July 15, 2007 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Harvey Herr. USAID COMMUNITY STABILIZATION PROGRAM (CSP) COUNTERINSURGENCY (COIN): COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES PROJECTS IN BAGHDAD USAID COMMUNITY STABILIZATION PROGRAM (CSP) COUNTERINSURGENCY (COIN): COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES PROJECTS IN BAGHDAD International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 8614 Westwood Center Drive Suite 400 Vienna, VA 22182 Contracted under 267-C-00-05-00508-0 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 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................2 III. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................3 Figure 1. The CSP Project Development Process ...............................................................................................4 IV. FINDINGS OF THE AD HOC CIES PROJECT MONITORING REPORT..........................................4 PROJECTS TO BE MONITORED ....................................................................................................................................4 Table 1. Summary of projects visited by type and status......................................................................................4 1. Completed Projects ....................................................................................................................................5 Table 2. For completed projects: is the project being used as intended? ............................................................5 Table 3. For completed projects: is the equipment being maintained? ...............................................................5 Table 4. For completed projects: who is responsible for maintaining the site? ..................................................5 Table 5. For completed projects: was there participation in project design and did the project meet their needs? ..................................................................................................................................................................6 Table 6. How projects made a difference in daily lives .......................................................................................6 Table 7. Field monitor notes and recommendations............................................................................................7 2. Ongoing Projects........................................................................................................................................8 Table 8. For ongoing projects: is there activity at the site? ................................................................................8 Table 9. For ongoing projects: employment generated?....................................................................................9 Table 10. For ongoing projects: obstacles faced during project implementation...........................................10 Table 11. For ongoing projects: proposals to help implementation. .................................................................12 Table 12. For ongoing projects: notes and recommendations. ........................................................................13 V. LESSONS LEARNED .....................................................................................................................................15 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................15 ANNEXES ANNEX A. LIST OF PROJECTS TO BE MONITORED. ..................................................................................16 ANNEX B. FIELD MONITOR DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT FOR COMPLETED PROJECTS...17 ANNEX C. FIELD MONITOR DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS FOR ONGOING PROJECTS. .....19 ANNEX D. TRANSLATED FIELD MONITOR SITE VISIT REPORTS. .........................................................20 i List of Acronyms AoR Area of Responsibility (of IPs) BOQ Bill of Quantity CA Cooperative Agreement CAG Community Action Group CERP Commander’s Emergency Relief Program CHRR Commander’s Humanitarian Relief and Reconstruction Fund CIES Community Infrastructure and Essential Services CMT Community Mobilization Team (of IPs) COP Chief of Party COSIT Central Organization for Statistics and Information Technology (of Iraq) CSO Civil Society Organization CSP Community Stabilization Program CTO Cognizant Technical Officer DAC District Advisory Council DCOP Deputy Chief of Party EBDP Economic and Business Development Program (of IRD) EOP End of Project or Program FY Fiscal Year GOI Government of Iraq HQ Headquarters HR Human Resources IBTCI International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. ICAP Iraq Community Action Program ICSP Iraq Civil Society Program IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result IRD International Relief and Development IRMO Iraq Reconstruction Management Organization IRRF Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund IT Information Technology LG Local Government LGP Local Governance Program LOE Level of Effort LOP Life of Project or Program Marla Marla Ruzicka Innocent Victims of War Fund (formerly, the Leahey Program) M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEPP II Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II MIS Management Information System MOE Ministry of Education MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSME Micro, Small or Medium Enterprise N/A Not Applicable NAC Neighborhood Advisory Council n.d. No Data NGO Non-Governmental Organization OJT On-the-job Training PMP Performance Management Plan PC Provincial Council PRS Project Reporting System PRT Provincial Reconstruction Team PWD Person With Disabilities Q Quarter RF Results Framework ii RFA Request for Application RIG Regional Inspector General SCIRI Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq SME Small or Medium Enterprise SO Strategic Objective SOW Scope of Work SPSS SPSS predictive analytics software www.spss.com TA Technical Assistance UN United Nations US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government USM United States Military WB World Bank Y1, Y2, Y3 Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 iii International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 1 MONITORING SELECTED COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES ACTIVITIES FROM THE COMMUNITY STABILIZATION PROGRAM1 I. Introduction The United States is committed to the future success of Iraq. Within USAID/Iraq’s Transition Strategic Plan 2006-2008, the first of four strategies delineated is “Focused Stabilization: Reduce the incentives for participation in violent conflict.” To help plan and manage the process of assessing and reporting progress towards achieving its strategic objectives, USAID/Iraq (hereinafter the “Mission”) made final its Performance Management Plan (PMP) in August 2006. In the PMP document, consistent with earlier Mission objectives, the strategy to reduce the incentives for participation in violent conflict is identified as Strategic Objective 7 (SO 7). The Community Stabilization Program (CSP) is an element of this transition strategy that aims at reducing the incentives for participation in violent conflict. The CSP is seen as a key element to transition Iraq to a stable, democratic and prosperous country. Towards this end a Request for Application (RFA) number 267-06-001 was issued on 2 January 2006 seeking applicants to implement the “Focused Stabilization in Strategic Cities Initiative” (FSSCI). As defined in the RFA, the purpose of FSSCI (now the CSP) is to complement military security efforts, and civilian local government development, with economic and social stabilization efforts. Specifically, the objectives of CSP are to: 1) create jobs and develop employable skills with a focus on unemployed youth, 2) revitalize community infrastructure and essential services, 3) support established businesses and develop new sustainable businesses, and 4) help mitigate conflict in selected communities. By carrying out these activities the CSP implementing partner should achieve measurable progress to contribute towards the Mission’s SO 7. The PMP identifies the measurable indicators that will evidence the achievement of the SO. International Relief and Development (IRD) were awarded the cooperative agreement (267-A￾00-06-00503-00) under the RFA on 29 May 2006. Initial funding under the CSP award limited activities to Baghdad. In the winning application dated 15 May, 2006 IRD specified its intention for the Baghdad area. IRD defined in its application a “Baghdad city action plan” that includes projects to “improve, revitalize, and expand small scale municipal services such as: neighborhood water and sanitation systems, trash removal and disposal, rehabilitation of schools, clinics, roadway and streets improvements, public market places, playgrounds and other community facilities. These municipal service projects are intended to generate employment opportunities for ordinary labor, artisans, skilled technicians, contractors, and other vendors.” IRD proposed a rapid-start (first 60 days) in Baghdad leveraging more than two years of ICAP experience to conduct meaningful pre-award activities to ensure rapid success. The rapid start program anticipated implementation of specific community infrastructure and essential services (CIES) projects immediately upon program startup. IRD has extensive experience in 1 Names of some organizations and people have been removed for security reasons. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 2 implementing a wide variety of CIES activities, utilizing skilled and un-skilled labor to repair roads, clean streets and rehabilitate schools, health clinics, community centers and sports facilities. This rapid start was expected to jump-start the development of effective local government services by redirecting local energies toward productive economic and social opportunities, and away from insurgency activities. It is these CIES projects that are the subject of this report. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) implements the USAID funded Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II). Under MEPP II, IBTCI has been tasked to provide field monitors to assist USAID to monitor projects it cannot otherwise reach. IBTCI entered into a subcontract agreement with the to supply full-time field monitors and regional field monitor team leaders. This agreement was approved in April 2006. IBTCI was instructed by USAID to monitor CIES projects from IRDs CSP project list. This report presents the results of monitoring CIES projects located in Baghdad. II. Background On 19 November 2006 the IBTCI was notified by the CTO about “ideas for field surveys.” Among the ideas was to use the IBTCI monitors for the CSP program to confirm and validate projects that had been initiated through IRD by the CSP program. This initial monitoring proved successful, and has led to this follow-on effort that continues to monitor the rapidly expanding number of CSP projects. The specific assignment was to use the field monitors to: a) Confirm location and status of on-going projects and activities, and provide the required evidence of their existence; b) Assess that progress is in fact being accomplished in a satisfactory manner in terms of the implementation of projects and/or activities; c) Identify any problems or obstacles encountered during implementation, and provide recommendations for improvement; d) Assess the quality of projects, activities or services to be provided in relation to required specifications and standards; e) Assess community participation and/or level of customer satisfaction of projects and activities, as well as services provided (i.e. training); f) Assess if projects are being used for their intended purpose when completed, and of their continuation after the conclusion of program support; g) Assess participation and coordination of CSP with local governments, communities, and with other U.S. government agencies For this second round of monitoring, the IBTCI field supervisors met with IRD mobilizers on 20 May, 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to confirm a specific list of projects that were to be monitored (Annex A); confirm what was to be determined about the projects; and to establish