INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT

August 2018 Submitted September 7, 2018

QLIBERIAN CHILDREN

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT

August 2018 Submitted September 7, 2018

USAID/LIBERIA ABE: ACCESS IDIQ CONTRACT

AID-OAA-I-14-00073/AID-669-TO-17-00001

Prepared for:

Edel Perez, Contractor Officer (CO)

Office of Acquisition and Assistance

United States Agency for International Development/Liberia

c/o American Embassy

502 Benson Street

Monrovia, Liberia

Prepared by: Education Development Center 43 Foundry Avenue Waltham, MA 02453-8313 USA

Table of Contents ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................. 4

I. Project Background and Overview ........................................................................................ 5

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Assessing and Strengthening Capacity .............................................................................................. 6

II. Description of the ICA Process .............................................................................................. 7

Who is involved in the assessment? ................................................................................................. 7

What does the assessment include? ................................................................................................. 8

III. Overview of the 2018 Assessment Process .......................................................................... 9

ICA Orientation ................................................................................................................................ 9

ICA Implementation ....................................................................................................................... 10

III. Results By County: Assessment, Priorities, Action Objectives ............................................ 12

Year One Accelerated Quality Education Activity Counties: Bong, Grand Bassa and Montserrado .. 12 Bong County Assessment Results 2018 .............................................................................................................. 12 Grand Bassa County Assessment Results 2018 ................................................................................................... 20 Montserrado County Assessment Results 2018 ................................................................................................. 27

Year Two Accelerated Quality Education Activity Counties: Margibi, Nimba, Lofa .......................... 33 Margibi County Institutional Capacity Assessment Results 2018 ....................................................................... 34 Nimba County Assessment Results 2018 ............................................................................................................ 40 Lofa County Assessment Results 2018 ................................................................................................................ 48

V. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 55

ABE Alternative Basic Education AE Alternative Education AEC Alternative Education Coordinator AED Alternative Education Division AES Alternative Education Supervisor ALP Accelerated Learning Program CEO County Education Officer COR Contracts Officer Representative DEO District Education Officer DPE Department of Physical Environment EDC Education Development Center EO Education Officer EMIS Education Management Information Systems ESP Education Sector Plan GBV Gender Based Violence GOL Government of Liberia MoE Ministry of Education NGEI National Girls’ Education Initiative OOSC Out of School Children OOSY Out of School Youth PCENDPD Parents, Community Engagement and National Dropout Prevention Division PQS Program Quality Standards PTA Parent Teacher Association RERA Rapid Education Risk Assessment SRGBV School Related Gender Based Violence SOW Scope of Work TCoC Teachers’ Code of Conduct TOR Terms of Reference

TWG Technical Working Group

Background

Despite the progress made in the Liberian education system with the ending of the civil war, enrollment rates in Liberia are woefully low, with estimates of 74% of the primary age population not enrolled in primary school. Dropout rates for those children already in primary school continue to be challenging, with most of those most at risk of dropping out being girls. The 2012 Out of School Children (OOSC) study undertaken by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) classifies prohibitive barriers to access and retention in four main categories: Socio-Cultural Factors, Economic Factors, School-Related Factors, and Political Factors.1

In response to these challenges, USAID’s Accelerated Quality Education for Liberian Children Activity aims to increase access to education for approximately 48,000 out-of-school children ages 8 to 15 in six targeted counties of Liberia, Bong, Grand Bassa, Nimba, Lofa, Montserrado and Margibi. The Activity is designed in order to enable USAID/Liberia to:

Contribute to USAID/Liberia’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Development Objective 4, Better-Educated Liberians;

Meet its targets under Goal 3 of the 2011 USAID Education Strategy, increased equitable access to education in crisis and conflict environments, achieving direct outcomes in education access for out-of-school children;

Provide relevant, flexible and quality education opportunities for out-of-school children in Liberia giving them the opportunity to pursue onward education, training or employment;

Provide technical assistance and build partnerships with key Ministry of Education (MoE) counterparts and host country systems; particularly to institutionalize a nation-wide legitimate and credible accelerated education program;

Strengthen the policies, systems, and resources that are available to the MoE, particularly in the area of accelerated education;

Foster positive gender norms, including a highlighted attention on girls and female teachers, who are the least likely to have access to education in Liberia; and

Promote stability during a key transition in post-war and post-Ebola Liberia through engagement of out-of-school children in activities that advance conflict resolution and key life skills.

1 UNICEF & UNESCO Institute for Statistics, March 2012, Liberia Country Study: Profiles of Children Out of School http://allinschool org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Liberia-OOSCI-Country-Report pdf

The activity has two main result areas: the first focuses on institutionalizing a framework for the MoE Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) and the second, on increasing the eligibility of ALP learners to transition to formal education. The development hypothesis of the project is that if the ALP regulatory framework is institutionalized, then the safety and quality of the ALP centers will improve and teachers’ instruction will improve leading to more ALP learners transitioning to the formal education system, from alternative programs.

Under Result 1, Accelerated Quality Education for Liberian Children will support the MoE to adopt national ALP policies, including accreditation policies for centers, learner eligibility policy, certification policy, and a national curriculum. The activity will train County Education Officers (CEOs) on the usage of ALP Education Management Information Systems (EMIS) monitoring data for decision making and on budgeting, supporting DEOs to visit centers and oversee their accreditation and certification, and training school principals in supervising their ALPs. Finally, the activity will strengthen community awareness of ALP policies and opportunities, train PTAs on the ALP framework, and create regular feedback loops between communities and the local education authorities.

Under Result 2, the Activity will rehabilitate and furnish ALPs with the aim of readying them for use, improving their safety, and making them accessible for boys, girls, and children with disabilities. The Activity will mobilize communities to identify out-of-school children for enrollment in ALPs, as well as create a code of conduct around school-related gender-based violence to which communities will be sensitized. The activity will train teachers and in the ALP curriculum and summative assessment tools, and produce and distribute curriculum materials to schools.

Accelerated Quality Education for Liberian Children is implemented on behalf of USAID by Education Development Center, with the support of School to School International (STS) and Search for Common Ground (Search).

Assessing and Strengthening Capacity

In order to achieve the planned results of the project, the education system including its officers at all levels will need to have the information, skills and practices to articulate policy and implementation guidelines and to play their roles in supporting schools and communities in establishing and maintaining effective accelerated learning programs. The Institutional Capacity Assessment (ICA) provides an approach to determining current levels of capacity at the MoE headquarters and county levels.

This report on the ICA findings for 2018, meets an annual requirement under EDC’s contract for the implementation of the Activity It will be accompanied by a capacity strengthening

However, due to a number of changes at the Ministry, the one for the central office (i.e. the Alternative Education Division) had not yet been done. This is now planned for Year 3, Quarter 1. For the Year 2 counties, the 2018 ICA findings are a baseline for the Accelerated Quality Education Activity; for Year 1 counties, their ICA results at the end of the Advancing Youth Project, were their baseline. The review with MoE AE Division and Year 1 counties and updates can be found in the 2017 ICA Report.

II. Description of the ICA Process A key part of the institutionalization process under the Activity is strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Education (MoE) at all levels, from headquarters to schools, to routinely perform the planning, implementation, monitoring, and support functions needed to provide a quality program to Liberian children. The Institutional Capacity Assessments (ICAs) and resulting Capacity Strengthening Plans are cornerstones to this process. The ICA process has remained constant though its implementation has been strengthened by the experiences over the past several years. The process is drawn from performance improvement and organizational development practices that set standards, develop metrics, assess, analyze and prioritize for action, and action planning. The ICA addresses the systems, knowledge, skills and institutional supports needed by central Ministry staff, especially the Alternative Education Division, CEOs and DEOs to monitor implementation of policies and programs related to Alternative Education with emphasis on Accelerated Learning Program (ALP). The ICA process is a facilitated, evidence based self-assessment that results in an action plan for capacity development based on prioritized issues from the capacity assessments.

Who is involved in the assessment?

The implementation of the ICA has engaged two types of teams: facilitation teams and self-assessment teams. The facilitation teams guide the process with probing questions and discussion of evidence to support the institution’s (i.e. county or district) capacity level. The self-assessment teams come to evidence-based consensus on scores, priorities and action steps. At the MoE headquarters level, the facilitation team is generally led by EDC staff and MoE staff outside of the unit that is doing its self-assessment. For example, the self-assessment of the Alternative Education Division might include representatives from the planning, fiscal management, curriculum and other units within the MoE. The self-assessment team is exclusively division staff.

At the county level, the facilitation team is comprised of trained and experienced MoE staff

Education Officers (CEOs), District Education Officers (DEOs) and where appointed, representatives of the five professional areas assigned to county offices: Monitoring and Evaluation, Finance, Procurement and Logistics, Human Resources and Planning officers. Other officers at county and district levels who have been assigned as Supervisors or Focal Persons for Alternative Education also participate in the ICAs.

