing agencies, activities, strategies, stakeholders and audiences (both public and private). II.b Target Areas and Groups No single criterion was used to identify target populations for PFG activities. Some PFG activities are national in scope, and others target specific sub-populations, regions and sectors. II.c Results Frameworks and Intended Results The Ghana and Tanzania PFG efforts have tailored, unique results framework developed in response to the constraints to growth analysis. Following is the logical framework, reflected in detail in the Joint Country Action Plan (JCAP). The frameworks reflect only the constraints and the goals necessary to alleviate or address the constraints. More information on the agreed lines of action to achieve the goals can be found in each country’s JCAP. Constraint = a binding constraint to growth, identified explicitly in the constraints to growth analysis21 Goal = a necessary objective to alleviate and address the constraint, identified in the Joint Country Action Plan Line of Action (LOA) = a programmatic response, by one or both governments identified in the Joint Country Action Plan. A line of action may be a project or a policy change or any other discrete intervention at the implementation level. The government responsible for executing the line of action is clearly identified in the JCAP. For Ghana, the goals and lines of action are identified in “Section IV. PFG Country Plan for 2012-2016” on pages 7-16 of the JCAP. For Tanzania, the goals (called “measures”) and lines of action are identified in “Section IV. Partnership for Growth Joint Country Action Plan for 2012- 2016” on pages 3-15 of the JCAP and summarized in “Appendix B. Summary Matrix of                                                              21 A Constraints Analysis is a study based on the growth diagnostic approach originally developed by Haussmann, Rodrik, and Velasco (2005) and since elaborated by others, including the United States Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). Growth diagnostics seeks to identify, for a particular country at a particular point in time, the principal barriers – the “binding constraints” – to that country achieving and sustaining faster economic growth. It starts with the premise that those constraints affect growth by preventing private investment and entrepreneurship from reaching the levels they would attain in the absence of those constraints. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 44 PFG Proposed Activities.”22 An LOA may in many cases be synonymous with a project or activity. Goals of Ghana PFG Country Plan for 2012-2016 A. Strengthening the Power Sector 1. Strategy and Planning Goals  Cohesive transmission and distribution reform strategy which provides an overarching framework for improving utility operational and financial performance developed and implemented.  Long-term reliable gas supplies available for the operation of thermal power plants with a transparent framework for gas pricing and allocation developed and implemented.  Implementation of an integrated power sector master plan that builds upon existing sub￾sector master plans and provides guidance for future investment plans.  Clear public policy and framework implemented for private sector participation in the power sector. 2. Institutional, Regulatory and Structural Reform Goals  Clear and distinct roles and responsibilities of policymaking, regulation, ratemaking, ownership, and operations in the gas sector.  Well-functioning processes of policymaking, regulation, and ratemaking that serve to attract investment into the sector and improve delivery of service and needed maintenance.  Improved management, operations and financial viability of operating entities in the power and energy sector. 3. Electricity Demand and Generation Capacity Goals  Prepare demand outlooks based on sound economic planning and modeling and which take into consideration efficient use of energy.  Expand generation to meet demand for power (including acceptable reserve margins) so as not to hinder economic activity and growth (expansion plans should consider demand side management and exploit environmentally friendly and sustainable options for power generation).  Further diversify generation types (including renewables) to minimize risks from low rainfall, fluctuations in oil prices, and other external shocks.                                                              22 The Tanzania JCAP is available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202535.pdf Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 45 4. Transmission and Distribution Infrastructure and Operations Goals  Improved network operations to meet suppressed demand and forecasted growth and improve quality of supply.  Increased efficiency and cost effectiveness of transmission and distribution assets.  Improved financial viability of companies in the sector.  Reduce commercial losses. 5. Rural Access Goals  Expanded electricity service access for rural communities.  Sustainable management and operation of rural electricity systems. B. Improve Access to Credit and Strengthen the Financial System 1. Reduce Government Engagement in Banking Sector Goals  Reduce potential for government influence in the banking sector through laying the foundation for divestiture of state and parastatal ownership in commercial banks.  Minimize non-performing loans, which could result from government off-budget financing through strong governance systems in banks with state and parastatal interests.  Reduce government and parastatal payment arrears through stronger public revenue and expenditure management.  Lower interest rates through measures to be taken including reducing reliance on Ghanaian banks for placement of government debt instruments. 2. Strengthen Financial Sector Regulation and Supervision Goals  Ensure financial sector stability through strong capacity within the BoG to assess and manage risk within the banking sector.  Eliminate potential regulatory gaps through effective coordination and oversight of financial sector regulation. 3. Develop the Financial Sector Infrastructure Goals  Reduce interest rates and expand access to financial services through reducing the risk premium and lowering transaction costs through stronger financial sector infrastructure. 4. Broaden and Deepen the Financial Sector Goals  Reduce interest rates and introduce new financial instruments through encouraging competition by expanding the range and capacity of financial intermediaries. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 46 5. Encourage Development Finance and Support SME Access to Finance Goals  Improve access to finance and improve the management and operational capability of SMEs.  Promote financial literacy among small and medium scale enterprises.  Ensure the sustainability and optimal efficiency of key development finance institutions such as rural banks, Eximguaranty, Venture Capital Trust Fund and Agriculture Investment Fund. Goals of Tanzania Partnership for Growth Joint Country Action Plan for 2012‐2016 A. Power Root Cause 1: Underinvestment in the Energy Sector Measure 1.1: Establish Cost‐Reflective Tariff Structure Measure 1.2: Minimize Revenue Loss Measure 1.3: Strengthen Legal and Regulatory Institutions Root Cause 2: Insufficient Institutional and Technical Capacity for Robust Energy Sector Planning and Management Measure 2.1: Improve Sector Planning Measure 2.2: Increase Key Sector Institutional Capacities Measure 2.3: Promote Private Investment in Power B. Rural Roads Root Cause 1: Underinvestment in Rural Roads Infrastructure and Maintenance Measure 1.1: Increase Financial Allocation for Rural Roads Investments Measure 1.2: Increase Financial Allocation for Rural Roads Maintenance Services Measure 1.3: Develop a Five‐Year Rural Roads Investment Programme Root Cause 2: Inadequate Institutional and Technical Capacities for Rural Roads Infrastructure and Maintenance Services Measure 2.1: Improve Institutional and Technical Capacities for Rural Roads Investment and Maintenance Services Measure 2.2: Develop District Level Capacities for Rural Roads Management Measure 2.3: Develop the Capacity of Labor Based Contractors and Local Community Private Enterprises Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 47 II.d Existing Documents and Data Sources A wide range of documentation is publicly available on PFG, including semi-annual “scorecards” of progress made on JCAP implementation. Macro level indicators provide information on progress towards alleviating the constraints and achieving the overarching JCAP goal of broad-based, inclusive and private-sector led economic growth. Scorecards: As described in the Ghana JCAP M&E Addendum, once PFG implementation began the governments of Ghana and the United States planned to publish a semi‐annual scorecard to report to the public on progress towards achievement of PFG goals. The goal indicators are designed to reflect the shared purposes of the governments of Ghana and the United States. The two governments intend to use the descriptors “Ahead of Schedule,” “On Track,” “Behind Schedule,” or “Completed”, to characterize progress on each goal. Scores are to reflect the consensus view of the two governments and any disagreements between them will be noted. The scorecard is to be accompanied by a description that provides a justification for each score assigned. This justification is to include the results of the goal indicators included in this addendum along with other relevant supporting information and data (which may include results of monitoring and evaluation conducted independently by each government on individual LOAs). If data for goal indicators is not available in a particular reporting period, progress will be reported in the following period. The respective implementation teams should coordinate work plans for each LOA, which, in turn, will be developed by the responsible implementing agency in coordination with the overall team. These work plans shall contain timelines, performance indicators and targets for individual LOAs and will constitute inputs of the PFG M&E process. Pages 17-20 of the Ghana JCAP list a number of key indicators that can be used to measure progress in achieving each goal. Progress on the Joint Country Action Plan for the Power Constraint in Tanzania is tracked using three sets of indicators: (1) Macroeconomic indicators that are publicly available; (2) Utility and sector indicators that are obtained from the sector actors; and (3) Policy indicators that are tracked by the USG and development partners. All indicators were chosen to reflect the top-line results sought by the GoT and supported by the USG through the PFG JCAP. The indicators are listed below: (1) Macroeconomic Indicators: Population, GDP, GDP Growth, GDP Growth per capita, FDI (2) Sector Indicators: Installed Generation Capacity, Percentage of Population with access to electricity, TANESCO customer connections, ZECO customer connections (3) PFG Indicators: Tariff as percentage of cost of service, Rate of TANESCO/ZECO revenue growth is greater than inflation, Increase in annual repair and maintenance budget toward target of 10%, Aggregate Technical, Commercial and Collection Losses below 20% for both utilities, Consistent implementation of all power sector policy, legal and regulatory instruments, 100 % of procurements are conducted in accordance with Power Sector Master Plan, TANESCO will develop appropriate baseline measure for reliability (e.g., power availability compared to peak load demand and reserve margin), Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 48 Percentage of new investment in power generation, transmission, distribution through private sector The above indicators will be supplemented by activity level output and outcome indicators for specific programs III. EVALUATION RATIONALE III.a Evaluation Purpose The evaluation will serve two purposes. As a result, there are two sets of evaluation questions. Purpose 1; Evaluating the PFG Approach: The first purpose is to evaluate whether the PFG process demonstrates improvements over pre-PFG assistance approaches. In particular, the evaluation will examine the extent to which the PFG’s whole-of-government and constraints analysis approach led to a change in the manner of USG delivery of development assistance and whether these changes demonstrated improvements in terms of operational efficiency, selection, coordination, design and management of development interventions, and ultimately increased the probability and effectiveness of assistance efforts in achieving verifiable results. The findings and conclusions of this part of the mid-term evaluation will help decision makers determine whether PFG indicates an improved model for providing assistance and whether it portends a higher probability of achieving desired development results. Furthermore, it will inform governments in their work with all donors. Purpose 2; Evaluating Country-Specific Implementation: The second purpose is to: a) evaluate whether PFG efforts have been developed in such a way as to allow for the eventual determination of their impact on addressing the identified constraints and desired outcomes; and, b) to evaluate the performance of certain initiatives to date to determine whether or not they are moving in the desired direction and are considered necessary and sufficient to achieve PFG goals. The findings and conclusions of the country-specific portion of the mid-term evaluation are of particular relevance to the national government and USG entities implementing PFG in the field, allowing for country program course corrections where feasible and needed in order to enhance the likelihood of achieving sustainable, cost-effective and measurable results. III.b Audience and Intended Uses The mid-term evaluation will be made available on-line to the public. There are many audiences for the mid-term evaluation, including: Implementers  The national government Ministers of Foreign Relations (or the equivalent) and PFG Coordinating Committees in Ghana and Tanzania,  The U.S. Ambassadors and Country Teams,  The White House and participating U.S. Agency PFG Coordinators and country desk officers in Washington, DC,  Relevant agencies/organizations implementing JCAP activities; Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 49 Stakeholders  Citizens of Ghana and Tanzania,  Civil society representatives and organizations, in the U.S., Ghana and Tanzania;  Private sector commercial companies and organizations, in the U.S., Ghana and Tanzania,  Diaspora communities residing in the United States, and  The international donor community interested in lessons learned from applying the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action￾assistance23 IV. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The Contractor should propose the most rigorous evaluation methodology feasible and cost￾effective given the learning potential and scope of the study. To the greatest extent possible, the Contractor shall analyze and collect quantitative data. The current scope is only for the Ghana and Tanzania mid-term evaluations. Mid-term PFG evaluations have already been completed for El Salvador and the Philippines. Similarly, a final evaluation of PFG and PFG efforts in each country is anticipated. While not covered under this SOW, data captured may be employed in the eventual final evaluations and provide the foundation for making conclusions at that time. IV.a Requirements for Achieving Purpose 2 In fulfilling the second purpose of this mid-term evaluation, the expectation is to conduct an assessment of the evaluability of the PFG JCAPs (in other words, assess the extent to which the current PFG programs, as designed and implemented, are evaluable and can or will demonstrate, in verifiable terms, the results they intend to deliver) and to evaluate performance to date. The contractor first will be asked to conduct a preliminary evaluability assessment of each country’s PFG JCAP. The preliminary evaluability assessment should use the available program information to assess the following components of each goal and its corresponding LOAs (or LOA equivalent):  problem diagnostic and baseline situation assessment;  causal logic of activities, objectives, and outcomes;  intended beneficiaries; and  data availability. The preliminary evaluability assessment will be used to identify goals and LOAs that are ready or amenable for further in-depth “second-tier” review during the mid-term evaluation. At a                                                              23 For further information on the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action-assistance please visit http://www.mcc.gov/pages/activities/activity-two/aid-effectiveness: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdacq942.pdf Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 50 minimum, at least two goals (one per constraint) that are amenable will then be reviewed to determine whether:  The indicators selected to measure their progress cover the overall logic of the PFG interventions;  There are any major gaps in data collection and analysis that could prevent the interagency partners and joint steering committees from: o Adequately managing implementation towards expected results; o Evaluating the effectiveness of PFG. The goals and LOAs selected for the second tier assessment also will form the “sample” of LOAs or projects that will be evaluated to determine performance at the mid-term. The country-specific evaluation questions in “Section IV. b” of this SOW track closely with the requirements outlined above. Requirements for Achieving Purpose 2 Related Country-Specific Question(s) Preliminary Evaluability Assessment Question 1 Second-tier Review Question 2 Performance at Mid-Term Questions 3&4 IV.b Evaluation Questions The evaluation questions address issues of common concern for all PFG countries (the cross￾cutting questions), as well as country specific questions tailored to each country’s individual situation. Most of the cross-cutting evaluation questions will focus on organizational management structures which are common across all four countries. The cross-cutting evaluation questions respond to Purpose 1 of this evaluation. Country-specific evaluation questions are more appropriate to testing the theory of change at the technical level and will be used to make country-specific recommendations in the final Mid￾Term Evaluation Report. The country-specific evaluation questions respond to Purpose 2 of this evaluation. Mid-Term Cross-Cutting Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of the PFG* whole of government approach to development assistance? The intent of this question is to assess the extent to which the PFG efforts intended changes in development assistance have or have not materialized. The whole of government approach is relevant to identifying areas for assistance, selecting interventions, and determining implementation coordination. The question is relevant both to national government agencies and institutions, and U.S. government agencies and institutions overseas and in Washington DC. The question will help to understand how PFG approach differs from other planning processes. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 51 * Explanation of “Whole of Government”: In large bilateral efforts such as Partnership for Growth, many different governmental agencies and ministries are involved in both governments in different dimensions of the larger effort. Within the U.S. government, the term “whole of government” reflects efforts to align each agency’s activities to achieve a common objective. Footnote 1 provides resources for further explanation. 2. To what extent has Partnership for Growth affected the workload on national government and U.S. government staff, as compared to the workload created by traditional forms of development assistance delivery? This question should explore not just whether staff members have had to work more intensively during a normal 40-hour week and/or log more hours of overtime because of PFG, but also whether their workload has significantly shifted to PFG-related activities from other activities. 3. What contribution has non-assistance24 made to the PFG process and how can it be utilized moving forward? Mid-Term Country-Specific Evaluation Questions: Country-specific questions look directly at the efforts unique to a PFG country. In this portion of the evaluation, evaluators are expected to assess the evaluability of the PFG effort in each country and, to the extent possible, determine progress to date in a select amount of initiatives in PFG framework. Ghana 1. The constraints analysis does not identify remedies to address the binding constraints to growth. For each of the constraints, are the goal-level commitments set forth in the JCAP alone capable of achieving the constraints-level objectives and outcomes? (See Section III.a “Evaluation Purpose” for details on expectations related to this question.) 2. The PFG model places an emphasis on evidence-based decision making and fact￾based monitoring. Is quantitative and objectively verifiable information being used to manage JCAP implementation in order to achieve and measure results? (See Section III.a “Evaluation Purpose” for details on expectations related to this question.)                                                              24 PFG calls upon the US Government (USG) and partner countries to be more comprehensive and creative in our development work – to reach beyond aid to all the instruments that both governments can bring to bear to connect and amplify the impact of current investments and unlock growth potential. USG commitments under PFG are comprised of both assistance and non-assistance tools that, undertaken in close coordination with partner countries, will maximize our impact and success. In addition to those actions already identified by the interagency and partner countries, additional non-assistance activities should be considered over the life of PFG for a sustained and focused effort. Non-assistance options provide a venue for demonstrating United States support to partner countries and the Partnership for Growth. Options are intended to fully leverage the United States’ unique convening authority, NGOs, professional organizations and academic institutions, donor groups, regional banks, and diaspora communities, and policy options for development results. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 52 3. At the mid-term, are the performances of the selected PFG interventions on target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes? 4. If performance is not on target or creating the outputs necessary to achieve the desired outcomes, why? Tanzania 1. The constraints analysis does not identify remedies to address the binding constraints to growth. For each of the constraints, are the goal-level commitments set forth in the JCAP alone capable of achieving the constraints-level objectives and outcomes? (See Section III.a “Evaluation Purpose” for details on expectations related to this question.) 2. The PFG model places an emphasis on evidence-based decision making and fact￾based monitoring. Is quantitative and objectively verifiable information being used to manage JCAP implementation in order to achieve and measure results? (See Section III.a “Evaluation Purpose” for details on expectations related to this question.) 3. At the mid-term, are the performances of the selected PFG interventions on target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes? 4. If performance is not on target or creating the outputs necessary to achieve the desired outcomes, why? IV.c Evaluation Design The evaluation will be a performance evaluation, but should highlight the results of any impact or other rigorous analyses done separately on PFG goals or lines of action (LOAs) at the country level. A performance evaluation should include descriptive questions. The mid-term evaluation will include but not be limited to semi-structured interviews, focus groups of stakeholders, and documentation reviews. Where feasible and appropriate, efforts should be made to incorporate quantitative data collection or analysis to measure program performance. The evaluator is expected to incorporate input from a reasonable range of civil society and the private sector. Offerors are encouraged to propose cost effective approaches to the evaluation. Additionally, for addressing country-specific questions, the contract may propose various methodologies to create a representative sample of the larger effort (for example, selecting to analyze only certain LOAs or goals, based on the level of foreign assistance investment they’re receiving) to ensure the scope of the evaluation is manageable and cost-effective while retaining its ability to provide a general assessment of the PFG effort and provide actionable recommendations for the Steering Committees, partner governments and US interagency going forward. At a minimum, at least two goals (one per constraint) that are amenable to an in-depth second-tier review will be selected for this purpose. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 53 Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis will not be utilized in the mid-term evaluations. IV.d Evaluation Points of Contact The Activity Manager (AM) for this evaluation will be the primary POC for the cross-cutting and both country-specific evaluations. The AM will be located in Washington. He or she will have responsibility for representing the evaluation and its progress to the larger USG PFG group. The AM will coordinate directly with the COR for this mechanism. Each country will establish a POC team, consisting of one USG POC in Washington, one USG POC in the field, and one national government POC. The POC teams for each country will be responsible for communications with the AM. The USG-POCs in Washington DC will help the evaluation teams liaise with all relevant stakeholders within the US inter-agency community at headquarters. The USG-POC based in the partner country, either within the U.S. Embassy or in another U.S. Agency there, will help the evaluation team reach all relevant USG stakeholders in country. The national government POC will help the evaluation team reach all relevant stakeholders within the country. IV.e Planning for Data Collection The PFG Ghana has been divided into two technical teams, namely Power and Access to Credit. The technical team for Power is spearheaded by the Ministry of Energy while the Access to Credit team is led by the Ministry of Finance. The technical team for Power draws it membership from the Ministry of Energy and its affiliate institutions for Ghana, then the MCC and staff of the USAID for the USG. The Access to Credit side has members coming from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Ghana for Ghana as well as USAID staff for the USG. To help coordinate the activities of the PFG, a PFG secretariat is being set up at the Ministry of Finance. The secretariat will be staffed by a coordinator, two administrators, two representatives from the technical committees and three support staff. The deliverables of the secretariat will include monthly/quarterly/annual updates on the PFG work plan, updated M&E framework, Updated balance score card among others. One week of field work in Washington DC is estimated in the present scope of work so the evaluation team can meet with the USG Washington-based Goal Leads and other Washington￾based PFG stakeholders. The field work in Washington DC should take place before the field work in country. In addition to the monitoring data on program activities normally collected by U.S. government and national government agencies during the course of implementation, PFG’s emphasis on shared responsibility with the national government and public transparency has resulted in an additional layer of periodic monitoring data that will be available to the evaluation team, such as the scorecards (see description above) and other host country data systems. The three evaluation POCs identified in section IV.d will provide the evaluation team with access to all existing PFG program monitoring data. The format, frequency and type of Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 54 monitoring data collected by the governments of Ghana and Tanzania may be significantly different from the formats and types used by the U.S. government. The evaluation team will process the information and identify information gaps and data quality concerns in an inception report, to guide additional data collection required as part of the evaluation. Once the gaps in monitoring information are identified, the evaluation team will fill out the “Pre￾Field Visit Data Needs and Analytical Guide” below and discuss the recommended approach with the COR to negotiate a final guide to be used once the team is in country. Template: Pre-Field Visit Data Needs and Analytical Guide Cross-Cutting Questions Evalu ation Quest ions Type of Answ er Neede d (e.g. descri ptive, norm ative, cause￾effect) Data Colle ction Meth od(s) Gender Disaggre gation of Data, where Possible Sam pling or Selec tion Crit eria Data Anal ysis Meth od(s) 1. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of the PFG whole-of￾government approach to development assistance? 2. To what extent has Partnership for Growth affected the workload on national government Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 55 and U.S. government staff, as compared to the workload created by traditional forms of development assistance delivery? 3. What contribution has non￾assistance made to the PFG process and how can it be utilized moving forward? Ghana Country-Specific Questions Evalu ation Quest ions Type of Answ er Neede d (e.g. descri ptive, norm ative, cause￾effect) Data Colle ction Meth od(s) Gender Disaggre gation of Data, where Possible Sam pling or Selec tion Crit eria Data Anal ysis Meth od(s) 1. The constraints analysis does not identify remedies to address the binding Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 56 constraints to growth. For each of the constraints, are the goal￾level commitments set forth in the JCAP alone capable of achieving the constraints￾level objectives and outcomes? 2. The PFG model places an emphasis on evidence￾based decision making and fact-based monitoring. Is quantitative and objectively verifiable information being used to manage JCAP implementati on in order to achieve and measure results? 3. At the mid￾term, are the performances of the selected PFG interventions Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 57 on target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes? 4. If performance is not on target or creating the outputs necessary to achieve the desired outcomes, why? Tanzania Country-Specific Questions Evalu ation Quest ions Type of Answ er Neede d (e.g. descri ptive, norm ative, cause￾effect) Data Colle ction Meth od(s) Gender Disaggre gation of Data, where Possible Sam pling or Selec tion Crit eria Data Anal ysis Meth od(s) 1. The constraints analysis does not identify remedies to address the binding constraints to growth. For each of Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 58 the constraints, are the goal￾level commitment s set forth in the JCAP alone capable of achieving the constraints￾level objectives and outcomes? 2. The PFG model places an emphasis on evidence￾based decision making and fact-based monitoring. Is quantitative and objectively verifiable information being used to manage JCAP implementat ion in order to achieve and measure results? 3. At the mid-term, are the performance s of the selected PFG interventions on target Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 59 and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes? 4. If performance is not on target or creating the outputs necessary to achieve the desired outcomes, why? V. EVALUATION PRODUCTS The set of evaluation milestones/products required are detailed below: 1. [Written Document ] Work Plan Due to the COR within the first 5 business days after start of the evaluation. The work plan will detail the Evaluation Team’s schedule in weekly blocks of time for the various tasks and deliverables, including desk review, inception report development, evaluation design, interviews (in the U.S., Ghana and Tanzania), data collection, data analysis and preparation of initial evaluation results, report writing, briefings and presentations. 2. [Written Document] Inception Report and Preliminary Evaluability Assessment Due to the COR within 3 weeks after the start of the evaluation. The inception report is a desk review of all existing documentation and monitoring data relevant to the specific PFG evaluation in question. The PFG evaluation places added emphasis on the inception report to ensure that all available monitoring and program data has been received, read and analyzed by the evaluation team prior to approval of field work. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 60 A useful template and guide for the inception report is provided by the UNODC at http://www.unodc.org/documents/evaluation/IEUwebsite/Chapter_4_C.pdf. The current scope adopts the UNDP’s definition of an inception report: “Evaluation inception report—An inception report should be prepared by the evaluators before going into the full-fledged evaluation exercise. It should detail the evaluators’ understanding of what is being evaluated and why, showing how each evaluation question will be answered by way of: proposed methods; proposed sources of data; and data collection procedures. The inception report should include a proposed schedule of tasks, activities and deliverables, designating a team member with the lead responsibility for each task or product. The inception report provides the programme unit and the evaluators with an opportunity to verify that they share the same understanding about the evaluation and clarify any misunderstanding at the outset.” (source: http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/Annex3.html) The preliminary evaluability assessment should use the available program information to assess the ability of the JCAP projects to demonstrate in measurable terms the results they intend to deliver (See section III.a “Evaluation Purpose” for details regarding the expectations and scope of the preliminary evaluability assessment.) The contractor should propose a methodology for sampling LOA for review in order to ensure that the scope of the evaluation and field work is manageable and cost-effective while retaining its ability to provide a general assessment of the PFG effort and provide actionable recommendations for the Steering Committees, partner governments and US interagency going forward. 3. Updated Methodology and Evaluation Plan Once a final sampling strategy has been decided, the detailed evaluation methodology should be updated based on the preliminary review of all available JCAP and PFG data. The updated methodology should include a Pre-Field Visit Data Needs and Analytical Guide Report, which includes information on data gaps, sampling strategy, pre-tested interview questionnaires and data collection timeline. See section IV.e for the basic template, which can be adapted to country-specific needs with COR agreement. The contractor must provide a statement explaining how data collection methods will conform to the Common Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects in research evaluations (often called the “Common Rule.” For more information see 22 CFR 225, Annex B, part 1, and http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/22cfr225_06.html. Even those evaluation activities with a non-research determination should ensure ethical conduct of data collection involving human subjects. 4. End of Field Visit Debrief Debrief to national and U.S. governments in Ghana and Tanzania, including Washington, DC PFG staff via teleconference. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 61 This will be delivered prior to departing the country while there to conduct the field visit. This presentation will update the team on the status of evaluation progress, identify any outstanding data or information, and describe any preliminary evaluation findings to date. 5. Draft Evaluation Reports (See Deliverable Six for types and quantities of reports) Draft reports will be provided for all final reports outlined in deliverable seven. Draft reports “a” and “b,” as described in deliverable six, are due to the COR within four weeks after the end of the field visit. Draft report “c” is due two weeks after the presentation (deliverable seven) of report “b.” The evaluating findings shall be treated as an independent assessment and opinion of the contractor. USAID, Ghana and Tanzania government stakeholders will review the draft evaluation report with the expressed and sole objective of reviewing the factual accuracy of any information contained therein and to indicate areas where further clarifications are warranted. The contractor should attempt to understand these concerns, making adjustments where appropriate, while continuing to maintain the report’s independence and objectivity. The evaluation reports should include but may not be limited to the following elements: 1. Executive Summary 2. Objectives of the evaluation, including evaluation questions 3. Methodology used and limitations of study 4. Results of analysis, assessment of performance against evaluation questions, and to what extent results can be attributed to the actual interventions 5. Key lessons learned and recommendations 6. Final Mid-Term Evaluation Reports The contractor will provide three Mid-Term Evaluation Reports: a. A mid-term evaluation report covering the country-specific and cross-cutting findings, lessons learned and recommendations for Ghana; b. A mid-term evaluation report covering the country-specific and cross-cutting findings, lessons learned and recommendations for Tanzania; c. And, a report that compares and contrasts the findings, conclusions and recommendations from the cross-cutting questions in Ghana and Tanzania, to identify commonalities in the PFG process regardless of the location of its implementation. Report “c,” in the list above will be issued after the completion of both the Ghana and the Tanzania fieldwork. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 62 Reports will be due to the AM within 1 week of receiving AM written feedback on the draft evaluation report (see schedule below for total estimated time line). Reports must adhere to the evaluation report requirements outlined USAID’s ADS chapter 203.3.1.8. 7. Evaluation Report Presentations: a. Due within 1 week after the delivery of the accepted final report “a” under deliverable six, the proposer will deliver an in-person presentation in Washington, DC, to Washington-based USG PFG staff and to national and U.S. government personnel in Ghana, who will participate via video or teleconference. b. Due within 1 week after the delivery of the accepted final report “b” under deliverable six, the proposer will deliver an in-person presentation in Washington, DC, to Washington-based USG PFG staff and to national and U.S. government personnel in Tanzania, who will participate via video or teleconference. V. TEAM COMPOSITION For the life of the contract, the team will contain two permanent staff members, the Evaluation Team Leader and the Data Methods Specialist. For each country, two additional evaluation specialists with sector-specific experience will be added for those portions of the contract. For example, the Ghana evaluation will require an evaluation specialist with experience in electric power and an evaluation specialist who has a background in public finance and credit. The Tanzania evaluation will require an evaluation specialist with a background in electric power and another with a background in rural roads. The Offeror is encouraged to consider the inclusion of country nationals or regional country nationals to the evaluation team. In addition to their core technical specialties, country nationals are instrumental in ground-truthing information analyzed during the evaluation and helping the rest of the team see the larger picture and put things in perspective. The Offeror must verify the availability of any personnel working on the evaluation for more than 60 days. Please include letters of availability for all applicable personnel when submitting the proposal. Submissions not including letters of availability will not be considered for the award. Evaluation Team Leader a) An advanced degree in Economics, Business Administration, Statistics, Economic Development, or a related field; b) At least 15 years professional experience in evaluation, including in overseas settings; c) Experience managing teams and working with USG and international governments; d) Proven ability to design and implement quantitative and qualitative research instruments and methodologies; e) Ability to communicate in English. Data Methods Specialist: a) An advanced degree in social science, statistics or mathematics; Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 63 b) At least 7 years technical experience with qualitative and quantitative study design, questionnaire development, data collection, quality control, coding and analysis; c) Ability to design, manage, and implement qualitative and quantitative field-based data collection for evaluations; d) Proven competency in the use of data management software for evaluation; e) Ability to communicate in English. The following are suggested specialists required for each country: Ghana Electric Power Evaluation Specialist a) An advanced degree in Economics, Business Administration, Statistics, Economic Development, Law, Criminology or a related field; b) Five years professional experience in evaluation, including in overseas settings preferred; c) At least 5 years of experience in the field of electric power; d) Proven ability to implement quantitative and qualitative evaluation instruments and methodologies; e) Ability to communicate in English. Public Finance and Credit Evaluation Specialist a) An advanced degree in Economics, Business Administration, Statistics, Economic Development, or a related field; b) Five years professional experience in evaluation, including in overseas settings preferred; c) At least 5 years of experience in the fields of public finance and credit; d) Proven ability to implement quantitative and qualitative evaluation instruments and methodologies; e) Ability to communicate in English. Tanzania Electric Power Evaluation Specialist a) An advanced degree in Economics, Business Administration, Statistics, Economic Development, or a related field; b) Five years professional experience in evaluation, including in overseas settings preferred; c) At least 7 years of experience in the field of electric power; d) Proven ability to implement quantitative and qualitative evaluation instruments and methodologies; Rural Roads Evaluation Specialist a) A law degree plus an advanced degree in economics, business administration or public policy Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 64 b) Five years professional experience in evaluation, including in overseas settings preferred; c) At least 7 years of prior technical experience with a focus on rural roads; d) Proven ability to implement quantitative and qualitative evaluation instruments and methodologies; VI. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT A) Logistics The various POCs listed above will provide logistical support in terms of providing the team with the necessary U.S. and host-country contacts, contact information and required background information. Other logistics required for the execution of the evaluations will be the responsibility of the contractor. See section IV.d for additional information. B) Scheduling The contract is expected to begin in _____________ and run until _________. The Tanzania portion of the evaluation will precede the Ghana portion, while the cross￾cutting elements will be spread across both. An evaluation schedule follows: SEE ACCOMPANYING SPREADSHEET Level of Effort The USG has anticipated that the evaluation will require 526 personnel days to complete. An USG estimate of the time LOE by personnel is provided below, but the level and type of staff and their days is at the discretion of the Proposer. TASKS (DAYS) Team Leader SME (1) SME (2) DMS 1. Work Plan – 3 1 2 3 2.Inception Report/ Preliminary Evaluability Assessment 10 5 10 12 3. Updated Methodology /Evaluation Plan. 5 2 4 3 4. Interviews in DC 3 2 4 3 5. Field Work 18 18 36 18 6. Field Visit Debrief 2 2 4 2 7. Draft Evaluation Report 20 15 30 20 8. Final mid-term Evaluation Report 5 2 4 5 Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 65 9. Cross Cutting report 5 2 4 3 10. Evaluation Report Presentation 2 4 4 2 Per Country Totals 73 53 102 71 Additional Days for the Follow up 2 2 4 2 Additional Cross-Country Report 10 0 0 10 TOTAL LOE 158 108 108 152 SME = Subject Matter Expert DMS = Data Methods Specialist Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 66 ANNEX 2. OVERVIEW OF GROWTH DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH DEVELOPED BY HAUSMANN, RODRIK, AND VELASCO (2005) The HRV approach builds on the neoclassical growth model, the theory of second best, and endogenous growth. Identifying binding constraints starts with examining the determinants of economic growth defined as returns to accumulation, returns to the private investor and the cost of financing. Starting with these three broad areas, the analyst then moves down the decision tree identifying the causes of low accumulation, low returns to private investment and low investment. For example, low private returns might be due to poor property rights and contract enforcement, high taxation, political uncertainty over changes to the investment regime, etc. The decision tree is illustrated below. Identifying the binding constraints requires a detailed knowledge of the country context. The analyst looks for evidence of factor price distortions, strategies to get around the distortions and private sector responsiveness to price adjustments. The “four criteria”, or questions that are used for identifying the binding constraints, are shown in the text box. Growth constraints analysis is country specific, enables prioritization, and targets reforms to maximize impact. The growth constraints analysis recognizes that identification of key constraints will be contingent on country specifics and that it is not possible to address all of the needs and constraints at the same time – the country must prioritize. Further, it recognizes that all policy/regulatory/administrative changes require political capital which highlights the importance of focusing on implementing reforms that bring the largest returns. HRV Growth Diagnostics Problem: Low Level of Private Investment Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 67 Source: HRV (2005), Growth Diagnostics HRV Criteria for Identifying Binding Constraints    High economic price – If a constraint is binding, the factor will experience excess demand which will result in the shadow or true economic price being high. For example, if limited access to finance is a binding constraint on growth, interest rates are likely to be high relative to comparator countries. Impulse-response – If a constraint is binding, measures to reduce the burden of the constraint should stimulate additional investment and growth. In Ghana firms point to the lack of reliable power as the most importance constraint to their growth. Circumvention – When a constraint is binding, investors/businesses should try and bypass the constraint. For example, unreliable power supply, with frequent and prolonged outages, disrupts production and forces firms to rely on high priced generators to provide standby power. Constraint-intensive actors (businesses) are weak or not present – Investors or businesses that depend heavily on the constraint will be small in size or absent while those that are not impacted by the constraint will prosper. In an economy where finance is expensive (high interest rates) there will be relatively few firms operating in activities that rely heavily on external finance. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 68 ANNEX 3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS METHODS EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation team used a variety of data collection approaches to respond to the seven key evaluations questions for the PFG mid-term evaluation. The approaches used for the evaluation are explained below. EVALUABILITY The SOW required the evaluation team to assess the evaluability of the JCAP as well as specific goals and their corresponding LOAs. The team assessed the evaluability of the PFG initiative and its goals through a review of documents showing the: 1) availability of data; 2) problem diagnostic and baseline situation; 3) causal logic of activities, objectives, and outcomes; and 4) intended beneficiaries. The evaluation team confirmed that the initiative as a whole and most of its goals could be evaluated. The team then developed a goal-selection process since it was not possible to evaluate all goals. GOAL-SELECTION PROCESS FOR IN-DEPTH REVIEW OF THE GOALS Ghana There are 27 goals (16 under the Power constraint and 11 under the Access to Finance constraint) and 90 LOAs. The SOW requested an in-depth review of one goal per constraint. In conducting this assessment, the evaluation team selected goals that would represent PFG themes, focus on the constraints and sub-constraints, subject matter, and availability of information. Furthermore, the goals were selected to reflect the diversity of participating agencies and implementing partners and the extent that their LOAs represented initiatives developed under the PFG. The main objective of the CA was to focus resources on addressing the constraints that limit private investment. The evaluation team selected the goal of increasing investment for an in-depth review.  Goals related to the Power Constraint: Policy, Strategy and Planning; and Institutional, Regulatory and Structural Reform.  Goal related to the Access to Finance Constraint: Encourage Development Finance and Support SME Access to Finance. Tanzania There are 12 goals (six under the power constraint and six under the rural roads constraint) and 59 LOAs. The SOW requested an in-depth review of one goal per constraint. In conducting this assessment, the evaluation team sought to select goals that would represent PFG themes, focus on constraints and sub-constraints, subject matter and the availability of information. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 69 Furthermore, goals were selected to reflect the diversity of partnering agencies and implementing partners and the extent to which their LOAs represented initiatives developed under the PFG. The main objective of the CA is to focus resources on addressing those constraints that are holding back private investment. The evaluation team therefore selected the goal of increasing investment for in-depth review.  Goal related to the Power Constraint: Increase investment in the Energy Sector  Goal related to the Rural Roads Constraint: Increase the financial allocation for rural road investments and increase the financial allocation for rural roads maintenance services PROGRAM AND EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND METHODS PFG activities included discrete deliverables that can be verified through objective indicators, capacity strengthening, and policy changes, presenting a number of significant challenges for evaluation. The approaches to addressing these challenges included desk reviews, semi-structured interviews and surveys with close-ended questions. The evaluation team identified quantitative data from third-party sources, but these often proved too generic to capture the impact of specific interventions under the PFG. The evidence-based M&E framework developed for the PFG in each country identifies and tracks progress on sectoral- and macro-level indicators against jointly agreed benchmarks. The M&E plan and reports were assessed against the agreed JCAP objectives and targets (see table). Program and Evaluation Objectives Determining the Methodology Parameter Methodological Choice Essential elements of the Partnership for Growth Program Explicit approach to theory of change governing the PFG design and implementation Theory-driven evaluation based on a literature review on the economic growth constraints, sector specific studies on growth and the Theory of Change Complexity of program and implementation context Desk review, interviews with stakeholders and online survey with close ended questions Evaluation Objectives and Requirements Time constraints for the mid-term review Review documents prior to field work interviews Expectation for the evaluation to deliver inputs into future program implementation Process evaluation approach Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 70 DATA ANALYSIS The evaluation team sought to quantify as many of the activities and responses as possible while recognizing that much of the information was subjective and therefore more amenable to a qualitative approach. Prior to the data collection, the evaluation team set data assurance procedures, data entry, data cleaning procedures, types of analysis, and the limitations to the data analysis. The evaluation team cross-referenced information obtained during the desk reviews with the interview and web-based survey data. Specifically, interviews to obtain information on stakeholders’ perceptions relating to the SOW’s seven evaluation questions were cross-referenced and reviewed to address possible respondent and/or evaluator bias. The quality control approach included a daily review of all interview by the data specialist and the local economist; daily coder meetings during the field interview period; and spot checks by the data specialist, sector experts, and the team leader, to identify and reconcile any inconsistencies. The evaluation team used multiple data verification techniques including triangulation, checking the accuracy of notes, and expanding the written summary notes used by the coders. All of these verification techniques were conducted on a random sample of 10-15 percent of the data collected each day. The semi-structured interviews were coded according to the evaluation question, question-specific themes, and perceived perspectives. The Survey Monkey results using were organized according to respondent and the evaluation question. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 71 ANNEX 4. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Sample from PFG Ghana evaluation Stakeholder Types: Leadership – Interview Guide 1 Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 1 are current and former USG and GOG officials who have held or hold leadership positions within the PFG initiative, particularly POCs and others at their level who will be more informed of the implementation of PFG. Architect/Designer – Interview Guide 2 Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 2 are stakeholders directly involved with the design and planning of the Ghana PFGs, or whose inputs were sought after for these processes. The stakeholders mainly include USG and GOG officials (current and former), representatives from private sector and other civil society organizations, as well as independent experts. Goal Lead – Interview Guide 3 Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 3 are active and former GOG and USG Goal Leads who have directly worked on respective goal(s). LOA Implementer – Interview Guide 4 Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 4 are the implementers of all or selected lines of action (LOA) under the selected goals. The interview will be performed primarily with the chiefs of party, directors, and/or coordinators or their representatives. Independent Expert – Interview Guide 5 Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 5 are independent experts. Experts include academics, subject matter experts, journalists and others who contribute to public debate on the PFG in general or specific areas of the PFG, but are not responsible for directing or implementing components of the PFG. The guide includes cross-cutting questions (to gauge changes in the operational efficiency, selection, coordination, design, and management of development interventions under the PFG strategy as compared to previous / other approaches) as well as goal and LOA level related questions (the latter in particular will be contextualized for the specific area of expertise of the interviewee at hand). Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 72 ANNEX 5. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS Sample interview questionnaires from PFG Ghana evaluation Interview Guide 1 - PFG LEADERSHIP Background Information: The Partnership for Growth (PFG) aims to achieve accelerated, sustained, broad-based economic growth in partner countries, including Ghana and the Republic of Tanzania, in Africa through bilateral agreements between the United States Government (USG) and the partnering countries’ national governments. Using principles set forth in President Obama’s September 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, the PFG requires rigorous, joint analyses of countries’ individual constraints to growth in order to develop joint action plans to address the most pressing of these constraints and to establish high-level mutual accountability for the goals and activities selected to alleviate them. This interview guide was designed to collect information on cross-cutting questions about the program. Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 1 are current and former USG and GOG officials who have held or hold leadership positions within the PFG initiative, particularly POCs and others at their level who will be more informed of the implementation of PFG. Central Focus of Questions: This guide includes (i) cross-cutting questions on the PFG Whole of Government Approach (WGA), changes in operational efficiency and work load, as well as on non￾assistance; and (ii) Ghana specific questions on the remedial capacities of the JCAP, on M&E issues, and on the mid-term performance of selected goals as related to the desired outcomes. The interviewer will note whether the term Whole of Government Approach is not known to all parties, especially in Ghana and be prepared to probe with the terms inter-agency cooperation or inter￾agency coordination. Methodology. Semi-structured interview. Approximately 1 hour.    Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 73 Respondent Background Information Date and Time of Interview: Name of Interviewer: Interviewee Name: Interviewee Stakeholder Type: Interviewee Occupation: Job Title: Overall or “Goal Specific”: Length of Involvement with PFG: Terminology Used  Constraints – these refer (as referenced in the JCAP and SOW) to the two main constraints – Power and Access to finance – that have been identified by Ghana to be tackled in order to remove economic constraints  Root Causes – these refer to the five broad topic areas that have been identified within each of the two main constraints. In the power sector they include: o (1) Improve Strategy and Planning; o (2) Strengthen Institutional, Regulatory and Structural Reform; o (3) Meet Electricity Demand and Increase Generation Capacity; o (4) Improve transmission and distribution infrastructure and operation o (5) Expand rural access.  Goals –– given that the SOW requests a goal-selection process, the 31 indicators provided in the SOW and viewed as outputs for the Ghana PFG initiative under each of the root causes listed under Constraint 1, inadequate and unreliable power, will be referred to as goals.  Activities and projects: Activities that are conducted to address these goals will be referred to as activities and projects and Lines of Action. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 74 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS A. CROSS-CUTTING Advantages and disadvantages of the PFG approach in general 1. Based on your role in the PFG Presidential Initiative, has the PFG approach resulted in changes in the way responsibilities and leaderships are shared or exercised within or among the USG agencies directly involved in the implementation of activities you manage? YES or NO a. If Yes, how? What are the principal advantages and disadvantages of these changes? 2. Has the PFG resulted in changes in the implementation coordination process between USG and GOG agencies? YES or NO. a. If yes, how? What are the main advantages and disadvantages of these changes? The following questions seek responses concerning the PFG process – in particular the Constraints Analysis (CA) and the Whole of Government Approach (WGA) – and whether these new approaches have demonstrated improvements over pre-PFG assistance approaches. Information obtained within this section will feed into CCQ1 (advantages/disadvantages of the PFG approach to development assistance), CCQ2 (PFG impact on workload, and CCQ3 on the role of “non-assistance”). Regarding the WGA (to USG ONLY) The Whole of Government Approach (WGA) is relevant to identifying areas for assistance, selecting interventions, and determining implementation coordination. The approach reflects efforts to align each agency’s activities to achieve a common objective. 3. In your opinion, has the WGA led to change in the way the USG delivers development assistance in GOG? YES or NO? a. If yes, what kind of change? Please provide specific example(s). 4. In your opinion, compared to previous forms of development assistance, has the WGA approach in relation to the Government of Ghana (GOG) led to: a. Change(s) in design of development initiatives? (Please provide examples) b. Change(s) in management and coordination of development initiatives? (Please provide examples) c. Change(s) in operational efficiency? (Please explain and/or provide example(s)) Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 75 Regarding the WGA (to GOG ONLY): The Whole of Government Approach (WGA) is relevant to identifying areas for assistance, selecting interventions, and determining implementation coordination. The approach reflects efforts to align each agency’s activities to achieve a common objective, hence promoting inter￾agency coordination and collaboration NOTE FOR THE INTERVIEWER: Interviewers should prompt with “interagency efforts/collaboration” since WGA is not a widely used term. 5. Is WGA being implemented within the Government of Ghana? YES or NO. If yes, how is the WGA being implemented within the Government of Ghana? 6. In your opinion, compared to traditional forms of development assistance, has the WGA led to (if answer to the previous question is Yes): a. Change in design of development initiatives? (Please provide examples) b. Change in coordination of development initiatives? (Please provide examples) c. Change in operational efficiency? (Please provide examples) d. Change in workload? (Please provide examples) On non-assistance (Both USG and GOG) “Non-assistance” tools include diplomatic engagement, convening authority, and other forms of non-monetized assistance to engage both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in support of catalytic policy change and development priorities. Note to Interviewer: Consider the following terminology “non-aid assistance; “use of the Good Offices”…, if the interviewee is confused by the term. 7. What contribution has non-assistance made to the PFG process in Ghana? Please provide specific examples. 8. How can non-assistance (within the context of Ghana) be best utilized moving forward? Ghana - SPECIFIC QUESTIONS The following questions seek responses concerning whether the PFG has been developed in such a way to allow for an effective impact on the identified constraints and production of the desired outcomes. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 76 [Information obtained will feed into CSQ2 (if JCAP goal level commitments are capable of achieving the constraint level objectives and goals]. Joint Country Action Plan (JCAP) As you know, the Constraints Analysis (CA) was centered on identifying the central binding constraints to growth, but did not identify remedies to address these. The remedies were developed in the JCAP. 9. What indications do you have that the JCAP is performing its central task of guiding the PFG to perform and move in a direction that will solve the problems identified by the constraints analysis? 10. To what extent are the goal level (objective-level) commitments set forth in the JCAP capable of achieving the constraints-level objectives and outcomes? 11. Are the objectives and activities in the JCAP well defined remedies to overcome the constraints? YES or NO To the interviewer – objectives are goals, based on the terminology explanations above 12. Were there additional objectives (to the interviewer – these are goals, based on the terminology explanations above) and activities that you think should have been included in the PFG that do not already exist? Or were there objectives and activities that should not have been included? If yes, please list and explain. Technical Working Groups: The GOG PFG M&E Plan, to the JCAP requires two Technical Working Groups to be established to assess/conduct analysis of sector performance and overall performance in each of the two major program areas –name power and rural roads. Each of the Accra based TWGs, co-chaired by the GOG and USG has primary responsibility for coordinating on-the-ground activities for implementing the JCAP. 13. To your knowledge, have these TWG been fully established? YES or NO a. If yes, have they contributed to the implementation and monitoring of projects? b. How often have they met? c. In your opinion do the appropriate officials attend? d. How active are the members from the Private Sector Task Force in the TWG? Evidence-Based Decision-Making and Fact-Based Monitoring The following questions are in reference to PFG’s overarching goal of promoting evidence￾based decision-making and fact-based monitoring. [Information obtained will feed into CSQ2 (PFG emphasis on quantitative and objectively verifiable evidence feeding into decision-making and fact-based monitoring]. 14. The PFG model places specific emphasis on [1] evidence-based decision-making and [2] fact-based monitoring. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 77 a. Is quantitative and objectively verifiable information being used to manage JCAP implementation in order to achieve and measure results? YES or NO. Please explain why (whether Yes or No) b. How is evidence-based decision-making part of managing PFG? (Please illustrate and/or provide an example). c. How is “fact-based monitoring” designed and managed under PFG? (Please illustrate and/or provide an example). The GOG M&E Plan to the JCAP requires the involvement of the private sector, through the Private Sector Task Force, in the design and implementation of PFG. Particularly for: selection of benchmarks and indicators, as well as in developing plans to collect M&E data. 15. Has the private sector been involved in the design and monitoring strategy of PFG? YES or NO? a. Please explain how, and provide specific examples. 16. As stated in the GOG PFG M&E plan, monitoring of the JCAP occurs on two levels: (1) macro-level indicators, and (2) sector theme-specific programs and activities a. How has monitoring occurred at these two levels? b. What role do the scorecards play in monitoring, if any? c. Which people or committee(s) is tasked with conducting this monitoring? 17. From your point of view, are Scorecards used within the PFG initiative as a monitoring tool? YES or NO. a. If Yes, how do you assess the role of the PFG scorecards in monitoring performance and make sure the necessary outputs are produced to achieve the desired PFG objectives? b. If No, are you aware of why scorecards are not used? 18. Given that the PFG includes multiple objectives/goals and numerous activities and projects under each objective/ goal, how do you identify under-performing activities, and what systems are used to assess their impact on outcomes? 19. The PFG M&E Plan also states that high level representatives of both governments will perform a yearly “general review of JCAP implementation” (each July from 2013 to 2017). a. Have the yearly meetings occurred? YES or NO b. If yes, what format did the yearly July reviews of 2013 and 2014 take? What information was reviewed? Who participated? c. If no, why did they not occur? Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 78 d. What decisions were identified as a result of these meetings, and who were they shared with? 20. Which indicators were reviewed to gauge progress towards successfully addressing the two constraints? How were the activity level indicators taken into account for the 2013 and 2014 July reviews? 21. Did the conclusions of the review lead to specific actions (e.g. to overcome an obstacle identified during the review)? YES or NO. a. If “yes”, what were these actions and how have they been enacted? Note to interviewer – Skip this question if not applicable to the interviewee 22. The PFG M&E Plan states that progress on the underinvestment in the power sector sub constraint would be assessed by the following indicators (List) Was a written review of these indicators produced for the July 2013 and July 2014 reviews? YES or NO a. If No, how was the review of these indicators performed? Note to interviewer – Skip this question if not applicable to the interviewee 23. The PFG Monitoring and Evaluation Plan states that progress on the access to credit sub constraint would be assessed by the following indicators. (List) Was a written review of these indicators produced for the July 2013 and July2014 reviews? YES or NO a. If no, how was the review of these indicators performed? Note to interviewer – Skip this question if not applicable to the interviewee 24. The PFG M&E Plan states that progress on the inadequate institutional and technical capacity in the power sector would be assessed through the following indicators Was a written review of these indicators produced for the July 2013 and July2014 reviews? YES or NO a. If no, how was the review of these indicators performed? 25. The PFG M&E Plan states that progress on the inadequate access to finance and credit would be assessed through the following indicators. Was a written review of these indicators produced for the July 2013 and July2014 reviews? YES or NO a. If no, how was the review of these indicators performed? Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 79 Being on target, course-corrections, and moving forward [Information obtained will feed into CSQ3 (if selected interventions are on target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes)]. 26. Today, at the mid-term of implementation of the PFG approach, what evidence exists to demonstrate whether the overall GOG PFG performance is on target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes? 27. For each of the two constraints, and for each of the selected objectives (goals) [interviewer should name the objective/goal that is applicable to the respondent, if respondent does not work with a specific goal, ask question in general], are the various interventions GOG and USG committed to in the JCAP on target? YES or NO a. If yes, provide examples. b. If No, can you share reasons why they are behind? 