the lines of communication that will allow the field monitors safely to access the projects. The meeting agreed that the monitors would follow the same procedures used for the initial monitoring. This procedure established an initial IRD point of contact (POC), as well as a POC from IBTCI. This second round of project monitoring began on 21 May 2007. At the outset 62 projects were randomly selected from the comprehensive list of CSP projects in Baghdad. A subsequent meeting reduced this number to 45. A decision was made to exclude certain completed projects International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) identified as clean up campaigns, because these provided limited information once complete. It was anticipated that the field monitoring of the 45 projects could be completed in three weeks. Keeping to the schedule meant that field coordination with project managers and other stakeholders in the project development process needed to be flawless and that the visit areas were permissive at the time of the proposed visits. To achieve this, the field monitors remained in contact with the IRD staff as well as IBTCI. III. Methodology Field monitors used the data collection instruments in Annex B and C. Two data collection instruments were designed to be used with either completed (Annex B) or ongoing projects (Annex C). Field monitors were led to the project sites by the IRD field staff to meet with each project manager. Field monitors attempted to obtain from the project officer the project Bill of Quantity (BoQ) and other information that would assist in their monitoring. IRD has designed a project development process for the CSP illustrated below in Figure 1. It is an elaborate process designed to include the local government in the approval process. Monitors were instructed to attempt to walk through the process for selected projects (to do so for all projects would not have been possible in the time frame). The field monitors assessed customer satisfaction through group discussions with project users or with the local councils (NACs and DACs). The results of this assessment are qualitative rather than quantitative as would have been provided with a full-blown household survey of the project catchments area. Questions included in the site visit instruments are the basis for customer satisfaction estimates. Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 3 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 4 Figure 1. The CSP Project Development Process Although not specifically mentioned in the in the assignment list above, it became clear that we needed further confirmation on employment generated and compliance with project approval processes outlined in Figure 1 above. Employment figures come from the PO (project officer) with oversight provided by Quality Assurance/Quality Control officers. The confirmatory questions about employment were asked of NAC or DAC members; or of the company contracted to provide the services. Confirmation that employment came from the local community was key. The translated individual reports from the field monitors are attached in Annex D and identified by their description as it appears in Annex A. The individual reports are summarized in the next section of this report. In our initial field monitoring of CSP projects monitors were asked to revisit some of the sites where there was a lack of clarity in the initial reports or to seek additional information. In this second round of monitoring it was not necessary to revisit any of the projects. IV. Findings of the Ad Hoc CIES Project Monitoring Report Projects to be Monitored Initially sixty-two projects were chosen at random for monitoring from the comprehensive list of Baghdad CSP CIES project s. Most of the projects can be characterized as rapid CIES start-up projects intended to generate short term employment opportunities in the target communities. There are four categories of project on this list: clean up campaigns, supplying equipment to critical local government offices, facility rehabilitation, and one youth project. As noted above, on consultation with the CSP partner it was decided not to visit all of the completed ‘clean up campaign’ projects that had been selected as there would be little to learn from site visits. This reduced the number of projects to be monitored to 45. Only the facility rehabilitation projects involve construction and hence would require engineering approvals from the LG. All 45 of the ongoing or completed projects were located, but two project site visits could not be completed. In one case a worsening security situation prevented the site visit, and in another the hospital administrator at the project site was not available. Thirty-one of the 43 completed project site visits were to ongoing projects with the remaining 12 visits to completed projects. Table 1. Summary of Projects Visited by Type and Status. Type of Project Ongoing Completed Total Completed and Ongoing Cleaning Campaign 25 4 29 Supply Equipment 3 4 Rehabilitation 6 4 11 Youth 1 1 Total 31 12 43 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 5 Overall, and by a wide margin, projects were found to be successful. There were few contrary indications. Many projects, however, were negatively influenced during implementation by a lack of coordination with the military units operating in the area. Findings from the field visits are summarized in the tables below. The tables are summaries of the questions asked in the field visit instruments shown in the annexes. 