A core team of MoE officers have participated in ICAs since their inception during the USAID Advancing Youth Project (2011-2017). This team was expanded in 2018 to bring in additional staff from the Planning and Research Department and the Department of Administration as well as the Department of Instruction. 2 The expansion of the core team provides adequate teams to facilitate county level ICAs and as importantly ensures a broad-based understanding and experience with the ICA process. Though focused on the Accelerated Learning Program, it also promotes a shared understanding of the range of institutional supports and relationships needed for a high performing ALP system.

What does the assessment include?

The Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool developed by EDC focuses on seven (7) categories of basic functions of an institution. Each category is broken out into several critical elements. The chart below presents the categories and elements.

CATEGORY Elements

GOVERNANCE & LEADERSHIP

National Structure; County Structure; Support for ABE.

2 Core Group Members: Thomas Clarke – Policy Analyst, Martin Wesseh – M&E Officer, Philip Kortu – National M&E Officer, Wynetta Freeman – National Coordinator, AE, Moses Pyne – ALP Coordinator, Teetema Yarsiah – Program Officer, Henry Karto – NFE Coordinator, AE, Julia K. Sendiman – DMI Office, Esther Kollie – Training Officer, Comfort F. Tumbay – Procurement Specialist, Michael Kharim – Community Engagement (PTA, Dio Harris – AE Director, Nelson B. Browne – National Planning Officer, Alexander T. Gayflor – Capacity Building Officer, Numehn Owen Dunbar – EDC, Maada S. Rogers – EDC, Abraham Siaway – M&E Officer, Montserrado County, Merisco N. Davis – Acting AE Focal Person, Montserrado County, Samuel Y. Koenig – CEO , Bong County, Mayoud Toure – AE Supervisor. Grand Bassa County

ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT

Work plan development; knowledge management; Stakeholder engagement.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT

Service Delivery; Facilitator Payment; Linkages and Networks for ABE; Program Review; Community and Private Sector Engagement; Culture and Gender.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Program Implementation Status; Quality Assurance; Standards; Facilitator Certification; Facilitator Supervision; Monitoring and Evaluation.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Systems; Controls; Documentation; Reporting.

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Job Descriptions; Recruitment and Retention; Personnel Policies; Personnel Performance Management

For each element, there are descriptors for four levels of capacity. At Levels 1 and 2, the institution is thought to be getting started, with Level 2 reflecting some basic capacity; Level 3 indicates movement toward improved capacity; and Level 4 means the institution is demonstrating results, i.e. having high capacity. For each level the tool also provides examples of evidence that an institution is performing at that level. Evidence might include documents, direct observation or recent examples of the capacity in action.

For each category the tool also provides space for scores for each element, a summary of all assessed categories which shows the combined scores and an average percentage by category. (see Appendix A for the full tool).

The tool also provides the opportunity to prioritize elements for action. Prioritizing and planning action steps to strengthen capacity are the critical final steps and ultimate rationale for the assessment.

III. Overview of the 2018 Assessment Process

ICA Orientation

In Year 2, Quarter 2, the Capacity Strengthening Plan for the AE Division and the three Year 1 counties was submitted to USAID, governing the remainder of Year Two, and fully integrated into the Activity work plan. The plan was based on the intersection of the priorities described in the 2017 ICAs, conducted under the USAID Advancing Youth Project (AYP) and reviewed

level ICAs during the Advancing Youth Project. The Core Group has, over time, demonstrated the ability to identify key pieces of evidence that are acceptable for various indicators in the ICA, facilitate county teams to come to an evidence-based consensus on scoring, and summarize scores. In Year 2 of the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity, more emphasis was placed on the prioritization process and this will continue to be the emphasis, requiring MoE staff to develop and practice facilitating this transition from assessment to priority planning.

In the re-orientation of the Core Group, emphasis was placed on the following topics as a part of the preparation for conducting the county level ICAs. Topics reviewed in the re-orientation of the Core Group included:

Use and importance of the ICA process for improving ALP delivery Function of the MoE and EDC staff in supporting the process as a critical ‘friend’. Stages of the ICA process and involvement of the county teams: orientation; self-

assessment; prioritizing and rating; work planning; review and re-planning. Guiding principles in conducting the ICAs: team based, facilitated, innovative, systems

thinking. Orientation on work plan process and deliverables

The role of the Core team as a “critical friend” (Costa and Kallick, 1993) was used by the Core Group to inform their role in the process, to be seen by county teams as “a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critique of a person’s work as a friend.”

ICA Implementation

All six county ICAs were implemented in Year 2, starting with Bong County in Quarter 2, and the remaining 5 counties completed in Quarter 3. A total of 156 participants attended the ICA training (24 female and 132 male), of which 108 were MoE representatives and 48 were EOs. In addition to the CEOs and DEOs, other Education Officers included the five support staff compromised of Human Resources, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, Procurement and Finance. Other staff included the Alternative Education (AE) Supervisors, AE Coordinators and PTA focal staff for the country and district levels. Additionally, core staff from the Division for Basic and Secondary Education, and select members of the TWG were in attendance.

County Female Male Total Bong 2 22 24 Grand Bassa 1 14 15 Lofa 5 14 19 Margibi 2 11 13 Montserrado 3 15 18 Nimba 1 18 19 Grand Total 14 94 108

Table 2 CEO and DEO participation in county level ICAs County County

Attendees Female Male Total

Bong County

County Education Officer

0 1 1

District Education Officer

3 6 9

Grand Bassa


0 1 1


1 4 5

Lofa


0 1 1


1 5 6

Margibi


1 0 1


1 2 3

Montserrado District Education Officer

1 7 8

Nimba


0 1 1


2 10 12

Grand Total 10 38 48 The 2018 MoE-led ICAs provided the Core Group with the opportunity of facilitating the counties self-assessments and more importantly guiding a process to prioritize issues to address and develop action plans that are realistic and manageable within the MoE system. The three-day process started off with a two-day review and self-assessment based on the seven categories included in the tool; scores were supported by documentation and evidence; and a

alignment of evidence for the level descriptors associated with the scores. County Education Officers reviewed the assessment scores before embarking on the prioritization and planning segments of the process. Once the CEO concurred, the prioritization and planning process could begin. The assessment, priorities and action plans were reviewed by the assigned members of the Core Team, CEOs and the Accelerated Quality Education Activity staff responsible for quality assurance of the process. As a result, the plans are more closely linked to and can be folded in to the MoE operational plans.

The next section of this report provides the results of the County ICAs. The AE Division ICA has not been completed due to transitions in the MoE, but is scheduled for Year 3, Quarter 1.

III. Results By County: Assessment, Priorities, Action Objectives The following sections present the ICA assessment results for each county. The results are presented in table and figure formats and narrative summaries. The narratives draw on participant accounts of county and district education office policies and practices that were shared during the assessment process to clarify evidence (or lack thereof), to justify institutional capacity scores and priorities for action.

Year One Accelerated Quality Education Activity Counties: Bong, Grand Bassa and Montserrado

For Bong, Grand Bassa and Montserrado counties, a baseline was established from the endline ICAs of the USAID Advancing Youth Project, conducted in April 2017. For these counties, the Accelerated Quality Education Activity began operations in September of 2017.

Bong County Assessment Results 2018

Table 3: Bong ICA Scores 2017-2018

Capacity Category 2017 Score (baseline) 2018 Score

Governance 62.50% 62.50% Administration 50.00% 58.33% Organizational Management 75.00% 83.33% Program Implementation & Management

64.28% 70.83%

Project Performance Management 60.71% 62.50% Financial Management 75.00% 75.00%

Total 462.49% 493.74% General average 66.07% 70.54%

Figure 1: Bong 2017-2018 Comparison of ICA Category Scores The scoring and descriptions that follow are representative of the status at the time of the assessment. Since drafting initial reports on the assessment and prioritizations, further work has happened, which may already be supporting progress. For example, additional trainings for PTAs and engagement with traditional leaders which will have an effect on management and implementation.

Governance and Leadership (62.5%)

The score for Governance and Leadership remained the same from the 2017 ICA. The results show that there is a structure in county education offices systems and the county team understands the structure and the intended relationships and roles between the positions within the county office, including the five professionals, plus the AE Supervisor, the DEOs and the various programs. However, 75% of Bong’s DEOs took office about two weeks before the ICA. They are very active and interested in the ICA, which provided them an opportunity to interact with county staff, more experienced DEOs and the Accelerated Quality Education Activity staff. They are keen to act on the ICA results and to support ALP in the county; they expect to be part of moving the county plan forward. There is a copy of the policy manual in place with organizational chart that reflects the different categories of supervisory/authorization levels.

Several documents support the institutional support for education in the county. The county ff h f h Ed R f A f 2011 h AE H d P l d h ABE

62.50%

50.00% 75

.00%

64.28%

60.71% 75.00%

75.00%

62.50%

58.33% 83

.33%

70.83%

62.50%

75.00%

81.25%

BONG ICA 2017‐2018 COMPARISON CHART

2017 Score (baseline) 2018 Score

and experienced DEOs. The County Alternative Education Supervisor actively coordinates AE activities and includes them in his monthly reports. The AES has a list of service providers in the county that he generated from last year’s DEOs and completes AE data collection forms, most of which carry information on activities under the Accelerated Quality Education Activity. There are minutes of county sector meetings.

