December 19, 2006 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Harvey Herr , Cyndi Scarlett and -------------- . USAID COMMUNITY STABILIZATION PROGRAM (CSP) COUNTERINSURGENCY (COIN): MONITORING SELECTED ACTIVITIES FROM THE COMMUNITY STABILIZATION PROGRAM USAID COMMUNITY STABILIZATION PROGRAM (CSP) COUNTERINSURGENCY: MONITORING SELECTED ACTIVITIES FROM THE COMMUNITY STABILIZATION PROGRAM 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 REPORT....................................................................................................................4 A. PROJECTS TO BE MONITORED...........................................................................................................................4 Table 1. Summary of projects visited by type and status......................................................................................5 B. 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? ..................................................6 Table 5. For completed projects: was there participation in project design and did the project meet their needs? ..................................................................................................................................................................6 Table 6. Field monitor recommendations ............................................................................................................7 C. ONGOING PROJECTS.........................................................................................................................................8 Table 7. Ongoing projects: is there activity at the site?.......................................................................................8 Table 8. Ongoing projects: employment generated?..........................................................................................9 Table 9. Ongoing projects: obstacles faced during project implementation...................................................10 Table 10. Ongoing projects: proposals to help implementation. .......................................................................11 Table 11. Ongoing projects: notes and observations .......................................................................................12 D. DEVELOPING PROJECTS..................................................................................................................................12 Table 12. Stages reached in the approval process.............................................................................................13 V. LESSONS LEARNED .....................................................................................................................................13 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................14 ANNEX B. FIELD MONITOR DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT FOR COMPLETED PROJECTS...15 ANNEX C. FIELD MONITOR DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS FOR ONGOING PROJECTS. .....15 i List of Acronyms AoR Area of Responsibility 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 CMT Community Mobilization Team 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 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) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 1 MONITORING SELECTED 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 Strategic Objectives delineated is “Focused Stabilization: Reduce the incentives for participation in violent conflict.” This is the primary objective of the renamed Community Stabilization Program (CSP). 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 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. The activities of CSP are intended 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 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) was awarded the contract (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 ICAP experience to conduct meaningful pre-award activities to ensure rapid success. The rapid start program anticipated implementation of specific public works programs (PWP) and essential services projects immediately upon program startup. IRD has extensive experience in implementing a wide variety of PWP, utilizing skilled and un-skilled labor to repair roads, clean streets and rehabilitate schools, health clinics, community centers and sports facilities. This 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) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 2 rapid start is 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 PWP 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 has been instructed by USAID to monitor a specific set of PWP projects from IRD’s CSP project. II. Background On 19 November 2006 IBTCI was notified by the CTO about “ideas for field surveys.” Among the ideas was to use IBTCI monitors to confirm and validate projects that had been initiated through IRD by the CSP program. 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 On 22 November a meeting was held between the MEPP II CTO, the CSP CTO, IRD and IBTCI. 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. At that meeting it was determined that of IRD would be the initial point of contact (POC), and the Harvey Herr would be the IBTCI POC. The meeting concluded with the expectation that the monitoring of the selected projects would be complete within one month from that meeting date. IBTCI then conducted background studies to determine what data collection instruments were needed to accomplish the task. The monitoring activity requested includes not only site visits, but confirmation of customer satisfaction and an assessment of participation and coordination with communities and local government. IBTCI’s subcontractor was notified of the purpose and intent of the monitoring effort (the list of objectives above translated into Arabic), and was provided with two draft instruments, one for completed projects and another for projects that were ongoing. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 3 IBTCI had recently concluded the CAP I evaluation and was therefore largely familiar with the project design, approval, tendering, project documentation and monitoring process that IRD uses for its CAP activities. This process had been carried over to the CSP. Project documentation was therefore familiar territory for the monitors and it was known how the project selection, design, tendering and monitoring processes worked. The focal point for the CAP program was the development of the community action group (CAG) that became the community body responsible for identifying a project, designing the project, engaging with the local government for project approvals and advice, and monitoring project completion and handover. With the CSP program the CAG is no longer the focal point having been replaced by the local Neighborhood Advisory Councils (NACs) or District Advisory Councils (DACs). IRD has developed a more lengthy project approval process that works its way from the NAC or DAC through the Amanat directorates to the relevant committees of the Provincial Councils. This information therefore needed to be conveyed to the field monitors who were familiar with the CAP paradigm. By 7 December IBTCI was sufficiently prepared to meet again with IRD’s CSP team. This occasion was to identify the field contacts so that field monitors could conduct their monitoring tasks effectively and in a security conscious manner. This required an introductory meeting that would bring together the IRD field staff with the IBTCI field staff. This meeting took place on 10 December. At this meeting a site visit schedule was determined that would permit completion of the field monitoring by 19 December. Field monitoring began on 11 December. A later review of the project list revised the site visit schedule and reset the completion date for 17 December. 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 were in daily contact with the IRD staff as well as IBTCI. III. Methodology Field monitors used the data collection instruments in Annex B and C. The project list contains 77 projects from the “Community Infrastructure and Essential Services Unit” of the CSP. All the projects on the list are PWP projects. 31 of the projects are classified by status as: completed, ongoing and developing. It is these 31 projects that were selected for monitoring by USAID. Two data collection instruments were designed to be used with either completed (Annex B) or ongoing projects (Annex C). Developing projects have not reached the implementation stage and no site visit was planned. Field monitors were led to the project sites by the IRD field staff to meet with each project manager. Field monitors attempted to have at their disposal 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 all levels of government in the provincial framework, both executive and legislative. Monitors were instructed to attempt to walk back through the approval process for selected completed projects (to do so for all projects would not have been possible in the time frame). An examination of the approval process for three completed projects was initiated, but not completed. However, the approval process itself was examined for the seven projects that were in the approval stages of project development and these are reported below. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 4 The field monitors assessed customer satisfaction through group discussions with project users. 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. Although not specifically mentioned in the assignment list above, it became clear that IBTCI needed further confirmation on employment generated and compliance with proposed project approval processes. These concepts were then added to the monitoring instrument. Confirmatory questions about employment were asked of NAC or DAC members; or of the company contracted to provide the services. Confirmation that employment was created for the local community was key. Projects on the monitoring list included projects in the “developing” status. Developing projects have not yet entered an implementation phase and no site visit was necessary. The 7 developing projects became primarily a desk top study to determine where the projects are in the Project Development Process (Figure 1) followed by selected visits to confirm their “paper” status. Focus Neighborhood Identified CSP Works with DAC, NACs and PC to Generate Project Ideas Project Execution Tender, Contract, Performance, Monitoring, Completion & Handover Project Proposal Packet Complete Provincial Program Process Project Ideas Submit SOW to Appropriate Ministry for Approval / Coordination Inroductory Meeting with PC, DAC & NAC. Initial Project Ideas Agreed Upon Project Idea to Amanat for Approval CSP Technical Review Project Idea to Appropriate Ministry for Approval / Coordination Project Idea to DG for approval Develop Scope of Work with DG SOW to Amanat for Approval Figure 1. The CSP Project Development Process 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. Field 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. IV. Findings of the Report A. Projects to be Monitored Thirty-one projects were chosen by the CSP CTO to be monitored. Most of the projects can be characterized as rapid PWP start-up projects intended to generate short term employment International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 5 opportunities in the target communities. There are three categories of project on this list: clean up campaigns (16), supplying equipment to critical local government offices (11), and facility rehabilitation (4). Only the facility rehabilitation projects involve construction and hence would require engineering approvals from the LG (two of these rehabilitation projects were in the ‘developing’ stage and had not yet started on the ground). All 24 of the ongoing or completed projects were located and had site visits completed. Twelve of the 24 projects were complete with the remaining 12 listed as ongoing. Table 1. Summary of projects visited by type and status. Type of Project Ongoing Completed Total Completed and Ongoing Cleaning Campaign 9 2 11 Supply Equipment 0 11 11 Rehabilitation 2 0 2 Total 11 13 24 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. B. Completed Projects Table 2 summarizes completed project utilization. Most equipment supply (8) has been to the NACs and DACs and these are recorded as completed. However two of the sites reported that the equipment was not used. The reason stated was that there was not a safe building in which to house the equipment (Field Report 3 and 10). One site reported (Field Report 10) that it was not being used for its intended purpose; the equipment was in storage. 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 11 No 2 1 Not Stated 0 1 The field monitors asked the respondents who financed the project? Nearly all the completed projects reported that the project was funded by IRD. This may be an issue for attribution: does USAID want to be known as the donor? When equipment was supplied monitors asked whether the equipment had been maintained. Four of the 10 equipment supply projects answered that the equipment was not being maintained. Table 3. For completed projects: is the equipment being maintained? Q15: If supplies or equipment were provided, has it been maintained? Yes 6 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 6 No 4 Not Stated 3 Respondents were asked to identify who was responsible for maintaining the site. For 3 of the 12 completed projects no one had been identified; two of these were where the equipment was not yet being utilized. Training in maintenance was provided to 5 of the 9 that had been identified; 4 had received no training in maintaining the equipment. Field Report 11 noted that the person identified to maintain the equipment did not require training. Field Report 12, a cleaning campaign, noted that the Amanat was responsible for maintaining the area in a clean condition and that no training was necessary. Field Reports 18 and 19 note that the person named had training, but also had the experience necessary to maintain the equipment. 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 9 The Amanat 1 Eleven of the completed projects reported that records were kept on the usage of the site, but just 5 projects reported this information. As we have seen above, 2 projects have not yet utilized the equipment and no stats were expected. Field Reports 12, 18, 19, 29 and 30 reported 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 managed a group discussion at different project sites. Groups ranged in size from 3 to 12. The discussants were primarily men (74 men, 10 women). Seven of the groups had no women present. Ten of the groups said that they had participated in the design of the project. Five of the groups indicated that the project did not meet their needs citing the need for additional equipment, and in one case (Field Report 12) the need to extend the cleaning campaign to other areas. Handing out equipment has a limited possibility of transferring ownership; some of the lower level councils (like CAGs) are not yet clearly authorized under enabling legislation. It is not clear whether the local government is able to sustain their offices. They may be looking to the CSP to bypass attempts they could be making to the Amanat and PC for sustainability. A review of the additional needs of the NACs is necessary, but it should be linked with some performance criteria and linkage to the local government. 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 11 7 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 7 No 1 5 Not Stated 1 1 Eight of the respondents were not happy with the way the sites have been maintained (Q33). A common reason for not being happy is that the NACs need to assign someone to take responsibility for maintenance of the site. Two of the councils that received equipment now wanted a building to house the equipment they received. One project wanted the sewer cleaning campaign to be extended. Maintaining the NAC’s equipment may be necessary. A roving NAC maintenance person may suffice should a review of this need by CSP confirm the requirement. Although few of the respondents were happy with the way the sites have been maintained (Q33) all the respondents thought that the site was useful to themselves and the community (Q36). Ten respondents went on to say that they thought the project made a difference in their daily lives. One dissenting respondent said that the project had not made a difference because the equipment provided was not yet being used. There were no construction projects among the completed projects, but Q41 was responded to by 9 respondents, the remaining 3 did not give a response. All respondents indicated that the quality of workmanship was at a standard level or above. The field monitors were asked to provide their observations and comments. These are noted below in Table 6. Table 6. Field monitor recommendations Field Report Number2 Field Monitor Proposals and Conclusions 3 The local council is housed in the police station and until separate rooms are designated to the council they cannot use the equipment 4 The equipment provided to the Council has been essential to the work of the staff making their jobs easier and more efficient. 5 No maintenance training provided to the beneficiaries by IRD. Suggest training be provided. 