1. Completed Projects Table 2 summarizes completed project utilization. Respondents involved with one of the cleaning campaigns noted that the project was not being used as expected. In this instance the community was waiting for a second clean up campaign to begin. In the case of two site visits, monitors could not determine whether the sites were being used for its intended purpose. Table 2. For Completed Projects: Is the project being used as intended? Q12: Is the site being used? Q13: Is the site being used for its intended purpose? Yes 11 10 No 1 0 Not Stated 0 2 When equipment was supplied in completed projects (8 of the 12 projects) monitors asked whether the equipment supplied had been maintained. Two of the eight equipment supply projects answered that the equipment was not being maintained. Both of these instances were for schools, where bathrooms and doors had been supplied and installed, but no maintenance person was identified. Table 3. For Completed Projects: Is the equipment being maintained? Q15: If supplies or equipment were provided, has it been maintained? Yes 6 No 2 Not Stated 0 Respondents were asked to identify who was responsible for maintaining the site. For three of the eight completed projects no one had been identified. Training in maintenance was provided to four of the five projects where individuals were identified. Table 4. For Completed Projects: Who is responsible for maintaining the site? Q17: Who is responsible for maintaining the site? No one, or no one yet assigned 3 Name provided 5 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 6 Six of the completed projects reported that records were kept on the usage of the site, and all six were able to provide usage statistics. These six projects were school refurbishment, hospital equipment supply, and youth projects. Six projects did not keep usage records, but these were clean up campaigns where long term record keeping was not anticipated. Field Reports 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 41 report usage statistics. For completed projects the field monitors attempted to obtain user satisfaction indications by interviewing members of the councils or users who happened to be at the site during the time of the interview. These findings are summarized below. Each of the field reports for completed projects included the results of a group discussion. Groups ranged in size from 5 to 40. Overall the discussants were split evenly between men and women (94 men, 90 women). However, six of the groups had no women present, and two had no men present (girls schools). All 12 of the groups said that they had participated in the design of the project. Seven local councils were interviewed as discussant groups: six were for cleaning campaign projects, and one for hospital equipment. Other discussant groups were the management of the facilities (schools and youth facilities). Two of the groups indicated that the project did not meet their needs citing the need for additional sports facilities, and the other the need for additional school facilities. Table 5. For Completed Projects: Was there participation in project design and did the project meet their needs? Q30: Did you participate in the design of this site? Q31: Does this site meet your needs? Yes 12 10 No 0 2 Not Stated 0 0 Three of the respondents were not happy with the way the sites have been maintained (Q33). In two cases it was stated that a specialist needed to be employed to do the maintenance, and in the case of the hospital it was stated that staff from the Ministry of Health needed to visit the facility. In two cases even though respondents thought the maintenance to be satisfactory they nevertheless thought that employment of maintenance person would improve matters. All discussants agreed that the project was useful to the community, and that the project had made a difference to their daily lives. Table 6 lists the reasons expressed regarding the impact on their daily lives. Table 6. How Projects Made a Difference in Daily Lives Field Report Number Q39: How has the project made a difference in your daily life? 4 Providing jobs, removing garbage from the street 12 The school didn’t have a sanitary toilets and electrical things and water tanks 13 The school damaged & without bathrooms but now it is the opposite 14 Moisture level was high in the school and there were no bathrooms and no doors for classrooms but now these facilities exist International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 7 17 Now it is possible to start training courses regularly and cases of players getting hurt now less due to repairing the stadium Field Report Number Q39: How has the project made a difference in your daily life? 18 Now it is possible to increase activities and accomplishments 33 Increase cultural awareness among people of the area 37 Hiring workers from the area itself so this would reduce joblessness, removing garbage from streets 41 After supplying the hospital it became possible to treat health cases there 42 Providing jobs for the unemployed and making use of rubble which has been removed in order to build a bridge over a water filtration structure. 43 Reducing the garbage gathered in streets and making use of yards and using them as public parks 44 There is no garbage in yards and streets The now seasoned field monitors were asked to provide recommendations and comments. These are noted below in Table 7. Table 7. Field Monitor Notes and Recommendations Field Report Number Field Monitor Proposals and Conclusions 4 1. The campaign is good and it is noticed that there is cooperation by the municipality by distributing garbage bags for citizens 9 1. Not looked at (hospital manager not available) 12 1. The school needs a rear gate and needed furniture and computers to develop students 13 1. The school needs extra classrooms due to large number of students and it also needs copying apparatuses, computers, and furniture 14 1. The project is very useful for the school 2. The school outside fence is about to fall 3. The school needs an additional outside door, copying apparatuses and furniture 17 1. The project is very useful but the club was idle at the time of the interview due to rain. However, it was obvious that club members were satisfied by the project 18 1. Three stadiums in the center need to be paved with tarmac and the center needs furniture and sports equipment. 