Based on the description above, the county scored a 3 in Organizational Structure and a 2 in Institutional Support to ALP, resulting in the overall score of 62.5%.

Administration (58.33%)

There was a step-up from the 2017 baseline score by 8.33% in the 2018 assessment of Administrative practices in the county. They have the Education Administrative Guides, the CSA Standing Order and copies of the Teacher Code of Conduct as well as the Liberia Education Administrative Regulation. In the guidelines, basic administrative and operational procedures are found and clearly spelt out.

However, issues relating to travel policies and procedures are not clearly defined in the county. Generally, county staff inform their Supervisors and obtain permission to travel. Most requests and permission are by mobile phones and so are not documented. Related travel allowances are provided by the county for staff traveling out of the county on official duties and not for traveling and overnights within the county. Implementing partners pay travel allowances to MoE county staff traveling with their programs within and out of the county based on their internal procedures.

Procurement policies are contained in a manual from the national Public Procurement Compliance Commission. The manual is available, though there is little local procurement, and for more routine purchases, the practice is to procure from vendors who will provide credit. Major procurements are handled by the central ministry to the extent that even arm chairs are purchased or made by vendors in Monrovia and transported to the county. There is a need to decentralize procurement processes.

Organizational Management (83.33%)

There is also an 8.33% increase in the Organizational Management Category in Bong County. There is an annual County Work Plan that expires in May of this year and was developed during the 2017 ICA. Most activities in the plan have been reported as implemented but there is no documentation. Reports are not regular from County Office to the Deputy Minister for Instruction. There is a reporting template developed with support from the USAID Advancing Youth Project that the CEOs began to use but did not continue since reports were not demanded. There is a Regional Officer assigned to each of 5 counties who is the Desk Officer

between CEOs and the DMI, but there has not been an active coordination through the Regional Officers to date. Supporting the Getting-To-Best Education Plan, the county plan is linked to improvements in access, quality and governance.

The AE Supervisor has copies of the new SQA form that includes ALP data collected from the Accelerated Quality Education Activity and a few other NGOs in the county. Only CEOs and DEOs were trained on the use of the SQA but the Bong CEO has not rolled out the training to other EO like the Alternative Education Officer. DEOs are developing district plans for submission and approval by the CEO.

As a means of managing knowledge in the county, meetings are periodically convened to bring together multiple actors and stakeholders in the sector. Minutes and attendance lists are maintained as are membership lists for the Bong Coordination Meeting and the Inter-Sectoral Committee. In fact, there were minutes from a stakeholder meeting within the month preceding the ICA.

In terms of community engagement, the county self-assessment team offered that partners are developing and documenting good practices though they have not been shared intentionally nor have they been adapted or scaled up. This does represent an opportunity for a sector meeting in which community engagement strategies could be shared across programs for maximum impact.

The county has up to date information on all stakeholders implementing AE including where they work, what they are doing and program and staff qualifications. Current AE Service Providers (AE SPs) include the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity, NAEAL, and Learning Links.

Program Implementation and Management (70.83%)

Program implementation planning for ALP has not yet taken place, though the county does report having developed and implemented a plan to continue ABE services following the Advancing Youth Project. EDC, USAID’s implementer for the Accelerated Quality Education Activity, has, through numerous activities, engaged the county in planning for ALP, including site selection, learner recruitment and placement, teacher selection and professional development, and additional survey and monitoring tasks. However, these activities have not yet been integrated into the county work plan.

This category also considers accreditation of programs; there is not yet a standards-based accreditation process for ALP programs, though NGOs can acquire a certificate from the Ministry of Planning that enables them to operate.

issue and challenge to the institutionalization of ALP as it is not likely that the MoE will have the budget to cover this expense so it is unlikely that counties will develop the capacity to pay such stipends.

The county leads a network of education service providers (including AE SPs) and champions to implement standards-based programs, promote best practices and advocate for appropriate policies and sufficient resources for its programs. The CEO heads all Education Sector meetings except the County Development Steering Committee (CDSC) which is headed by the Superintendent of the county.

There is a periodic review system in place where the county team reviews its work plan, however it is not active. The county does not identify lessons learned or best practices or use information to review/revise strategies with staff or stakeholders. The operational plan for 2017-2018 did not include ALP.

In Bong, there is a plan being developed for involving communities and the private sector in AE programs, and it has not been implemented. PTAs in communities have been mapped and listed. The community engagement plan is being developed in collaboration with Search for Common Ground.

The county considers local culture representation and gender issues when programming activities, but does not have tools or a process for assessing them. Bong has an awareness strategy created along with Action Aid. Action Aid has a Memorandum of Understanding with the CEO to conduct this awareness in the county; the county conducts sensitization and awareness on safe school environments.

Program Performance Management (62.50%)

The county’s work plan is approved and the budget is allocated but the budget is managed from Monrovia. The county is fully staffed. Some activities have started that may not necessarily be linked to the work plan. There are some county-approved documented procedures and processes for monitoring programmatic operations (including facilitator supervision), district and or center levels. Some monitoring occurs and technical support is given but not with the frequency planned in the work plan. There is a need to develop a general M&E Plan for monitoring the one-school approach.

Financial Management (75.00%)

The county has all documented financial management systems and they are appropriate. Staff are aware of the systems but they are not in use as financial management has not been

developed by the Ministry of Finance but county does not have the handbook nor do they really perform any of the standard Financial Management functions. The county also has most of the financial documentation procedures in place, including administrative policy on finance and financial transaction. There is an appropriate and standard national financial control procedures which is also not being adhered to. The CEO reviews and approves of all requests. All procurement transactions originate with the requisition form. While there is awareness of policies and procedures these functions are not currently executed in the counties, so staff do not need to perform them consistently. There is evidence of finance control procedure, payment request, Purchase Orders, vouchers and receipts on file with the Finance Officer. The county has a financial procedure manual and copies of some financial reports. Discussions with staff show that most staff are aware of the procedures – being former school Principals and former DEOs. Updates to the procedure are not the prerogative of the county.

Human Resources Management (81.25%)

Terms of Reference are provided in the Act for the teachers, principals, DEOs and CEOs who all have copies of the ToRs at the county level. The ToRs for facilitators and the support staff (5 professional positions required for decentralization) are not included in the Education Reform Act of 2011 but are part of the National Decentralization Plan.

The process for guiding staff recruitment is outlined in the Education Reform Act and Civil Service Standing Orders but it is not followed as staff recruitment and hiring are not decentralized and those decisions are made at central level. The county has been trained on the appraisal of staff but have neither implemented the process nor rolled out the training to the district staff for implementation. Discussions with the county team highlighted the need to find a balance with the county waiting for guidance from the central Ministry, while continuing to push on issues critical to implementation.

Summary: Bong Institutional Capacity Scores 2018

Figure 2 presents an overview of Bong County 2018 Institutional capacity scores. The scores show evidenced-based capacity in a continuum from highest scoring in Organizational Management category (83.33%) to lowest scoring in Administration category (58.33%).

Figure 2: Bong ICA 2018 – Highest to Lowest Scoring Categories

The two ends of the continuum suggest institutional capacity that is strong on written policy and documentation (organizational management reporting and meeting structures) – while facing challenges in planning and action implementation (administration challenges in travel, procurement, budgets).

Priorities for Capacity Development.

Following the assessment and scoring, the County Teams were guided to identify categories and elements in which they felt they needed to work. They selected several potential priorities. Through a public voting process, each team member assigned a ranking to the selected elements. The top ten were thus identified numerically and vetted once more to determine the priorities for capacity development over the next year. These priorities then became objectives and activities for the action plan. For Bong County the Priority Capacity Elements are ranked as follows:

Table 4: Bong ICA Priorities

Bong County ICA Based Priorities for Capacity Development Priority Ranking ICA Element

1 5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation of AE Activities 2 3.1 Work Plan Development 3 3.2 Knowledge Management

Priority Ranking ICA Element 4 6.1 Financial Management System 5 7.4 Staff Performance Expectations 6 1.2 Institutional Support for ALP 7 2.2 Travel Policy and Procedures 8 4.5 Community and Private Sector Involvement 9 5.1 Program Implementation Status 10 3.3 Stakeholder Involvement

Figure 3: Bong ICA priorities by capacity element The top priority (monitoring and evaluation) is drawn from one of the county’s lowest scoring ICA categories - program performance management. At the same time, the second and third priority categories (work plan development, knowledge management) are drawn from one of the county’s top scoring categories – organizational management. This may reflect a pattern of capacity potential in Bong and other counties that is there – but that is not being realized due to lack of opportunities or resources. The ALP is an avenue for enabling this capacity potential – as is evident in the Bong objectives in the following section for practically building capacity through AE/ALP planning and action. Bong Action Plan Objectives:

1. Facilitators recruited and assigned exclusively to AE/ALP

4. By end of academic 2017-2018, communities and private sectors in Bong will be aware of and involved with ALP activities

5. Bong County M&E plan developed 6. AE/ALP service providers trained on and adhere to national AE PQS 7. Bong county staff performance appraised by end of May 2018

Grand Bassa County Assessment Results 2018

Table 5: Grand Bassa ICA Scores 2017-2018


Governance & Leadership 87.50% 75.00% Administration 75.00% 50.00% Organizational Management 100.00% 66.67% Program Implementation & Management 91.67% 54.17% Program Performance Management 70.83% 66.67% Financial Management 75.00% 75.00% Human Resource Management 87.50% 81.25% Total 587.50% 468.75% General average 83.93% 66.96%

Figure 4: Grand Bassa 2017-2018 Comparison of ICA Category Scores

87.50%

75.00% 100.00

%

91.67%

70.83%

75.00%

87.50%

75.00%

50.00%

66.67%

54.17%

66.67%

75.00%

81.25%

GRAND BASSA 2017‐2018 ICA COMPARISON CHART


(Organizational Management). This is not the case with this year’s ICA. It is possible that the county is more realistic with scores this time.