28. In practice, under each constraint, and for the selected objectives/ goals [interviewer should name the goal that is applicable to the respondent, if respondent does not work with a specific goal, ask question in general], which M&E mechanisms are used to evaluate if interventions are on target or below target? Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 80 Interview Guide 2 – PFG ARCHITECTS/DESIGNERS Background Information: The Partnership for Growth (PFG) aims to achieve accelerated, sustained, broad-based economic growth in partner countries, including Ghana and the Republic of Tanzania, through bilateral agreements between the United States Government (USG) and the partnering countries’ national governments. Using principles set forth in President Obama’s September 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, the PFG requires rigorous, joint analyses of countries’ individual constraints to growth in order to develop joint action plans to address the most pressing of these constraints and to establish high-level mutual accountability for the goals and activities selected to alleviate them. This interview guide was designed to collect information on cross-cutting questions about the program. Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 2 are stakeholders directly involved with the design and planning of the Ghana PFG, or whose inputs were sought after for these processes. The stakeholders mainly include USG and GOG officials (current and former), representatives from private sector and other civil society organizations, as well as independent experts. Central Focus of Questions: The focus of the interview questions are on the PFG overall objectives, the role that Whole of Government Approach (WGA); Constraint Analysis (CA), Joint County Action Plan (JCAP), non-assistance, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and yearly performance reviews, play in the PFG performance. Methodology: Semi-structured interview. Approximately 1 hour. Respondent Background Information Date and Time of Interview: Name of Interviewer: Interviewee Name: Interviewee Stakeholder Type: Interviewee Occupation/ Title: Overall or “Goal Specific”: Length of Involvement with PFG: Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 81 Terminology Used  Constraints – these refer (as referenced in the JCAP and SOW) to the two main constraints – Power and Access to finance – that have been identified by Ghana to be tackled in order to remove economic constraints  Root Causes – these refer to the five broad topic areas that have been identified within each of the two main constraints. In the power sector they include: o (1) Improve Strategy and Planning; o (2) Strengthen Institutional, Regulatory and Structural Reform; o (3) Meet Electricity Demand and Increase Generation Capacity; o (4) Improve transmission and distribution infrastructure and operation o (5) Expand rural access.  Goals –– given that the SOW requests a goal-selection process, the 31 indicators provided in the SOW and viewed as outputs for the Ghana PFG initiative under each of the root causes listed under Constraint 1, inadequate and unreliable power, will be referred to as goals.  Activities and projects: Activities that are conducted to address these goals will be referred to as activities and projects and Lines of Action. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 82 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS On the WGA: The Whole of Government Approach (WGA) is relevant to identifying areas for assistance, selecting interventions, and determining implementation coordination. The approach reflects efforts to align the activities of each agency in order to achieve a common objective” 1. Have any changes been realized with how the design of development assistance initiatives (particularly in Ghana) has been approached as a result of the initiation of the WGA approach? YES or NO a. If yes, what are the changes? b. Please cite specific examples 2. Have there been distinctive differences between the PFG approach and other economic-growth development approaches? YES or NO a. If yes, please cite examples On the JCAP The Ghana CA was centered on identifying the central binding constraints to growth, but not on identifying remedies to address these. To address these remedies, the JCAP was produced. Is the JCAP fulfilling its role? 3. Are there any indication that the JCAP is leading towards the achievement of constraints-level objectives and outcomes? 4. Is there any evidence that the goal-level commitments set forth in the JCAP have been effective in achieving the constraints-level objectives and outcomes? On non-assistance “Non-assistance” tools include diplomatic engagement, convening authority, and other forms of non-monetized assistance to engage both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in support of catalytic policy change and development priorities. Note to Interviewer: Consider the following terminology “non-aid assistance; “use of the Good Offices”…, if the interviewee is confused by the term 5. What contribution (if any) has non-assistance made to the PFG process, in relation to Ghana? 6. How can non-assistance (within the context of Ghana) be best utilized moving forward? On evidence-based decision-making and fact-based monitoring Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 83 The PFG places specific emphasis on evidence-based decision-making, fact-based monitoring, and quantitative verifiable information. 7. With the initiation of the PFG, have changes been realized in terms of improving monitoring systems? 8. How was evidence-based decision making designed for the PFG initiative? What mechanisms were included in the design to inform its appropriate implementation? Please illustrate and/or provide an example. 9. How are ‘fact-based monitoring’ designed and managed under the PFG? What mechanisms were included in the design to inform its appropriate implementation? (Please illustrate and/or provide an example). The M&E Addendum also states that high level representatives of both governments will perform a yearly “general review of JCAP implementation” (to be completed from the M&E). 10. What was envisioned to be the outcome of these yearly meetings? Please provide specific examples. On the PFG Main Constraints Progress on the Power constrain would be gauged in particular through the following indicators 11. What was the rationale for choosing these indicators among others? Progress on the rural roads constraint would be gauged in particular through the following indicators 12. What was the rationale for choosing these indicators among others? On the PFG at Mid-Term 13. Today, at mid-term, is there any evidence that the overall Ghana PFG performance is on target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes? 14. The Constraints Analysis identifies challenges including corruption. What risk does this pose for PFG performance, if any? 15. If there are risks, what mechanisms is the PFG using to diminish these risks? Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 84 Interview Guide 3 - PFG Program Managers/ CORs Background Information: The Partnership for Growth (PFG) aims to achieve accelerated, sustained, broad-based economic growth in partner countries, including Ghana and Tanzania, through bilateral agreements between the United States Government (USG) and the partnering countries’ national governments. Using principles set forth in President Obama’s September 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, the PFG requires rigorous, joint analyses of countries’ individual constraints to growth in order to develop joint action plans to address the most pressing of these constraints and to establish high-level mutual accountability for the goals and activities selected to alleviate them. This interview guide was designed to collect information on cross-cutting questions about the program. Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 3 are active and former GOG and USG Program Managers who have directly worked on respective goal(s). Central Focus of Questions: This guide includes cross-cutting questions to gauge changes in the operational efficiency, selection, coordination, design, and management of development interventions under the PFG strategy as compared to previous / other approaches. Methodology: Semi-structured interview. Approximately 1 hour. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 85 Respondent Background Information Date and Time of Interview: Name of Interviewer: Interviewee Name: Interviewee Stakeholder Type: Interviewee Occupation/ Title: Overall or “Goal Specific”: Length of Involvement with PFG: Terminology Used  Constraints – these refer (as referenced in the JCAP and SOW) to the two main constraints – Power and Access to finance – that have been identified by Ghana to be tackled in order to remove economic constraints  Root Causes – these refer to the five broad topic areas that have been identified within each of the two main constraints. In the power sector they include: o (1) Improve Strategy and Planning; o (2) Strengthen Institutional, Regulatory and Structural Reform; o (3) Meet Electricity Demand and Increase Generation Capacity; o (4) Improve transmission and distribution infrastructure and operation o (5) Expand rural access.  Goals –– given that the SOW requests a goal-selection process, the 31 indicators provided in the SOW and viewed as outputs for the Ghana PFG initiative under each of the root causes listed under Constraint 1, inadequate and unreliable power, will be referred to as goals.  Activities and projects: Activities that are conducted to address these goals will be referred to as activities and projects and Lines of Action. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 86 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Advantages and disadvantages of the PFG approach in general 1. Based on your role as a Program Manager (in charge of implementing mechanisms) within the PFG initiative, has the PFG approach resulted in changes in the way responsibilities are shared or exercised among the USG agencies directly involved in your goal? YES or NO. a. If yes, how? b. What are the principal advantages and disadvantages of these changes? 2. Has the PFG resulted in changes in the implementation coordination process between USG and GOG agencies? YES or NO a. If yes, how? b. What are the main advantages and disadvantages of these changes? The following questions seek responses concerning how the Whole of Government Approach (WGA) and Joint Country Action Plans (JCAP) have demonstrated improvements (or not) over pre-PFG assistance approaches Regarding the WGA: The Whole of Government Approach (WGA) is relevant to identifying areas for assistance, selecting interventions, and determining implementation coordination. The approach reflects efforts to align each agency’s activities to achieve a common objective, hence promoting inter￾agency coordination and collaboration [NOTE FOR THE INTERVIEWER: Interviewers should prompt with "interagency efforts/collaboration" since WGA is not a widely used term.] 3. Are you aware of the WGA as described? 4. In your role as a Program Manager or COR, have you experienced how the WGA is being implemented within the PFG initiative? YES or NO a. If yes, please provide specific examples. [NOTE FOR INTERVIEWER: If the interviewee is not aware of the WGA under his/her goal: skip to question 6] 5. In your opinion, compared to traditional forms of development assistance, has the WGA led to: a. Change(s) in the design of development initiatives? (Please provide examples) b. Change(s) in the coordination of development initiatives? (Please provide examples) c. Change(s) in operational efficiency? (Please explain and/or provide example) Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 87 6. Has the WGA impacted the performance of the activities you are directing as a Program Manager or COR? YES or NO a. If yes, please explain and provide examples. Changes in development approach due the introduction of the Joint Country Action Plan (JCAP): As you know, while the Constraints Analysis identified the central binding constraints to growth, the Joint Country Action Plan (JCAP) defines the remedies to address these. 7. What indications do you have that the JCAP is performing its central task of guiding the PFG to perform and move in a direction that will solve the problems identified by the constraints analysis? a. How are these tied to your goals and activities/ projects you oversee? 8. As a Program Manager, do you consider that the JCAP is performing its central role in guiding the PFG to perform and move in the right direction? 9. For your goal, does the JCAP provide sufficient guidance on performance benchmarks for the activities? On non-assistance as an inherent part of the PFG: “Non-assistance” tools include diplomatic engagement, convening authority, and other forms of non-monetized assistance to engage both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in support of catalytic policy change and development priorities. 10. What role is non-assistance playing under your goal? Please provide an example. 11. Please provide examples of specific cases, e.g. of enhanced goodwill, access, receptivity, collaboration or additional or different resources (non-monetized ones, local level ones, etc.) 12. How can non-assistance be best utilized under your goal going forward? On evidence-based decision-making and fact based-monitoring: As you know, the PFG model places specific emphasis on [1] evidence-based decision-making and [2] fact-based monitoring. 13. For your goal, how do you use quantitative and objectively verifiable information to manage implementation in order to achieve and measure results? Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 88 14. For your goal, please provide examples of evidence-based decision-making? What role (if any) does “quantitative verifiable information” play in this decision-making? 