33 1. The project is useful in improving local hygiene and in providing jobs to local people 2. Many questions from residents about the start of the new campaign 37 1. The campaign is good and its purpose has been achieved 41 1. Supplying the hospital well according to views of doctors and in a way which serves in treating about 85% of health cases 42 1. The campaign is very useful to the local area regarding hygiene and job opportunities International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 8 2. The local area needs to pave the unpaved streets 43 1. The garbage containers are distributed well within the main streets and internal areas 44 1. It has been noticed that garbage containers are misused in the area of Shuqaq due to lack of awareness of the people in this area 2. Ongoing Projects. All but three (field reports 3, 19, 28) of the ongoing sites visited had active work underway at the time of the field monitor’s visit. With the ongoing project form, field monitors were asked to identify obstacles to progress and to make recommendations that might help the project proceed. At one site where no active work was apparent one or more of the contract laborers had been murdered the week before. A second project (19) reporting no activity has a contractual dispute, and the third project without ongoing activity was stalled due to security and the report that workers had been murdered. Community contribution is an important tenet of community project development that ensures “ownership.” Community ownership is commonly provided through residents’ unpaid labor. In the CSP program paid labor to those in the age cohort that is vulnerable to participation in violence is used as a means to reduce insurgent incidents. This paid labor is coupled with citizen participation in a project that benefits the community. The anticipated result couples a reduction in the participation in violence with community ownership of the project. Field monitors asked the NACs, DACs and project managers whether the community participated with “sweat equity”.2 All but five said that there was community participation through labor used as a community contribution. There were five projects reporting no “sweat equity” (field reports 15, 20, 27, 28 and 39). Reasons for not providing “sweat equity” were not always precise. Projects 15 and 20 were school rehabilitation using labor hired by the contractor. Projects 27, 28 and 39 were cleanup campaigns that employed many persons. Project 39 was in Mansour where there is currently an influx of migrants that has swelled the population and increased the problems of hygiene. According to the project report more attention is needed in this area if the cleanup campaign is to have any lasting impact. Table 8. For Ongoing Projects: Is there activity at the site? Q11: Is there active work on the site Q12. Is the community involved in the work on the site providing “sweat equity?” Yes 28 26 No 3 5 Generating employment is a major purpose of the cleaning campaign projects. With Question 14 field enumerators asked the NACs, DACs, project managers and contractors for the number of persons employed by gender. These figures are reported in IRD’s weekly reports under “Public Works Projects: Short-Medium-Term Employment Program.” The monitor’s findings roughly corresponded to numbers given in the IRD weekly report for the corresponding neighborhoods. Some variance is expected since monitors collect information for a particular 2 Interviews were held with the council head and the council member identified with the campaign or project. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 9 day, and the IRD report is based on average daily figures. All employed by the projects were male (arguably the correct strategy for the community stabilization projects). More than 11,000 men received short and medium-term employment through these projects. Table 9. For Ongoing Projects: Employment Generated? Field Report # Male Female 1 50 2 180 3 30 5 480 6 700 7 490 8 820 10 225 11 400 15 15 16 80 19 20 20 20 21 120 22 700 23 600 24 200 25 210 26 66 27 400 28 450 29 420 30 800 31 Not visited 32 700 34 500 35 800 36 800 38 350 39 150 40 150 45 160 Total 11086 Field monitors were asked to assess workmanship on the project. While this was intended more for construction projects the monitors applied it to the clean up campaigns as well. The rating scale employed measures the extent to which a project meets an acceptable standard. This is a qualitative assessment by the monitor, recorded as a percentage of the standard met. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 10 Monitors indicated that five of the ongoing projects fell below the 3rd rank on the scale (field reports 11, 28, 32, 39, and 40). When this occurs monitors are required to specify why they believe the rank is low. For projects 11, 28 and 32 the low rank was due to an adverse security situation that prevented completion of the project. In the remaining instance (field report 39) the monitor on his way to visit the NAC observed garbage in the road near the municipal council even though the clean up campaign was done that day. Field report 40 ranked the quality as 2nd rank; the lowest observation recorded. However, no clarifying comment was provided. Field monitors had an opportunity to recommend that a technical expert be sent to the site (Q19). On two occasions (field report 16 and 20) monitors indicated that a technical expert might be needed. With report 16 this recommendation was made because an overlapping water project was preventing completion of road rehabilitation project. For report 20 the monitor noted that the action plan did not cover all that needed correcting at the school site: a fence around the school was close to collapse and not all of the water closets needing repair were covered by the project plan. Q20 asks monitors to determine whether there was any deviation from the approved BOQ. Deviations were found on three occasions. Deviations from expected outcomes were related to security issues that prevented completion of the clean up campaigns. Table 10 lists the obstacles identified by the monitors that were preventing or slowing project implementation. Fourteen of the projects indicated that security was a problem. Some of these security obstacles indicate the American or Iraqi Army was the source of the obstacle. These CSP projects should be well coordinated with military operations, perhaps through the PRT military liaison. It is counterproductive to have these CSP projects that are meant to lessen insurgent activity and that are developed with the community become confrontational with the MNF (see field report 11 in the Doura area). Table 10. For Ongoing Projects: Obstacles Faced During Project Implementation. Field Report # Q 21 Obstacles Identified 1 1. Roads closed due to the deteriorating security 2. the existence of concrete barriers 3. There are incidents of violence in the region 2 1. There are no obstacles at all- work continues even during curfew- because trash burying area is very close to location of work 3 1. Bad security situation 2. Few workers due to insecurity 5 1. Clashes between gunmen and the army. 2. Raids by National Guard 6 1. Clashes between gunmen and the Iraqi Army 2. Raids of Muthanna Brigade to make arrests 7 1. Confrontations with the National Guard. 