Governance (75.00%)

The County scored a 75% this year in Governance and Leadership category, a decline from last year’s score as seen in Table 5 above. There is an institutional structure which is well designed and relevant to its mission/goals. Roles and responsibilities of departments and functions are clearly defined through the structure and they are appropriate. The county has the organogram posted on the walls at the CEO. AE Harmonized Policy has been approved and is with the CEO and known by most DEOs and the Support Staff. There is information on Alternative Education learners with emphasis on ALP. Staff have their terms of reference. There is no idea of a National Council on Adult Education at the county level. The county has copies of the Education Act of 2011 and copies of the Harmonized Policy received during the Launch of the policy in December 2017. The Planning Officer is still acting as the Alternative Education Supervisor of the county.


There was a 25% drop in Administration category from the last ICA.

The county has the national standard Administrative Manual. Some DEOs are aware of the procedures since the last ICA. There is a need for DEOs to train district staff on the administrative processes of the MoE. Administrative processes are not consistently adhered to. Information systems are sufficient to support operations and programs at a good level of functionality without major inputs but these systems are not functioning normally. The county team seems very supportive of the decentralization mandate in the Education Act of 2011. They speak of the need for per diems to be provided for county staff when going out for overnights within the county.

The county also has the standard procurement policies and procedures guidelines. These guidelines are complete and appropriate but in reality they are not actually in use because the decentralization act is not functioning at their level. Procurement is still managed from the central level with only requests for quotations made by the county. Even the sending out of RFQs, the procurement is mostly done in Monrovia and goods and services sent to the county. There is a plan between the Procurement Officer and many vendors in the county to use them in line with the PPCC but the authority is not been conveyed from the central ministry. There is a copy of the amended public procurement policy, the Liberia Education Administrative Regulations, the Teacher Code of Conduct and the Education Act of 2011.

Organization Management (66.67 %)

Relating to work plan development, the county scored a 2, meaning that it has a work plan with stated goals, measurable objectives, and strategies, with timelines and responsibilities as well as indicators. The work plan is linked to the national operational plan but has no stated timelines, responsibilities and indicators, and is neither linked to a program budget, nor developed with participation of staff and has no dates for quarterly review. Grand Bassa’s work plan is linked to the national Operational Plan but there has not been up to 30% of the activities completed as yet. The work plan was developed during the end line ICA with the Advancing Youth Project in April of 2017. The county claims that there is no budget to implement the activities. A copy of the work plan was provided as evidence to the facilitation team.

Scoring a 3 in Knowledge Management was evidenced by an updated list of stakeholders with their functions, thematic areas, locations, and point persons. There is an active linkage with other organizations and regular stakeholder meetings ongoing during which they regularly share operational experiences. They have a plan to copy best practices but this has not been implemented and only the EOs are aware because they are the ones attending meetings. The county provided a list of county AE service providers showing their thematic and geographic areas of work and the qualification of the organization. They also had minutes of stakeholder meetings held within the last three months which was evidence for a score of a 3 in stakeholder involvement. The two major AE service providers in Grand Bassa are the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity and Street Child.


Grand Bassa had a fall from 91.67% to 54.17% in this category of the ICA. For ALP service delivery, there is a plan for delivery of ALP services that is being implemented in collaboration with the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity; setting the county at a 3. EDC is an approved service provider through registration with the government of Liberia and known by the Ministry of Education as the implementing agency of the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity. They produced an evidenced listing of service providers and copies of the ABE Program Quality Standards User Guide. There is a 1 score for facilitator payment. The county argued that they (as MoE) don’t have plans for paying AE facilitators unlike other counties that claim since all teachers and facilitators are paid by the MoE, they form a part of the teacher payment plan of the ministry. With a 3 in Alternative Education linkages and networks, Grand Bassa CEO heads the network of local and international education service providers in the county. They don’t have strong linkages with other line ministries and institutions but there is a strong linkage in supervision of the private sector schools in the county. Grand Bassa had selected facilitators for ABE but they did not remain in the class because the compensation plan was not supported by the government.

Because the county very seldom reviews its progress against its work plan and document

that there is no pressure from the ministry for reports or developing work plans so they rarely see the need to check their implementation against the plan. As evidence for a score of 3 for the involvement of the community and private sector, Grand Bassa CEO works with the PTA of schools that includes PTAs of private schools to ensure community support to schools – including ALP sites under the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity. They were able to produce meeting minutes from some PTAs and school administrations. Concerning issues of culture and gender, Grand Bassa County does not have considerations or agreements with the traditional council. There are a number of undocumented and casual discussions that have been held between the traditional council and the CEO but they are not binding on either party. There is a strong feeling that the fear of pushing against the traditional controls comes from the fact that the National Traditional Council Leader is from Grand Bassa and has to show proof that he is in control of the county.


The county scored a 2 in program implementation status as evidenced by the CEO posted organogram, a list of AE staff in the county with their ToRs, some reports and the county outdated work plan showed that the county does not have a full grasp of the performance of programs within. Budget for counties are kept at the central ministry against the decentralization mandate of the Education Act of 2011. The county is fully staffed as (in addition to DEOs and other county staff) there is an Acting AE Supervisor with 5 District AE Coordinators. There was a score 3 in ALP quality assurance as there are agreed upon and documented procedures and processes for monitoring programmatic operations (including facilitator supervision) at the county, district and site levels. Some monitoring occurs and technical support is given but not with the frequency planned in work plan. Monitoring is supported by the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity. There is an M&E plan dated February 2018. The plan is implemented with the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity. The assessment team held on to a 4 score showing that there is clear, agreed-upon, standards for program quality (including program, provider, provider, and facilitator standards). The PQS have been tested and approved by the Minister of Education. Staff are aware of these standards and appropriately trained to apply and monitor them. Standards are monitored and applied in a comprehensive manner. Discussions with staff prove they are aware of standards and are trained to apply and monitor the standards; copy of county program monitoring report was also seen by the facilitation team.

Financial Management (75.00 %)

With a 3, the county has basically all appropriate documented financial management systems. Because the financial system is not decentralized, staff are not concerned or not trained on the system. The Finance Officer is quite aware but most staff are not; this has caused the system not to be adhered to in Grand Bassa County. However, whenever there is a need or when there are funds raised from the schools, the system is utilized properly with documentations. In case there are funds disbursement is based on request from a requester to the CEO who

whether there is enough money or if there is a budget for the activity and confirms to the CEO who approves a voucher for cash release. The county feels that the central ministry needs to underscore the importance of implementing the decentralization process that is demanded by the Education Act of 2011.


Scoring a 4 in job description, Grand Bassa County has approved job descriptions for all county and district staff as well as ABE and ALP facilitators. Both the ABE and ALP facilitators’ job descriptions were developed in collaboration with EDC on the Advancing Youth Project and the Accelerated Quality Education Activity. The county organogram developed in Gbarnga in 2015 by all EOs was displayed on the walls at the office. A 4 was also the score for staff recruitment and retention thus there is a clear recruitment guideline from CSA and the process is transparent; the guidelines are consistently applied and staff have been trained/oriented to apply the guidelines. However, the Education Act provides for a decentralized recruitment that is not happening but the Civil Service Agency (CSA) guidelines do not provide for the decentralized recruitment as it was made long before the Education Act of 2011. The county has personnel policies that have been disseminated to all staff with the exception of office assistants. Policies include those pertaining to AE staff and facilitators. Updating the policy is the prerogative of the CSA and not the Ministry of Education; this gave Grand Bassa a 3 in Personnel Policy as there was evidence of the personnel policy document with AE Supervisors and facilitators, staff are aware, but there is no updated information available and not all staff have copy of the policy. In staff performance expectation, a 2 verified that the county has a process for assessing staff performance. They have been trained to assess or appraise staff but there has been no appraisal exercise done as yet. The process needs to be rolled out to the districts as only the CEO and HR Officer were trained by the central ministry. The county decided to remain at a 2 because they feel there is a lot to do before actualizing the process of appraisal.