15. Is there a specific M&E plan for your goal as a whole? Is there an M&E plan for each of the activities under your goal? When and how were these formulated? 16. Do you use a PFG-issued or a goal-specific M&E indicator system? How do your activities feed into this? How does your system feed into the PFG system in general? The PFG produces semi-annual scorecards per goal. 17. For your goal, how is consensus reached on the scorecard, given that various agencies and two governments are involved? If there was lack of consensus, how was it overcome? Note to interviewer – Skip this question if not applicable to the interviewee The PFG M&E Plan states that progress on the access to finance constraint would be gauged in particular through the following indicators (refer to M&E Addendum): 18. To what extent do these indicators reflect performance under your goal? 19. If any, which other indicator would you like to see included or removed, as related to your own goal? Note to interviewer – Skip this question if not applicable to the interviewee The PFG Monitoring and Evaluation Plan states that progress on Improving access to credit and strengthening the financial system would be assessed through the following indicators: 20. To what extent do these indicators reflect performance under your goal? 21. If any, which other indicator would you like to see included or removed, as related to your own goal? Note to interviewer – Skip this question if not applicable to the interviewee The PFG M&E Plan states that progress in the energy sector would be gauged in particular through the following indicators: cost recovery tariffs; IPP generation; installed generation capacity as a ratio of peak demand; reduction in the number and duration of outages; and increased cost coverage for the state owned utilities; and increase rural access and off-grid generation. 22. To what extent do these indicators reflect performance under your goal? 23. If any, which other indicator would you like to see included or removed, as related to your own goal? Progress on the institutional and technical capacity for robust energy sector planning and management root cause would be gauged in particular through the following indicators: (List indicators). Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 89 [This question is only for stakeholders involved in this constraint]. Note: insert similar questions for the rural roads constraints and indicators 24. To what extent do these indicators reflect performance under your goal? 25. If any, which other indicator would you like to see included, as related to your own goal? On being on-target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes: 26. At mid-term of PFG implementation, is there any evidence that the overall PFG performance is on target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes? Please provide specific example(s). 27. Is your goal(s) on target (or behind target)? Which M&E mechanisms are used to evaluate if goal(s) are on target (or behind target), beyond the scorecards? 28. Please provide examples of successes made and challenges faced with implementing your goal(s). 29. In what way do you coordinate with implementing partners within your goal to ensure that the performance of your goal is on target? Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 90 Interview Guide No. 4 – PROGRAM/ ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTERS (only for selected objectives/ goals) Background Information: The Partnership for Growth (PFG) aims to achieve accelerated, sustained, broad-based economic growth in partner countries, including Ghana and Tanzania, through bilateral agreements between the United States Government (USG) and the partnering countries’ national governments. Using principles set forth in President Obama’s September 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, the PFG requires rigorous, joint analyses of countries’ individual constraints to growth in order to develop joint action plans to address the most pressing of these constraints and to establish high-level mutual accountability for the goals and a selected to alleviate them. This interview guide was designed to collect information on cross￾cutting questions about the program. Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 4 are the implementers of all or selected activities under the selected goals. The interview will be performed primarily with the chiefs of party, directors, and/or coordinators or their representatives. Central Focus of Questions: The guide includes questions regarding the performance of PFG, the monitoring of activities, evidence based decision making, non-assistance, and beneficiaries. Methodology: Semi-structured interview with COP / director / coordinator. Given the detailed questioning, the COP will most likely be joined by team members, or part of the interview will be realized with team members directly. About 1 hour (per team). Overall Note to Interviewer: Some of the Goal Leads are activity Implementers. Therefore, there will be the need to ensure that repetitive questions are not asked. The evaluation coordination team will ensure that the appropriate guide is provided to the interviewer. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 91 Respondent Background Information Date and Time of Interview: Name of Interviewer: Interviewee Name: Interviewee Stakeholder Type: Interviewee Occupation: Job Title: Overall or “Goal Specific”: Length of Involvement with PFG: Terminology Used  Constraints – these refer (as referenced in the JCAP and SOW) to the two main constraints – Power and Access to finance – that have been identified by Ghana to be tackled in order to remove economic constraints  Root Causes – these refer to the five broad topic areas that have been identified within each of the two main constraints. In the power sector they include: o (1) Improve Strategy and Planning; o (2) Strengthen Institutional, Regulatory and Structural Reform; o (3) Meet Electricity Demand and Increase Generation Capacity; o (4) Improve transmission and distribution infrastructure and operation o (5) Expand rural access.  Goals –– given that the SOW requests a goal-selection process, the 31 indicators provided in the SOW and viewed as outputs for the Ghana PFG initiative under each of the root causes listed under Constraint 1, inadequate and unreliable power, will be referred to as goals.  Activities and projects: Activities that are conducted to address these goals will be referred to as activities and projects and Lines of Action. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 92 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS The following questions seek responses concerning whether the PFG has been developed in such a way as to allow for the eventual determination of their impact on addressing the identified constraints and desired outcomes. On the JCAP 1. To what extent are the activities you implement guided by the goal-level commitments set forth in the JCAP? 2. What indications do you have that the activities you and your team are implementing contribute to the corresponding goal as established in the JCAP? Technical Sub-committees: 3. The GOG PFG M&E Plan, to the JCAP requires Technical Sub-committees to be established to assess/conduct analysis of sector performance and overall performance of programs and how these contribute to PFG goals a. To your knowledge, have these Sub-committees been fully established and have they contributed to the implementation and monitoring of projects? The following questions seek responses concerning evidence based decision-making and fact based-monitoring. 4. As you know, the PFG model places specific emphasis on [1] evidence based decision￾making and [2] fact-based monitoring. a. Do your activities have a specific M&E plan? YES or NO? b. If yes, when and how were these formulated? 5. How is progress measured for your activities? Do you have set indicators for measuring progress? Please explain and provide specific examples. 6. Have any changes been made to your activity targets, if yes, what are these and why were the changes made? 7. The PFG is producing semi-annual scorecards per goal. Activity-level indicators are meant to feed into these. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 93 a. Are you aware about whether your activities are included in scorecard reporting? YES or NO? b. How do your activities and M&E processes feed into the scorecards? 8. The PFG M&E Plan also states that high level representatives of both governments will perform a yearly “general review of JCAP implementation” (each July from 2013 to 2017). a. Have the yearly meetings occurred? YES or NO? b. If yes, what format did the yearly July reviews of 2013 and 2014 take? What information was reviewed? Who participated? c. If no, why did they not occur? d. What decisions were identified as a result of these meetings, and who were they shared with? The following questions seek responses concerning beneficiaries: 12. How are the beneficiaries of your activity defined? 13. How do you monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your activities towards targeted beneficiaries? 14. Do your activities include systematized monitoring strategies? YES or NO? a. If yes, is the monitoring strategy defined generally by a PFG methodology or does each project have its own specific methodology tied to your clients M&E process (e.g. USAID policy)? 15. Is gender equality and/or gender mainstreaming among beneficiaries considered as a measure? If yes, how are you working towards attaining this measure? And how is gender equality measured for each activity? Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 94 Interview Guide No. 5 – INDEPENDENT EXPERTS Background Information: The Partnership for Growth (PFG) aims to achieve accelerated, sustained, broad-based economic growth in partner countries, including Ghana and Tanzania, through bilateral agreements between the United States Government (USG) and the partnering countries’ national governments. Using principles set forth in President Obama’s September 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, the PFG requires rigorous, joint analyses of countries’ individual constraints to growth in order to develop joint action plans to address the most pressing of these constraints and to establish high-level mutual accountability for the goals and activities selected to alleviate them. This interview guide was designed to collect information on cross-cutting questions about the program. Respondent Type: The targeted respondents for this semi-structured Interview Guide # 5 are independent experts. Experts include academics, subject matter experts, journalists and others who contribute to public debate on the PFG in general or specific areas of the PFG, but are not responsible for directing or implementing components of the PFG. The guide includes cross-cutting questions (to gauge changes in the operational efficiency, selection, coordination, design, and management of development interventions under the PFG strategy as compared to previous / other approaches) as well as goal and activity level related questions (the latter in particular will be contextualized for the specific area of expertise of the interviewee at hand). Methodology: Semi-structured interview with independent experts, approximately 1 hour. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 95 Respondent Background Information Date and Time of Interview: Interviewee Name: Interviewee Stakeholder Type: Interviewee Occupation/ Job Title: Overall or “Goal Specific”: Length of Involvement with PFG: Terminology Used  Constraints – these refer (as referenced in the JCAP and SOW) to the two main constraints – Power and Access to finance – that have been identified by Ghana to be tackled in order to remove economic constraints  Root Causes – these refer to the five broad topic areas that have been identified within each of the two main constraints. In the power sector they include: o (1) Improve Strategy and Planning; o (2) Strengthen Institutional, Regulatory and Structural Reform; o (3) Meet Electricity Demand and Increase Generation Capacity; o (4) Improve transmission and distribution infrastructure and operation o (5) Expand rural access.  Goals –– given that the SOW requests a goal-selection process, the 31 indicators provided in the SOW and viewed as outputs for the Ghana PFG initiative under each of the root causes listed under Constraint 1, inadequate and unreliable power, will be referred to as goals.  Activities and projects: Activities that are conducted to address these goals will be referred to as activities and projects and Lines of Action. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 96 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Advantages and disadvantages of the PFG WGA: The Whole of Government Approach (WGA) is relevant to identifying areas for assistance, selecting interventions, and determining implementation coordination. The approach reflects efforts to align each agency’s activities to achieve a common objective NOTES TO INTERVIEWER: ‐ it is likely that the independent experts will not know too much about WGA, so when interviewing be careful to denote if there is confusion with the response, for analysis purposes] ‐ Interviewers should prompt with “interagency efforts/collaboration” since WGA is not a widely used term. 1. Are you familiar with the PFG-WGA? YES or NO (if no, skip to question #4) 2. From your point of view, has the PFG WGA in Ghana led to change coordination between the Government of Ghana (GOG) and the U.S. Government (USG) on selecting, planning and implementing growth-oriented development programs? YES or NO. a. If yes, what changes in leadership, coordination and distribution of responsibilities have you observe? Please provide specific examples. 