2. Raids of Muthanna Brigade invalidate work International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 11 8 1. Muthanna Brigade, which opposes our projects, and raids by the Iraqi Army Field Report # Q 21 Obstacles Identified 10 1. Low number of workers in the new campaign 11 1. So many workers are arrested by American forces 2. Workers are afraid to work in areas opposite to the highway 15 Not stated 16 1. Overlapping work with water projects 19 1. Lack of communication with the project contractor prevents completion of the remaining work 20 Not stated 21 1. Sheep owners tear garbage bags to feed their sheep 22 1. Insufficient workers & machines assigned to this area 2. The area is big & poorly serviced, thus rate of work in this area is less than in other areas 23 Not stated 24 Not stated 25 1. Narrow streets impede access 26 Not stated 27 1. Security conditions are delaying work 2. No co-operation from municipality 3. Lack of garbage bags 28 1. Insecurity delays work 2. The neighborhood doesn’t accept workers from other areas 29 1. The accumulated waste 2. Absence of cooperation among people 3. Inconvenience caused by municipality 30 1. Bad security 31 Not visited 32 1. Bad security, some workers were shot by snipers & some equipment was damaged 34 1. Occassional street closure by the Army 35 Not stated 36 None 38 1. Area occasionally under siege by American forces 39 1. Low number of workers 2. Low number of machines 3. Increasing of population due to displaced families which increases waste 4. Streets are narrow which makes it difficult for machines to get inside areas 5. Campaign for repairing sewage system is in progress in the area which makes it difficult for machines to move there 40 1. There are no obstacles except the need of more workers 45 None Table 11 lists field monitor proposals that would help project implementation. Providing security is a continuing theme. Many monitors call for an increase in the number of workers. Specific issues are noted in field reports 2, 16, 19 , 21, 22, and 27 these should be referred to the project mobilizers for action. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 12 Table 11. For Ongoing Projects: Proposals to Help Implementation. Field Report # Q22 proposals to help implementation 1 1. Providing security and opening roads for easy access of raw materials 2 1. Sewage system is not functioning in some streets especially in block 321 where it is not possible for workers to work 2. Providing security in block 330/Slekh 3 1. Providing security is the major factor for completing the project 5 1. Ensuring the security and protection of workers 6 1. Ask organization representative to visit the site & follow up work 7 1. Co-ordinate with army forces to make movement easier for workers & machines 8 1. Prevent the army from harassing workers 10 1. Increase the number of workers to absorb the high unemployment in the region 11 1. American forces should be prevented from arresting workers daily. 15 1. The job is done and the project is about to be delivered 16 1. Encourage the Amanat water and sewer directorate to speed completion of the water project as it interferes with the road project 19 1. The school garden is not according to the contract agreement 20 Not stated 21 1. Sheep owners must not be allowed to pass in inhabited areas 22 1. Particularizing campaign to Chkook area (442, 440) to separate it from Zahra cleaning campaign 23 1. Workers Wages should be increased to equal to wages in other campaigns 24 1. Increase the numbers of workers & machines 25 1. Increase the number of workers because the area is large with narrow streets that prevent the use of machinery 26 Not stated 27 1. Provide garbage bags and mechanisms for the transfer of waste 2. Provide waste containers 3. Educate citizens regarding cleanliness 28 1. Providing security is the major factor to enable work go on 29 1. Provide compactors to solve problems of accumulated garbage 2. Provide metal waste containers in markets and streets that are fitted with slings 3. Appointing temporary employees with consistent staff (?) Field Report # Q22 proposals to help implementation 30 1. Cooperation of government system to protect employees 31 Not visited 32 1. Provide security for workers 2. There are many empty yards. These should be planted and turned into gardens 3. Provide trash containers 34 1. Need evening work interval International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 13 35 1. Increase of workers employed to absorb larger numbers of jobless in the region 36 1. Increase in numbers of workers to reduce unemployment 38 Not stated 39 1. Increase in numbers of machines and workers in addition to conducting an evening campaign to get rid of garbage as soon as possible 40 1. Increase the number of workers 2. Maintain the sewers and the broken water pipes 45 Not stated Field monitors themselves had an overall favorable view of the projects and noted too how the communities favorably perceive the projects. There was some dissension about the projects (field reports 3, 10, 11, 15, 19, 20, 25 and 39). These critical comments should be addressed by the CSP through the local authority. This presents an opportunity to demonstrate that local government can be responsive to community needs. Table 12. For Ongoing Projects: Notes and Recommendations. Field Report # Q23 notes and recommendations 1 1. Ongoing work at the site is proceeding well and it is about to be completed 2 1. The campaign is useful for the area especially in terms of cleaning it and providing jobs for jobless people there 3 1. Work stopped in the mentioned location due to insecurity 2. The percentage accomplished of work is %25 only 3. There are still materials along the roads; however all the rubble has been removed 5 1. Campaign was useful for the region in terms of cleanliness and operation of the unemployed. 