Staff in Grand Bassa County completed forms from the CSA last year that were to be used to verify their payroll status. There is a process through which the CEO sits with DEOs to review the activities they have earlier planned and provide updates and reasons for not completing some activities but this is not a formal appraisal process.

Summary: Grand Bassa Institutional Capacity Scores 2018

Figure 5 presents an overview of Grand Bassa County 2018 Institutional capacity scores. Here like Bong, the lowest scoring capacities centered on Administration (50.00%) – while the highest scoring category featured Human Resource Management (81.25%).

Figure 5: Grand Bassa ICA 2018 – Highest to Lowest Scoring Categories

The scoring contrast verifies key advances in HRM evidenced in institutional organigrams, recruitment guidelines and job descriptions at the high end of the continuum of county institutional capacity. These advances are challenged by decentralization tensions illustrated at the lower end of the continuum. The lowest scoring administration capacity highlighted a lack of adherence in administration processes, information systems that lacked functionality, and procurement that essentially remained centralized.

Priorities for Capacity Development for Grand Bassa County are listed in the table below in terms of their priority level/ranks. They were selected by the county self-assessment team through a public voting process after the assessment and scores were finalized. Each team member assigned a ranking to the selected elements; the top ten were thus identified numerically and vetted once more to determine the priorities for capacity development over the next year. These priorities then became objectives and activities for the action plan.

Table 6: Grand Bassa 2018 ICA Top Ten Priorities

Grand Bassa County ICA Based Priorities for Capacity Development Priority Ranking

ICA Elements

2 1.1 Organization Structure 3 2.1 Operational Policies, Procedures and Systems 4 4.5 Community and Private Sector Involvement 5 2.3 Procurement 6 2.2 Travel Policy and Procedures 7 4.2 AE Facilitator Payment 8 3.2 Knowledge Management 9 5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation of AE Activities

10 7.1 Job Descriptions for Ministry and Service Providers

Figure 6: Grand Bassa 2018 ICA Priorities by element

Grand Bassa Action Planning Objectives for 2018-2019

1. Increase staff knowledge on organizational structure in six months 2. Awaken staff knowledge on the importance of operational policies, procedures and

systems 3. Development travel policies and procedures directory Increase the knowledge on

procurement procedures 4. Increase staff knowledge on work plan implementation 5. Establish regular meeting with stakeholder to increase the knowledge of best practices

8. Design ways and means to strengthen relations between traditional and formal schools. 9. Improve on the usage of the AE monitoring and evaluation data 10. Constantly maintain and capacitate the staff

Many of the activities to be undertaken in response to these objectives do not require additional resources and can be carried out within the routine functioning of the county supported as needed by MoE headquarters and/or within planned activities under the Accelerated Quality Education Activity. The Annual Capacity Strengthening Plan will integrate related activities across counties under the Accelerated Quality Education Activity.

Montserrado County Assessment Results 2018

Table 7: Montserrado ICA Score 2017-2018


Governance 61.50% 50.00% Administration 51.00% 25.00% Organizational Management 63.75% 33.33% Program Implementation & Management 41.67% 33.33% Project Performance Management 45.83% 50.00% Financial Management 74.00% 75.00% Human Resource Management 56.25% 68.75% Total 394.00% 335.41% General average 56.29% 47.92%

Figure 7: Montserrado 2017-2018 Comparison of ICA Category Scores

As seen above in Table 7, Montserrado County’s general average score is 47.92%. The county has not been as active with the Accelerated Quality Education Activity as some of the other counties. Information passed on to the CEO is rarely passed to the DEOs and their attendance at activities has been poor to some extent. However, the county was fully participatory in this year’s ICA and realistic in their discussions. The scores reflect the self-assessment team’s frankness about their institutional status.

Governance (50.00%)

There is an institutional structure with adequate definitions of responsibilities and key lines of responsibility and communication among departments and staff at the Montserrado CEO. These responsibilities are clear but the organogram is not posted. There were copies of the Operational Manual with roles and responsibilities of county staff (not including AE Supervisor).

0

61.50%

51.00% 63.75%

41.67%

45.83%

74.00%

56.25%

50.00%

25.00%

33.33%

33.33% 50

.00%

75.00%

68.75%

MONTSERRADO COUNTY 2017‐2018 ICA COMPARISON CHART

2017 Score 2018 Score

about the Harmonized Alternative Education Policy as they formed a part of the launch in December of 2017 being represented by some DEOs and the acting AE Supervisor. They do not have any idea of the direct implementation of the policy and have not rolled out the policy or trained staff concerning it. CEO is collecting data on ALP learners working through the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity. They look forward to the implementation of the decentralization mandate of the Education Act 2011. Organizational structure and institutional support to ALP were both scored at 2.

Administration (25.00 %)

Since the last ICA, Montserrado has dropped by 26%. According the self-assessment team, the county has no documented administrative procedures and information systems are insufficient to manage its operations and/or programs; no documented travel procedures; and no documented procurement procedures. There is a need to train or orientate staff on basic administrative procedures, design the county organogram with reporting lines. Per Diem, procurement, and other personnel policy items are all managed by central ministry. The team feels that this is because of their closeness to the central Ministry which is located in Montserrado county. This brings the county to a 1 in all the 3 elements under Administration Category.

Organization management (33.33%)

There is a 50% drop in this element from the last ICA in 2017. The county does not have a work plan. Work is done based on individual DEO plans. The district plans are not matched against any county or national plan and so there is no review of plans. The county has low level technical linkages with other institutions (national or non-governmental) to share best practices or program experiences, but there is no documentation and staff are not updated on best practices. They have some information about stakeholders and service providers in Alternative Education (emphasis on ALP) but this is incomplete and out of date. Since the 2017 ICA and the ABE community transition meetings and summits, there is little or no direct development of work plans. There is a need for CEO to pass on information more frequently and precisely to DEOs. The county produced a list of county AE service providers and their thematic and geographic areas of work but the list seems to be outdated.

Program implementation and management (33.33%)

There is a drop of 8.34% (from 41.67% – 33.33%) in this element from the last ICA. Scoring a one (1) in service delivery element, the county has no plan for delivery of ALP services (including delivery of services by NGOs, CBOs, private sector) and no plan to compensate AE facilitators. The county is familiar with the sector network and may have participated intermittently in meetings and intends to reach out to other local or national networks in order

county plan, the county does not regularly review its progress against a plan. The CEO attends the County Development Steering Committee (CDSC) meetings to share educational development issues with other national sectors. In Montserrado County there is not much consideration of culture and gender issues when planning programs and staff. Montserrado is mostly urban and the rural areas are mostly of people rooted in the societies or cultural practices. The county developed a plan during the ICA for the period April 2018 (completion of the ICA) to July 2018 (end of the current government financial year).

Program Performance and Management (50.00%)

In the 3 elements that the county narrowly increased, program performance and management happens to be the first with a 4.17% increase this year. The county’s work plan activities are based on the activities in the plans of the DEOs as there is no general county plan. However, the AE Supervisor has a plan that is working with the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity. Some ALP activities have started and they are linked to the work plan developed with the Montserrado team of the Accelerated Quality Education Activity. The county is fully staffed with AE Coordinators in place assigned at each district. These Coordinators are existing MoE staff who had the space to provide some support to the Alternative Education program in the district. There is a need to properly train the Coordinators to monitor AE activities. There was a discussion that the AE service providers in Montserrado are not making reports to the CEO neither are they liaising with the county, but directly to the central. The only partner directly liaising with the county is the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity. It was also clear that the county was not aware of the One-School Approach of the MoE.


With a 1-point increase from 74% to 75%, Montserrado County has documented financial management systems and financial control procedures that are appropriate but not known to all staff and not adhered to constantly. There is also an appropriate but dormant documented financial reporting procedure. Montserrado scored a 3 across all the elements of this category. The county is in possession (that EDC saw) of the Financial manual but discussion with staff proves that only a few staff are aware of or use the financial system; there are also documentation procedures in the financial manual. There was evidence of financial reports; financial control systems were displayed to the facilitation team. Receipts of transactions by the schools and banking were also provided to the facilitation team. There is a Finance Officer assigned in the county office but there is no budget allocated to the county for operation or program support. The Finance Officer has prepared and submitted county budgets to Central MoE but funding has not been allocated. The Finance Officer also has personally developed a system to monitor and guide schools' usage of funds and has developed guidelines with handouts for financial management. School level financial reporting is difficult as funds they now


Montserrado increased this category by 12.5%. Although not a planned activity, HRM has improved in several ways: County staff have their ToRs, though the AE Supervisor’s ToR is ABE focused and may need revision for the bigger picture of AE inclusive of ABE and ALP. The CSA Standing Order is available at the county office along with the Education Act of 2011. The recruitment guideline is not managed by the CEO since the MoE has not implemented the decentralization mandate of the Education Act of 2011. According to the Act, recruitment of CEO and other county staff is the prerogative of the County School Board. Recommendation for recruiting or replacing vacant teaching post is usually done by the CEO but replacement of CEOs and DEOs is the DMI’s recommendation. The County School Board does not seem to be functional, as they have not had the chance to fulfill their mandate. Though a copy is available at the county office, there is a need to circulate the CSA Standing Orders to all staff, especially with district staff.