10 While the council eases the people’s work by using the school guard room, it needs a separate building 11 The council members suffer because there is no separate building for them and they must move from one place to another. They need their own building or office space. 12 The drainage network is very old and doesn’t meet the current requirements of the areas. Include other neighborhoods in the coming campaigns. 18 No maintenance training provided to the beneficiaries by IRD. Training should be provided. 19 No maintenance training provided to the beneficiaries by IRD. Training should be provided. 2 The full Field Reports are found sequentially referenced in ANNEX D. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 8 20 None provided 23 The council location is not close to the area which makes it difficult for the people to visit. 24 None provided 29 The council location is not close to the area which made it difficult for the people to visit 30 None provided C. Ongoing Projects. All of the 11 ongoing projects 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. Most of the ongoing projects are cleaning campaigns designed to provide local employment opportunities. Field monitors were asked to verify that employment was from the community. As with the CAP program, community contribution is an important tenet of community project development that ensures “ownership.” In the CAP program this is commonly provided through residents’ unpaid labor. In the CSP program paid labor to those most 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. Field monitors asked the NACs, DACs and project managers whether the community participated with “sweat equity”.3 All but two said that there was community participation through ‘sweat equity’, or labor used as community contribution. Two projects reported no “sweat equity” (Field Report 6 ”, and Field Report 31 . Both projects are implemented by contractors who hire paid skilled labor. Table 7. 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 11 9 No 0 2 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 the findings in the weekly report for the corresponding neighborhoods. Some variance is expected since these are figures monitors collected on the day, and the report is based on average daily figures. 3 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) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 9 Table 8. Ongoing projects: employment generated? Field Report # Male Female 1 375 0 2 199 0 6 35 0 7 175 0 8 275 0 9 353 0 13 600 55 14 650 0 21 330 0 22 363 0 31 12 0 Total 2409 55 Two of the projects (Field Reports 6 and 31) were not completed by the contract completion date. The four reported starting late and stoppages from time to time due to curfews and the local security situation as the cause for the delay. In one instance the militia had stopped the project (Field Report 31). Seven of the projects reported no delay. All but two of the reporting projects were a cleaning campaign and can function with a more flexible time frame. 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 (the one rehabilitation project had not yet started construction). Monitors noted that work had just started on some of the cleaning campaigns. Nine of the projects reported a rank of 4 indicating a perceived quality of between 76 to 99%. Field Report 21 indicated a lower rank noting the bad security situation, and the fact that some of the workers had lost their lives and work had stopped several times. Field monitors had an opportunity to recommend that a technical expert be sent to the site if the work was below standard (rank 3 or less). This did not occur. Monitors were asked to determine whether there was any deviation from the approved BOQ. No deviations were found, however, since the projects were cleaning campaigns the BOQs were not complex and deviations unlikely. As expected, the major obstacle facing the projects is the lack of security. Standing sewage is recurring problem in Adhamiya and Doura. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 10 Table 9. Ongoing projects: obstacles faced during project implementation. Field Report # Obstacles Identified 1 Sewage problems; American military sometimes. 2 Sewage problems; security conditions. 6 Security situation. 7 Contractor has been threatened; Difficult access to trucks & tools; Security condition; Workers been shot at by the palace guards. 8 Sewage overflow in some streets 9 American & Iraqi check points cause the delay for workers & trucks 13 Security situation 14 Security situation; Patrols of the American forces. 21 The bad security forced us to assign guards for the workers. 22 Security situation; Problem identifying solid waste disposal site 31 Security situation Table 10 shows that field monitors found that the cleaning campaigns needed more plastic bags and rubbish containers to effectively service thee communities. A majority thought the campaigns should be continued. It has been recommended that project supervisors coordinate with the check points to ease entry to the work areas. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 11 Table 10. Ongoing projects: proposals to help implementation. Field Report # Q22 proposals to help implementation 1 Extension of campaign Repair streets (in the area) Provide & distribute plastic garbage bags 2 Extension of campaign & renew it Increase Labor to occupy largest number. 6 None provided 7 Supply rubbish containers. Continuing of campaigns 8 Provide & distribute garbage plastic bags Provide garbage containers 9 Coordinate with the check points to ease the work 13 Extend the campaign to provide jobs Increase workers & trucks 14 Extend the campaign to provide jobs Increase workers & trucks 21 None provided 22 Provide modern concrete containers for the garbage Extend the campaign to contain unemployment 31 None provided Field monitors themselves had a favorable view of the projects and noted too how the communities favorably perceive the projects. There were no dissenting views regarding the cleaning campaigns. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 12 Table 11. Ongoing projects: notes and observations Field Report # Q23 notes and recommendations 1 The population is very happy with the work and grateful to the organization that has provided jobs to the unemployed in the area as well as keeping the streets clean. They would like to see this campaign continue. 2 The campaign made a big difference in the area concerning cleaning & providing jobs for unemployed 6 The work was delayed due to implementing company having had problems also there is an issue with security in this particular area 7 Project is seen in a very positive light. The population would like to see it continue. 8 The campaign is useful & gives jobs to the unemployed people in the area & helps to keep the area clean 9 According to those interviewed, the campaign was very beneficial in that it helped clean up the area and also provided jobs to the unemployed. The continuation of the campaigns is important & useful 13 The project areas are over populated causing a lot of stress within the population. It is therefore important that the campaign be continued as it necessary to keep the unemployed people occupied. 14 The campaign has made a big difference in the cleanliness of the area & it is very important to occupy the unemployed from the people. 21 The security situation in this area is bad, the workers are afraid for their lives, as some of their colleagues have been murdered. The campaign is helpful & gives jobs to the unemployed in the area. 22 None provided 31 None provided D. Developing Projects. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 13 All seven of the developing projects were subject to a desktop review. Two are rehabilitation projects and five are cleaning campaigns. Field monitors asked the IRD staff to explain how the project approval process worked and where these particular projects were in that process. Field monitors verified that the 7 projects had reached the stages stated in the IRD reports (see figure 1 above for a description of the approval process). Table 12. Stages reached in the approval process. Project Project Idea Approval SOW Approval Amanat Ministry DG SOW Developed Ministry Amanat CSP Technical PC Process 15 16 17 25 26 Not looked at 27 28 Project 26 was not examined by the monitors. This occurred due to a misunderstanding by the monitors who mistook a similar completed project in the same location for the actual Project 26. Project 26 had not yet been assigned a project tracking code and this contributed to the misunderstanding. V. Lessons Learned • Equipment supply projects should time the delivery of equipment to coincide with the ability of the recipients to use it. In more than one instance the equipment wasn’t being used because buildings had not been completed or other arrangements made to house and use the equipment. In one instance the equipment had been lent to another office. • Maintenance and maintenance training seemed to be lacking for the equipment supply projects • The source of project finance was seen uniformly as IRD. This may not be the intention of USAID and should be reviewed. • Cleaning projects were popular; but most of the projects said that they needed more plastic bags and disposal containers. • Some of the cleaning projects (Adhamiya and Doura) seemed to have been undertaken in areas where there is sewage problem; perhaps this should have been addressed before the cleaning campaign. • Employment figures provided in the weekly reports were verified by the monitors; the data collection system seems to be working. • Parts of the interview instruments needed ongoing revision as the monitors gained understanding of the projects and their intention; this can be avoided in the future with more time given for discreet monitoring tasks such as this by pre-testing the survey instrument. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 14 VI. Recommendations • A supply of equipment punch list should include availability of offices to house and use the equipment. • Stakeholder buy-in of the CSP projects when compared to the CAP projects is more complex. In the CSP buy-in, or community contribution, was typically expressed through unpaid labor (“sweat equity”). CSP PWP projects focus on generating short term paid employment. It is not clear how stakeholder buy-in can be assessed for these types of projects. This needs to be reviewed. • 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. It seems that many of the campaigns required more plastic bags and rubbish containers. See if in the solid waste literature there is a way to predict this need or circumvent it. • Seek clarification from USAID on the attribution to be used for the source of finance for CSP projects. • Only fourteen of those surveyed, out of the thirty projects reviewed were aware of how the approval process for the project worked. IBTCI suggests that all stakeholders are given a mini grants manual that will make them aware of how the approval process works. This increases transparency in the process. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Project, Phase II (MEPP II) Ad Hoc Report: Monitoring Selected Activities from the Community Stabilization Program Final Report 15 Annex A. List of Projects to be Monitored. REDACTED Annex B. Field Monitor Data Collection Instrument for Completed Projects. REDACTED Annex C. Field Monitor Data Collection Instruments for Ongoing Projects. REDACTED Annex D: Translated field monitor site visit reports REDACTED