6 1. Campaign useful for the region in terms of cleanliness and opportunity for the unemployed. 7 1. Campaign was useful for the region in terms of cleanliness and operation of the unemployed. 8 1. Campaign was useful for the region in terms of cleanliness and operation of the unemployed. 10 1. The campaign is useful for the area in terms of keeping it clean and providing jobs for the unemployed. 2. Reducing number of workers in the new campaign caused many problems, in addition to workers fired from work International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 14 11 1. The campaign is useful for keeping the area clean in addition to keeping citizens there busy with activities useful for the community. 2. Many workers are arrested by American forces in the spots where they gather to start work or during the day while performing the work and this makes the people in this area suspicious about targets of the organization and they may distrust it. In such cases, citizens will think that there is conspiracy between the organization and the American forces 15 1. Accomplished job is useful for the school 2. Faucets of drinking water are high; little kids cannot reach them 3. The main and internal pathways in the school need paving 4. Electrical wires in the school need repair in addition to the sewage system which is old as well 16 1. The project has beautified the area and provides jobs locally 19 1. The project was often beneficial to the school 2. The school needs to pave its grounds 3. School need to furniture and air-conditioning as well as an electricity generator and copying equipment 20 1. The project was beneficial to the school 2. The fence around the school is about to go down, but is not covered by the action plan 3. Only half of water closets are covered by action plan 21 1. Garbage bags are bad and get torn easily. 2. Awareness campaigns for residents of the region to encourage use of the bags only for garbage collection. Field Report # Q23 notes and recommendations 22 1. The campaign is useful for hygiene and to provide jobs for jobless people 2. Problems arose because workers’ salaries vary and are different from salaries of workers in other campaigns. This caused workers to protest and give up working in order to obtain equal pay with other workers in other campaigns 23 1. The project is useful to the region’s hygiene and in providing jobs to the region’s people 2. The region’s people are requesting schools rehabilitation and services projects 24 1. Campaign is good and useful 2. The area is large and needs greater number of workers to provide jobs for more jobless people 25 1. The campaign continues successfully and usefully, but there are isolated and neglected lands in this area. Such areas have become longterm garbage dumps. Extra effort is required to clear such areas. 2. Garbage has been dumped near the beach and the river in block 218 for many years. This area needs manual clearance because it is difficult to get machines and equipment to the area. 26 1. Good work because the region small and the number of workers is enough to complete the work properly. 27 1. Campaign was good for the region in terms of cleanliness and reduction of unemployment. 2. Workers & machines were noticed in the field International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 15 28 1. The campaign has stopped now due to insecurity 29 1. Work is very good and its effects are apparent in reality 30 1. The work is very good and continues easily and its effects are apparent in reality 31 Not visited 32 1. Campaign is on-going & its results are clear in the internal small streets and in the main streets 34 1. The campaign useful for hygiene and providing jobs to local people 35 1. The project is useful to region’s hygiene and in providing jobs to the region’s people 36 1. The campaign is useful in terms of keeping the area clean and providing jobs for the unemployed 38 1. The campaign useful for hygiene and providing jobs to region’s people 39 1. Work continues but not according to the requested standards in spite of efforts produced by workers. This is due to high population 40 1. The campaign is very good and the work is in progress with all machines 45 1. The campaign useful for hygiene and providing jobs to region’s people V. Lessons Learned • Some projects lack trained maintenance staff. More emphasis could be placed on ensuring sustainability. • Cleaning projects were popular; but security for the workers has been a problem. Coordination with US and Iraqi military is important to avoid overlap and miscues. • Employment figures provided in the weekly reports were verified by the monitors; the data collection system seems to be working. • Monitors can provide specific detailed information about project shortcomings that can be turned to an opportunity to show that local authorities can be responsive. VI. Recommendations • Coordinate CSP clean up campaigns with the military so that workers are not mistaken for insurgents. This might be done through the PRT military liaison. • Review the length of the approval process, and see if there are ways to make it more efficient. • Look for a way to assess the need for follow on activities to the cleaning campaigns. • Make use of the monitor’s specific recommendations to follow up on individual projects. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 16 I. Annex A. List of Projects to be Monitored (REDACTED) International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 17 II. Annex B. Field Monitor Data Collection Instrument for Completed Projects. SITE VISIT REPORT COMPLETED PROJECTS 1-Name of project; 2-Site Visit Date: 3-Governorate; 4-District; 5-Sub-district; 6- Mahalla; 7- Ask the project manager to describe how this project was approved? 