Summary: Montserrado Institutional Capacity Scores 2018

Figure 8 presents an overview of Montserrado County 2018 Institutional capacity scores. Once more, like Bong and Grand Bassa counties the lowest scoring capacities in Montserrado centered on Administration (25%) – while the highest scoring featured the category of Financial Management (75%).

Figure 8: Montserrado ICA 2018: Highest to Lowest Scores

developed sophisticated finance systems, procedures and reporting mechanisms from county to district and local school administration levels – while the financial management systems are not necessarily well understood or adhered to at each level due to central control of finances. At the other end administration scores show in contrast no administrative procedures or information systems in place for management of operations and programs and a critical need for capacity building in basic administration procedures.

Montserrado County Priorities

The county team suggests that there is a need to bring Montserrado up to speed with other counties along the ICA lines. The self-assessment team appealed that a mid-term ICA be conducted with the county to enable them make an earlier assessment of their activities and review their progress to provide a catch-up strategy for the county before the next general ICA. In the table below, find the capacity priority areas for development from Montserrado County:

Montserrado County ICA Based Priorities for Capacity Development Priority Ranking

Capacity Elements

1 3.1 Work Plan Development 2 2.1 Operational Policies, Procedures and Systems 3 1.2 Institutional Support for ALP 4 7.1 Job description for Ministry and Service Providers 5 4.5 Community and Private Sector Involvement 6 1.1 Organization Structure 7 4.2 AE Facilitator Payment 8 5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation of AE Activities 9 4.4 Program Review 10 5.1 Program Implementation Status

Figure 9: Montserrado ICA Priorities by Element

Montserrado Action Plan Objectives:

1. To have a clearly stated county organogram by end of the fourth quarter (September 2018)

2. To secure and roll out all educational policies to county staff at the end of July 3. To develop a periodic harmonized county work plan 4. To involve school PTAs, local authorities & private sector with AE program in the

county 5. To develop Montserrado County M&E Plan 6. Montserrado County AE/ALP Service Providers Trained on and Adhere to National

Alternative Education Program Quality Standards; 7. To secure and roll out job descriptions for MOE staffs including AE staffs in the county.

Year Two Accelerated Quality Education Activity Counties: Margibi, Nimba, Lofa

The time between the April 2017 Advancing Youth Project endline ICAs for Margibi, Nimba and Lofa and their start up for Accelerated Quality Education Activity was about a year. Hence EDC proposed in the Capacity Assessment Plan to use the 2018 ICA as the baseline for the Year 2 counties, to provide a more current view of their capacities with respect to ALP. For these counties, the Accelerated Quality Education Activity began site mapping in Q3, 2018 and there is relatively little recent experience with ALP, though these counties were involved in earlier efforts. When the 2018 ICA considers capacity linked to ALP, the scores may seem lower with counties not having resources to implement some processes without partner support

Table 8: Margibi ICA Scores 2017-2018

Capacity Category

2017 Score

(baseline) 2018 Score


54.16% 45.83%

Project Performance Management 66.66% 45.83% Financial Management 68.75% 68.75% Human Resource Management 68.75% 50.00% Total Score 429.15% 360.41% General average 61.30% 51.49%

Figure 10: Margibi 2017-2018 Comparison of ICA Category Scores

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%

Margibi Comparison of ICA Scores 2017‐2018

2017 2018

Governance and Leadership. (50.00%)

Margibi has the regular MoE county institutional structure with adequate definitions of responsibilities and communication among departments. Functions are clear. EDC is working with the county on a mapping exercise to select ALP sites for implementation. There is currently no data collected on any AE learners. Margibi has a plan for decentralized support for AE through a mandate from the Education Act of 2011, the MoE Operational Plan of 2012 – 2016 and now extended through the Operational Plan of 2017 - 2021.

In each of the elements of governance, Margibi scored a 2; meaning that they have a 50% for the category. Evidence included the county organogram, operational policies; guide for ABE Quality Standards, CEO monthly report includes AE data and information on previous ABE programs; Education Act (for decentralization) operational policies and-minutes of Education Sector meetings.


The county has all documented administrative procedures and they are appropriate. They are however neither known to all staff nor consistently adhered to. Information systems are sufficient to support operations and programs at a good level of functionality without major inputs but these systems are somehow dormant. Most information is passed on through the use of cell phones and not formal written communications. Some information is posted on the bulletin board mostly related to meetings and the opening of school.

Margibi does not have documented travel procedures. (i.e., per diem levels, forms, approval procedures) but there are some documented procurement policies procedures which are complete and appropriate but not being used due to the failure of the MoE to adhere to the decentralization mandate of the Education Act 2011.

As evidence, Margibi produced the National Administrative Manual and the Education Administrative Regulations. There is a limited level of filing at the CEO. There are also some procurement documents like vouchers and purchase orders that have been sent to the central, way-bills. Discussions show that the county is somehow frustrated that the central ministry has not supported the decentralization of its authority. They complain that there are so many laws but no implementation of those laws.


The county work plan has not been updated since April of 2017. There is no budget allocation from central MoE for monitoring and support visits. Margibi has active linkages with other organizations and an internal process for sharing during coordination meetings. It also has plans to use best practices but has not implemented these plans or updated stakeholders and staff. The initiation of ALP will provide an opportunity to re-engage key AE stakeholders beginning with the 2018-2019 academic year.

Facilitation team viewed the outdated work plan that includes AE There is also evidence of

information with another stakeholder but not about ALP.


The MoE promotes the provision of stipends for its teachers who facilitate Alternative Education Programs outside of their normal workloads and school day, though these stipends are paid by implementing partners and not part of the MoE/GoL budget. This explains why the county would have a lower score in this area and it is not likely to go up in the absence of a government policy and provision of these stipends. The ALP program will be started up in Margibi, beginning with the site mapping exercise in May. The county is a lead member of key local education coordination networks. The county leads the coordination of education institutions and programs, though it has limited linkages with other institutions, organizations, government entities, and the private sector in the county relating to ALP, Margibi has not reviewed its work plan developed in 2017, in spite of scheduling quarterly reviews. There is therefore, no record of lessons learned or best practices related to Alternative Education in Margibi.

The startup of activities will activate a community engagement plan which begins the process of mobilization during the selection of sites, facilitators and learners. and selection of ALP facilitators and learners. The county considers local cultural representation in support of gender respect and equity, but does not have tools or a process for assessing its discussions or considerations. Evidence provided in this category included lists of education sector membership, copy of meeting notes and attendance, county work plan and the schedule for site mapping with the Accelerated Quality Education Activity.


The county has an outdated work plan with some agreed upon and documented procedures and processes for monitoring programmatic operations (including facilitator supervision) at the county, district and or central levels, however no monitoring is occurring and no technical support is being given at the moment. This will change as the Accelerated Quality Education Activity begins implementation. There are copies of the ABE Program Quality Standards at the CEO and with some DEOs. These standards may be adapted for ALP. There is no functional supervision plan for ALP but there is ongoing supervision for the formal system and as the One School Approach takes hold, these visits will include ALP/AE supervision as well.

The county has a plan to work closely with the Accelerated Quality Education Activity in mapping the prospective ALP sites and monitoring selected sites.

A viable county organogram was presented with a list of all staff (including County AE Supervisor and District Coordinators). A draft M&E schedule is also with the CEO, including school quality assessment tool. Copy of the ABE PQS presented. Margibi staff are aware of these standards but they are not being implemented.


Th h d d f l d f l l d

are aware that the systems are in place but they are not consistently adhered to because financial issues are really not decentralized within the MoE. There is substantial and adequate documented financial reporting procedures that are appropriate. However, Finance Officer does not have many reports because few transactions are handled at the county level. Most financial documentation is required for MoE school grants. The counties pray for the day financial transactions will be decentralized but for now, most goods and services are handled by the central ministry.

As evidence, Margibi produced the Finance Manual, copies of receipts, vouchers, way-bills, delivery notes, requisition and payment receipts.

Human Resource Management (50.00%)

As far as the MoE Margibi organogram is concerned, there are staff for all positions, including Alternative Education. Though the MoE only has provision for one county AE Supervisor, there are District officers who allocate some time to AE activities working with the County AE Supervisor. Every staff has a ToR with clear lines of communication and reporting. There are even job descriptions for facilitator of Alternative Basic Education but not for ALP. The CEO has a copy of the CSA Standing Orders, providing basic guidelines for hiring and recruitment. The HR Office, CEO and DEOs are aware of the but this function is not yet decentralized. In spite of the process prescribed in the Education Act of 2011 central continues to hire staff for the counties. The personnel policy is the responsible of the CSA.

Margibi (among other counties) has been trained on conducting staff appraisal but the implementation has not been affected in the county. CEO is to appraise the DEOs and other county staff while DEOs appraise Principals and Principals do so to teachers. There is a need to push for appraising staff at the county level. At the moment, Margibi has no process for regularly assessing staff performance including objective setting, listing of responsibilities/tasks and assessment of performance. They have the training but no plan.