3. What are the principal advantages and disadvantages of the PFG Initiative and approaches to development? Please provide specific examples. The role of “non-assistance” under the PFG: “Non-assistance” tools include diplomatic engagement, convening authority, and other forms of non-monetized assistance to engage both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in support of catalytic policy change and development priorities. Note to Interviewer: Consider the following terminology “non-aid assistance; “use of the Good Offices”…, if the interviewee is confused by the term. 4. In your opinion (if you are aware of this concept), what contribution has non-assistance made to the PFG process in Ghana? Please provide specific examples. (If they do not know what non-assistance is then skip to question 7). 5. How do you think non-assistance has contributed to the PFG initiative in Ghana? 6. How do you think PFG can best measure “non-assistance” and its contribution to reaching its overall objectives for the PFG initiative in Ghana? Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 97 Constraint selection and performance The PFG initiative in Ghana identified two binding constraints to growth – inadequate power and access to finance and credit. Within these constraints, the underlying problems that contribute to both the limited and unpredictable power supply and inadequate access to credit are each organized around 5 broad headings. For example in the power sector: (i) improve policy, strategy and planning; (ii) institutional, regulatory and structure reform; (iii) increase generation capacity to meet demand for electricity: (iv) improve transmission and distribution infrastructure and operation; and (v) improve rural access. Under these 5 development interventions there are 16 goals and 59 specific Lines of Action (LOA) that aim to address the constraints. 7. Based on your observations of the PFG initiative in Ghana, what is your opinion on the effectiveness of the program in responding to these constraints? Please provide specific examples. On JCAP Goal-Level Commitments As you know, the Constraints Analysis (CA) was centered on identifying the central binding constraints to growth, but did not identify remedies to address these. To address these remedies, the Joint Country Action Plan (JCAP) was produced. 8. In your opinion, to what extent are the goal-level commitments set forth in the JCAP capable of achieving the constraints-level objectives and outcomes? 9. Were there additional goals and activities that you think should have been included in the Initiative that do not already exist? YES or NO. a. If yes, please list and explain. The use of quantitative, objectively and verifiable information to achieve and measure results: 10. How do the PFG performance indicators and its M&E methodology compare to practices used in pre-PFG approaches? 11. In your opinion or within your expertise, how relevant, objective and verifiable are the quantitative indicators the PFG is using? Please provide specific examples if known. On being on target and creating the necessary outputs to achieve the desired outcomes: Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 98 12. Are you familiar with the PFG scorecards? YES or NO. (if No, skip this the next question) 13. From your point of view, how do you assess the role of the PFG scorecards in monitoring performance and making sure the necessary outputs are produced to achieve the desired PFG objectives? 14. Which indicators or measuring instruments other than the scorecards (if any) would be best suited to monitor the development activities, goal-level commitments and constraint level objectives and outcomes? Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 99 ANNEX 6. CONFIDENTIAL ONLINE SURVEYS Sample survey from PFG Ghana evaluation Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 1 of 15 Dear Respondent, You are receiving this questionnaire because of your general affiliation with and/or knowledge of the Partnership for Growth program (PFG) initiative between the Governments of Ghana and the United States of America. This is a confidential survey and your identity will be known only to the evaluation team and will not be shared. All survey responses are treated by the International Development Group, LLC as strictly confidential. None of the individual responses will be reported or made public. All the information obtained from the online questionnaire will be used in an aggregate format that will not allow for any individual response to be identified. This is to ensure that your responses can be as frank as possible, without concern for the possible sensitivities of any other parties. It is a brief questionnaire that should take less than 20 minutes to complete. Your participation is absolutely voluntary. If you wish not to answer a question, simply skip it and move to the next one. By participating in this survey you are giving your informed consent. The confidential information you provide will be invaluable to the successful conduct of the PFG evaluation. Please complete the survey no later than Friday, March 27, 2015. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact IDG at pfgsurvey@internationaldevelopmentgroup.com. Please read the response options very carefully before making your selections. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 100 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 2 of 15 The Partnership for Growth (PFG) was initiated in 2011 through bilateral agreements between the United States Government (USG) and partnering countries’ national governments (Ghana and Tanzania) with the aim of achieving accelerated, sustained, broad-based economic growth in partner countries. The PFG requires the identification of countries’ constraints to growth in order to develop a joint plan to address the most pressing of these constraints. It also requires transparency, mutual accountability and fact-based monitoring and evaluation. The following questions request information on the PFG’s ability to meet these goals. This section of the survey asks questions concerning your affiliation. Q1. What is/was your role on the PFG? Select all that apply. Leadership USG Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Government of Ghana (GOG) Project/ Program Manager Project Implementer Other If you selected “Other”, please describe: Q2. Are you presently/currently involved with PFG? Yes No Q3. If no, were you involved with PFG in the past? Yes No Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 101 Page 3 of 15 This section of the survey asks questions concerning your assignment and workload on PFG. Q4. To the best of your recollection, when did you begin work on PFG? More than 2 years ago Between 1 and 2 years ago One year ago or less Q5. The Whole-of-Government approach encourages inter-agency coordination so that the resources and knowledge bases of different agencies can be brought to bear on a development issue within the purview of their expertise. Does the PFG initiative that you are currently or previously worked on aligned with the Whole-of-Government Approach (WGA)? Very poorly aligned with WGA Poorly aligned with WGA Adequately aligned with WGA Well aligned with WGA Very well aligned with WGA Q.6 Please explain why the initiative is not better aligned with WGA. Q7. For your agency/ institution, did you have a role in the planning and development of PFG in/for Ghana? Yes No Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 102 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 4 of 15 Q8. For approximately how many weeks were you involved in the planning and development of PFG? (Please enter a non-negative, numeric value only, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 4.75, etc.) weeks Q9. During the PFG planning and development stages, approximately how many hours per week, on average, did you dedicate to these tasks? Zero 1 to 5 hours 6 to 10 hours 11 to 15 hours 16 to 20 hours More than 20 hours per week Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 103 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 5 of 15 Q10. Do you have experience planning, implementing or monitoring development projects outside of PFG? Yes No Q11. Like all activities, PFG has costs and benefits. Compared to other development projects outside of PFG with which you are familiar, would you consider PFG to have: Benefits considerably less than costs Benefits somewhat less than costs Benefits about equal to costs Benefits somewhat greater than costs Benefits considerably greater than costs Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 104 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 6 of 15 Q12. As a result of your involvement with PFG, did your workload Increase significantly Increase somewhat Stay about the same Decrease somewhat Decrease significantly Q.13 What non-PFG responsibilities and activities have been/were affected by the changes in your PFG responsibilities and activities? Please describe. Q14. On average, about how much time per week do/did your PFG responsibilities require? Zero 1 to 5 hours 6 to 10 hours 11 to 15 hours 16 to 20 hours More than 20 hours per week Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 105 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 7 of 15 Q15. As a result of your involvement with PFG, for each of the tasks in the table, did your workload change? Increase significantly Increase somewhat Stay about the same Decrease somewhat Decrease significantly PFG task coordination with colleagues within my government PFG task coordination with colleagues in other (partner) governments Monitoring progress (indicators, site visits, milestones) of PFG tasks Communicating on PFG with my superiors and senior leadership in my government Managing PFG activities Designing and/or procuring PFG activities Other administrative tasks Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 106 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 8 of 15 Q16. On average, about how many hours per week are/were dedicated to the PFG tasks in the table? (Please enter non-negative, numeric values only) Average Hours per Week PFG task coordination with colleagues within my government PFG task coordination with colleagues in other (partner) governments Monitoring progress (indicators, site visits, milestones) of PFG tasks Communicating on PFG with my superiors and senior leadership in my government Managing PFG activities Designing and/or procuring PFG activities Other administrative tasks Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 107 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 9 of 15 We would like to ask you a few brief questions about your perceptions of the PFG approach in Ghana. Q17. In your opinion, compared to other approaches to development assistance intended to affect economic growth, does the PFG represent … A significant step backwards A step backwards No change An improvement A significant improvement Don’t know Q18. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: PFG is on track in meeting its objective of achieving higher, sustained and more inclusive economic growth in the Ghana. Strongly disagree Disagree Neither disagree nor agree Agree Strongly agree Don’t know Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 108 Q19. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The Whole-of-Government Approach embodied in PFG appears to be more effective in advancing economic growth in the Ghana as compared to more traditional development approaches. Strongly disagree Disagree Neither disagree nor agree Agree Strongly agree Don’t know Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Agency Survey Page 10 of 15 Q20. One of PFG’s goals is to employ “non-assistance” development tools. “Non-assistance” tools include diplomatic engagement, convening authority, and other forms of non-monetized assistance to engage both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in support of catalytic policy change and development priorities. Have you seen non-assistance tools being used in the PFG Ghana activity you are or were involved with? Yes No Not sure Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 109 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 11 of 15 Q21. Can you briefly describe the non-assistance tools/approaches you have seen in Tanzania, and how they were used? Example no. 1: Example no. 2: Example no. 3: Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 110 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 12 of 15 Q22. To what extent do you agree with the following statement? “The implementation of the Joint Country Action Plan (JCAP) in Ghana is adequately monitored by quantitative indicators”. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Q23. In your opinion, are appropriate indicators being used to guide transparent, accountable and fact-based monitoring of the PFG in Ghana? The best available indicators are not being used Some of the best available indicators are being use The best available indicators are being used Not sure how to judge the appropriateness of indicators Not aware of which indicators are being used / Not applicable Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 111 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Page 13 of 15 Q24. Can you provide some examples of alternative indicators to guide transparent, accountable, fact-based monitoring of the PFG in Ghana? Example no. 1: Example no. 2: Example no. 3: Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 112 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Agency Survey Page 14 of 15 Q.25 Below we present some general statements made to the evaluation team by some of your colleagues. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree PFG in Ghana needs a committed management structure The Joint Technical working groups in PFG in Ghana have been effective in managing JCAP implementation The PFG Steering Committee should take a stronger role in monitoring progress towards meeting the objectives of the PFG initiative in Ghana The PFG process was marked by speedy implementation of projects and activities The goals/activities established by the JCAP fully address the binding constraints to growth in Ghana as identified by the PFG constraints analysis. Partnership for Growth Cross-Cutting Report: Ghana and Tanzania Page 113 Partnership for Growth Government Agency Survey Agency Survey Page 15 of 15 Q26. In your opinion, what are the main strengths of PFG initiative in Ghana? Q27. In your opinion, what are the main weaknesses of PFG initiative in Ghana? Survey Completed Thank you for your valuable contribution to the PFG evaluation.