9- Project Implemented by; 10- Date of Completion; 11- Type of Project; Equipment supplies…..…….….1 Cleaning campaign……………...2 Others…………………..………...3 12-Is the site being used? Yes…………………………………1 No…………………………………..2 13- Is the site being used for its intended purpose Yes……………………………....1 (go to 15) No………………………………..2 (go to14) 14- If not, what is the site currently used for? ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… 15- If supplies and/or equipment were provided, has it been maintained? Yes………………………..……..1 No………………………….…….2 16- If supplies and/or equipment was provided and is not currently on the site, does anyone know where it went and why? Yes…………………………………1 No…………………………………..2 17- Who is responsible for maintaining the site? 18-Is this person available to be interviewed? Yes………………………………….1 No……………………………………2 19- Did you interview this person? Yes………………………….……1 No…………………………….…..2 20- Did the person receive training on how to maintain the site? Yes…………………………………...1 No…………………………………….2 21- Does the person believe the training was adequate? Yes…………………………….....1 (go to 23) No………………………………...2 (go to 22) 22- If the training was not adequate, what kind of additional training would be helpful to this person? …………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………. 23- Are there records kept on the usage of the site? Yes………………………………..1 (go to 24) No…………………………………2 (go to 29) 24- If yes, please review these records and tabulate the following information, if available: (ask to see the records) 25- Average number of users / week; 26- Average number males / week 27- Average number females / week 28- Average age of user International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 18 Group questions for site users; Group description (for example community action group); 29- Number of members in the group Male ( ) Female ( ) 30- Did you participate in the design of this site? Yes………………………..……1 No…………………………..…..2 31- Does this site meet your needs? Yes………………………………1 (go to 33) No………………………………..2 (go to 32) 32- If no, what would you like to see changed /different? …………………………………………… ………………………………………………… 33- Are you happy with the way the site has been maintained? Yes……………………………….1 (go to 35) No………………………………...2 (go to 34) 34- If no, what improvements could be made? ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… 35- Is the community taking responsibility for maintaining the site? Yes…………………………………1 No…………………………………..2 36- Is this site useful to you and the community? Yes……………………………..1 (go to 38) No………..………………….....2 (go to 37) 37- If not, why not? ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………….. 38- Has this project made a difference in your daily life? Yes……….…………………….1 (go to 39) No………………………………2 (go to 40) 39- If yes, how? ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… 40- If no, why not? Questions related to Construction Projects 41- What is the quality of workmanship overall? Above standard………………….1 (go to 45) Standard………………………….2 (go to 45) Below standard…………………..3 (go to 42, 43, 44) 42- If below standard, please note what is deficient ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… 43- If below standard, has the usefulness of the site been affected? Yes…………………………………1 No…………………………………..2 44- If yes, please describe how? ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… 45- Has the community come together to improve the standard of workmanship or deficiencies? Yes…………………………………1 (go to 46) No…………………………………..2 46- If yes, what specifically has been done? Please describe ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… Monitor field notes and recommendations: Monitor name; Mobilzor name; International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 19 III. Annex C. Field Monitor Data Collection Instruments for Ongoing Projects. SITE VISIT REPORT ONGOING PROJECTS 1- Name of project; 2- Date; 3- Governorate; 4- District; 5- Sub district; 6- Mahalla; 7- Ask the project manager to describe how this project was approved? 9- Project implemented by; 10- Date of completion (in contract); 11- Is there active work on the site Yes…………………………….1 No……………………………...2 12- Is the community involved in the work on the site providing “sweat equity”? Yes………………………………1 No………………………………..2 13- Is the site foreman present? Yes....…………………………1 No……………………………..2 14- Amount of employment in the project? Male;………………… Female;………………. Total;…………. 15- When does the foreman anticipate the project to be completed …../…../200.. (if before contract date go to 17) 16- If completion is delayed what are the causes? …………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… 17- Rate the quality of workmanship on this project using the scale below: (< %25)……………....………..1 (%26-%50)…………………….2 (%51-%75)…………………….3 (%76-%99)…………………….4 (go to 20) (%100)………………………....5 (go to 20) 18- What makes you think that the quality is below standard?. …………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… (Monitor) 19- Would you recommend a technical expert visit the site to review progress? Yes………………………………1 No………………………………..2 (Monitor) 20- Please review site work plan (bill of quantity) and note any deviation from the approved plan No deviation found…….......................…….1 Following deviation found…........................2 21- What obstacles are facing the project? 1…………………………………… 2…………………………………… 3…………………………………… 4…………………………………… 22- What proposals would help the project implementation process? 1……………………………………………………………………………………............ 2…………………………………………………………………………………………… .3………………………………………………………………………………………… 23- Monitor field notes and recommendations: ............................................................................................................................................... ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Monitor name; Mobilizor name; International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Monitoring Selected Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Activities from the CSP Final Report 20 IV. Annex D. Translated Field Monitor Site Visit Reports. (REDACTED)