Evidence included county staff ToRs; AE Supervisor ToR complete; ABE facilitator ToR; Guidelines for recruitment/hiring provided, Teachers Code of Conduct, Educator Management policy for the Republic of Liberia provided and CSA Standing Orders.

Summary: Margibi Capacity Scores 2018

Figure 11 presents a summary overview of Margibi County 2018 Institutional capacity scores – from the highest to the lowest scoring categories. Like Montserrado the highest scoring category centered on Financial Management (68.75%) – while the lowest scoring featured the category of Program Implementation and Management (45.83%)

Figure 11: Margibi 2018 ICA - Highest to Lowest Scores

Here Margibi like Montserrado demonstrated extensive evidence of established financial management capacities in finance systems, control and documentation guidelines – while there was little usage of these systems and processes at the decentralized county level other than documentation around the MOE school grants. At the lower end of the scoring continuum the gap in county capacity to manage and implement programs further illustrated decentralized county challenges in working beyond the norms of office practices and structures – in leading, networking and engaging other educational entities, partners and the private sector in coordinated approaches to program implementation.

Priorities for Capacity Development. Based on a review of the scores, and the recommended prioritization process, rank ordered below are the ten (10) areas for capacity development selected by Margibi ICA self-assessment team:

Table 9: Margibi Priorities 2018

Margibi County ICA Based Priorities for Capacity Development

Priority Ranking Capacity Elements 1 5.1 Program Implementation 2 3.1 Work Plan Development 3 1.2 Institutional Support for ALP

Development Priority Ranking Capacity Elements 4 2.1 Operational Policies, Procedures and

Systems 5 1.1 Organization Structure 6 5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation of AE Activities 7 4.5 Community and Private Sector

Involvement 8 4.1 AE Service Delivery 9 6.1 Financial Management System 10 3.3 Stakeholder Involvement

Figure 12: Margibi priorities per category

Margibi Action Planning Objectives:

1. Ensure 85% of administrators and facilitators are trained in performing their responsibilities relating to ALP

2. By the end of year 1, the county will be able to actualize institutional support to AE/ALP

3. Develop a county comprehensive work plan to include AE activities at 75% by July 2018 with the participation of all county AE staff

4 I tit ti li AE t id l i t iti f d t f

5. By the end of 2018, 90% of AE facilitators will be trained on their roles and responsibilities

6. Margibi AE partners coordinated 7. By the end of 2018, ALP facilitators and principals are fully aware about their

roles and responsibilities 8. ALP M&E tools adapted and used 9. By end of August 2018, Margibi staff would have completed appropriate

documentation of financial management system 10. Ensure the effective use of the HR policy staff recruitment and retention in the

recruitment AE staff

Nimba County Assessment Results 2018

Table 10: Nimba ICA Scores 2018-2019

Capacity Category

2017 Score

(baseline) 2018 Score

Governance 62.50% 62.50% Administration 75.00% 66.67% Organizational Management 83.33% 58.33% Program Implementation & Management 91.67% 41.67% Project Performance Management 83.33% 66.67% Financial Management 87.50% 75.00% Human Resource Management 87.50% 68.75% Total 570.83% 439.58% General average 81.55% 62.80%

Figure 13: Nimba 2017-2018 Comparison of ICA Category Scores

Governance & Leadership (62.50%)

Elements discussed here are organizational structure and institutional support to ALP.

There is an institutional structure including counties that is installed through the national organogram of the MoE and it is well designed and relevant to the MoE’s mission and goals; roles and responsibilities of departments and functions of staff are clearly defined and appropriate for a functioning system. AE policy is analyzed through implementation of ABE programs as there are yet 2 ABE sites in operation in Lofa County. The Ministry is collecting data on ABE learners and site mapping is ongoing for new ALP sites in the county. There is a draft plan for decentralized support for AE. The Education Reform Act 2011, National Administrative Regulations, county organogram, AE policy and electronic copies of data collection forms were presented as evidence to support the scores.

Though the Education Act of 2011 provides for decentralized support to county systems and AE is a part of that system, it has not been operationalized. This will be a recurring theme throughout.


Under the administrative category, elements discussed are operational policies, procedures and systems, travel policy, and procurement.

The county has most documents regarding administrative procedures and they are appropriate,

0

62.50%

75.00%

83.33%

91.67%

83.33%

87.50%

87.50%

62.50%

66.67%

58.33%

41.67% 66.67%

75.00%

68.75%

NIMBA COUNTY ICA 2017 2018 COMPARISON CHART

2017 Score 2018 Score

to most staff, but they are not consistently adhered to.

The Education Reform Act and the Administrative Manual are available in the county and district offices. Though there has been no formal training on the administrative manual, most information is posted on the bulletin board at CEO and DEO offices. Some staff feel that they deserve more information than what is provided however Administrative staff feel that they do not have the logistics to provide information throughout the county

All staff present at the ICA admitted having good knowledge of these procedures but also admitted that they are not being consistently adhered to. Evidence provided included the Administrative Manual, filing system, postings on the bulletin board. They also provided some forms for official travel requests, though they acknowledged that these forms are rarely used. Major means of requesting permission to travel is through phone as printing is a challenge for the county office. There is a procurement manual and process/policy provided to Nimba County under the PPCC. There is also a procurement plan including thresholds.

The Nimba County Education School Board Guest House construction has provided an opportunity for the county to exercise the PPPC regulations. The BOQ, bid requests and vetting process documents were provided as evidence.

The county self-assessment team struggled to understand the difference between procedures and systems being in place and the practice of following those procedures and systems. There is a general thought that the systems are difficult to follow: decentralization is incomplete and this affects disbursement of travel per diems, transportation to collect multiple quotes is difficult, vendors may decline to provide quotations if they may not become the selected and do not want to waste their sheets writing proforma invoices.

Discussion shows that the Procurement Officer has all relevant training and knows how to develop a procurement plan but has not. One district has presented its District Procurement Plan and others are expected to do the same. The Procurement Officer can then develop a county plan and send to CEO.

Overall, the existence of procedures is strong, compliance is weak.


Elements under this category include the CEO work plan development, knowledge management and stakeholder involvement by the MoE at this county level.

The county has a work plan with stated goals, measurable objectives, and strategies, but it is the work plan developed for the formal school system with some activities about monitoring ABE l i f Ad i Y h P j i Th k l h l i

working in AE; has identified where they are, what they are doing, their qualifications, and how/if they can collaborate, but does not hold regular meetings with these stakeholders. Though the county has good connections to other institutions (e.g. non-governmental or national) the county does not systematically seek out information and promising practices across these institutions.

The self-assessment team produced a copy of a work plan that includes AE, soft and hard copies of meeting minutes, copies of invitations to meeting, meeting attendance listings, copies of meeting agendas, list of county AE service providers showing their thematic and geographic areas of work and the qualification of the organization, and minutes of stakeholder meetings held within the last 3 months.


Elements discussed under this category are AE service delivery, facilitator payment, linkages and networks, program review, community and private sector involvement and culture and gender consideration during program planning.

A plan for delivery of AE services has been developed and is being implemented but the plan is largely focused on Alternative Basic Education and was developed in 2017. There is a plan underway for implementing ALP as there is ongoing site mapping in Nimba for the Accelerated Quality Education Activity site selection. Non-government service providers obtain a certificate from the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning that allows them to operate in the country but Memoranda of Understanding are not used by the MoE at central or county levels.

There is no plan for AE facilitator compensation since they are already on the GoL payroll and stipends are occasionally paid by implementing partners with donor funding. Both of these are outside the county purview.

The Nimba CEO heads the Education Sector coordination body and conducts intermittent meetings. The county intends to reach out to other local or national networks in order to further the AE program and/or to advocate for increased support. The county does not regularly review its progress against its work plan and does not include specific actions for involving communities and the private sector in AE programs. While the county considers local culture and gender issues as important parts of program planning it does not have tools or a process for assessing local cultural issues. As for gender issues, the CEO liaises with the Ministry of Gender Children and Social Protection to enhance and mainstream gender issues in its programs.

The evidence provided included a list of registered AE service providers in the county; meeting notes; copy of meeting agenda; lists of attendees; and copies of documents received at the


Program implementation status, quality assurance, standards, certification of AE facilitators, supervision of AE facilitators, and monitoring of AE activities are the elements assessed by the teams under this category.

The county’s work plan is approved and a budget is allocated for county expenditure, but no funds are sent directly to the county. Funds for the county are spent through the central ministry. There is little direct relationship between planned activities and budget allocation. The county is fully staffed and is in the process of initiating ALP with the support of the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity. Site mapping has begun and will be followed by teacher selection, student recruitment, assessment and placement. The teacher selection process involves content testing and the program will include training to ensure that teachers can deliver an accelerated curriculum. The supervision and monitoring plan for ALP has not yet been introduced to the Accelerated Quality Education Activity Year 2 counties. There are Program Quality Standards for ABE but not for ALP.


Our thematic focus here was on financial management system, financial control system, financial documentation procedures and financial reporting procedures.

The county has a manual for financial management systems, control procedures, documentation and reporting procedures. They are appropriate for the system and in line with the MoE goals. However, they are not consistently adhered to and used primarily in the context of the school grants system. At the CEO, there were copies of the financial manual; documents showing some use of financial system; copies of checks; vouchers; and financial reports.

There was a training by the MoE under the school grant program, which is the most funding handled at the county level and that is largely DEOs and schools. Experienced EOs are aware of the financial system and they use it at their various levels, though it is primarily for school grants management. New DEOs have barely taken office, with 7 of the 12 appointed just two weeks before the ICA. Payroll transactions are done centrally and DEOs do not have access to those records.


Under HR category, the assessment focused on job description for MoE and service providers, how programs and the MoE recruit and retain staff, status and implementation of personnel policy and staff performance expectation.

There is a clear recruitment and hiring guidelines and the process is transparent which is mandated by theCivil Service Agency through the Civil Service Standing Orders of 2012. The county EOs and the HR County Officer have been trained/oriented to apply the guidelines; personnel policies have not been disseminated to all staff. Policies and manuals are updated by CSA. The MoE provided staff appraisal training in Ganta in 2017 and the forms are with the county but appraisals have not been done. Presently, CEO and DEOs follow an auditing approach to ensuring staff are accomplishing their planned activities rather than using a supportive supervision approach.

Facilitation team saw the Education Act of 2011, staff job descriptions, the HR manual, the Civil Service Standing Orders, copies of appraisal forms and copies of staff grading forms.

Summary: Nimba Institutional Capacity Scores 2018

Figure 14 presents a summary overview of Nimba County 2018 Institutional capacity scores – from the highest to the lowest scoring categories. Nimba and Margibi both registered the highest scoring category on Financial Management (75%) – and the lowest scoring category on Program Implementation and Management (41.67%).

Figure 14: Nimba 2018 ICA Scoring: Highest to Lowest Scores

Like Margibi, the Nimba county highest scoring for financial management was evidenced in the

capacity to utilize the established frameworks of financial management, systems control, documentation and reporting - due to centralized control of finances. The challenges of building decentralized capacities are again mirrored at the lowest scoring end of the continuum – where Nimba county intentions to reach out to other local and national educational entities and networks of private and civil society organizations to support AE programs have not been realized. Unsurprisingly some of the highest-ranking priorities, planning and action areas as presented in the following sections, reflect the intention by Nimba stakeholders to practically address the challenge of building decentralized capacity and networks for ALP support.

Prioritization

Table 11: Nimba 2018 Priorities

Nimba County ICA Based Priorities for Capacity Development

Priority Ranking Capacity Elements 1 2.1 Operational Policies, Procedures and

Systems 2 3.1 Work Plan Development 3 1.2 Institutional Support for ALP 4 7.1 Job description for Ministry and Service

providers 5 3.3 Stakeholder Involvement 6 7.2 Staff Recruitment and Retention 7 4.5 Community and Private Sector

Involvement 8 4.2 AE Facilitator Payment 9 1.1 Organization Structure 10 3.2 Knowledge Management

Figure 15: Nimba Priorities per Category

Nimba Action Plan Objectives:

1. All staff will be fully aware of operation policies, procedures and systems 2. Revise county work plan to include AE activities 3. Identify areas of need for institutional support to ALP 4. Review of work plan progress 5. Develop plan for community and private sector involvement in AE/ALP implementation 6. Define roles of stakeholders in AE participation at county level 7. Train county staff on MoE application of recruitment and retention guidelines 8. Orient county staff on appraisal procedures and processes 9. Develop facilitator payment plan 10. Sharing lessons and experiences among AE service providers

Lofa County Assessment Results 2018

Table 12: Lofa ICA Scores 2017-2018



66.66% 66.67%

Project Performance Management 85.00% 66.67% Financial Management 75.00% 56.25% Human Resource Management 45.00% 81.25% Total 450.82% 458.34% General average 64.40% 65.48%

Figure 16: Lofa 2017-2018 Comparison of ICA Category Scores

62.50%

41.66% 75

.00%

66.66%

85.00%

75.00%

45.00%

62.50%

58.33%

66.67%

66.67%

66.67%

56.25% 81.25%

LOFA COUNTY ICA 2017‐2018 COMPARISON CHART


Under governance and leadership category, the self-assessment focused on functional areas like the county organizational structure and institutional support to ALP in Lofa County.

There is an institutional structure which is well designed and relevant to MoE’s mission/goals; roles and responsibilities of departments and functions are clearly defined and appropriate. The organogram was posted and had to be taken down to use as evidence during this assessment.

AE policy is analyzed through ABE program implementation to determine its efficacy. There is a plan for decentralized support for AE but the county is just beginning to plan for ALP as it begins site mapping with the Accelerated Quality Education Activity for ALP implementation in the county.

Pieces of evidence included staff ToRs, the operational manual; Reformed Act of 2011; Administrative Regulations, Organogram; AE policy; electronic copies of Data collection forms; national educational policy of 2011


The Activity assessed elements like Operational Policies, Procedures and Systems, Travel Policy and Procedures and procurement.

The assessment showed that Lofa County has appropriate documented procedures for operations, travel and procurement. While several documents are present, the procedures are not consistently followed. As for procurement manual and process/policy, evidence included county procurement plan that includes thresholds, copies of bidding requests, and announcement. They showed copies of proforma invoices, the Liberia Education Administrative Regulations, and the Education Act of 2011and there is basic level of information systems in place.


Assessed functions at the Lofa CEO included the county work plan development, how knowledge of emerging good practices is managed, and how the county is involving stakeholders for ALP implementation.

The county has a draft work plan with stated goals, measurable objectives, and strategies, but has no stated timelines, responsibilities and indicators. The plan is not linked to a program budget, nor developed with participation of district staff and has no dates for quarterly review. Lofa County has active linkages with other organizations and an internal process for sharing and plans to use best practices but has not implemented these plans or updated stakeholders and staff. The county has current information about all key stakeholders working in AE; has identified where they are, what they are doing, their qualification, how/if they can collaborate, but does not hold regular meetings with these stakeholders.

Facilitation saw copies of work plan that includes AE, stakeholder meeting attendance listing; copies of what is termed as “best practices” list of county AE service providers showing their

schools for the deaf and dumb, women skills training schools as well as night schools - Adult Education and the Krukan ABE site in Voinjama District which is still operating ABE. There were also minutes of stakeholder meetings held within the last 3 months.

There was a site mapping plan with DEOs indicating when they are to be working with the Accelerated Quality Education Activity to map out sites in the county for possible ALP implementation. Coordination meetings are held with the CEO who chairs the meeting. These meetings are not regular but there are copies of minutes and agendas, kept by the AE Supervisor.


The teams assessed elements on how AE services are delivered in Lofa, AE facilitators’ payment, linkages and networks, program review, community and private sector involvement and culture and gender mainstreaming in program implementation.

Lofa County has a plan for delivery of AE services that includes the community driven continuation of ABE sites and preparations for site mapping and selection for ALP in collaboration with EDC on the USAID Accelerated Quality Education Activity. The discussion in this section refers to the implementation of ABE and not yet ALP.

Organizations implementing AE are all certified by the government of Liberia through the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning and other line ministries. Lofa is fully aware of the accreditation process proposed for ABE service providers but has not implemented it. Currently, there are still service providers operating without the consent of the CEO even though the county has been instructed by the Asst. Minister to shut down such sites.

Lofa has some ABE schools ongoing from the Advancing Youth Project and the communities are compensating the facilitators as planned during the transition process

In an effort to link programs and stakeholders, the county chairs the sector network and participates intermittently in other meetings. There is an intention to reach out to other networks in order to further the AE program and or advocate for increased support. The county regularly (3 or more times per year) reviews its progress against its work plan, including objectives and strategies, facilitating factors and barriers, lessons learned and best practices, but does not use information to review/revise strategies with staff. The county has a plan for involving communities and the private sectors in AE program, but plan has not be implemented. Lofa County Education Office considers local culture representation and gender concerns when programming activities; it views culture and gender as integral to program success, but does not have any process and/or tools for assessing cultural issues relevant to its programs. It does integrate gender issues through implementation of the Teacher Code of Conduct.

Evidence provided included copies of signed agreement with communities for ABE facilitators payment/compensation, copies of facilitators payment in Krukan community, Adult Education programs such as driving schools, sewing school, etc. pay their facilitators and the county has documentation of that. Some AE programs provide compensation for facilitators who are not

Lofa MoE leads the education sector meetings. These meetings are not regular but they are indeed held when deemed necessary. Some partners do not attend. There is a quarterly meeting. It may not be called "review" but it is called the Education Sector Meeting and during it they receive updates from partners and provide them with guidance.

Lofa argues that without the community they will have no program. The ABE committee in Krukan is still functioning and provides information to AE Supervisor. The DEO Salayea met with traditional leaders and as a result, the issue of the traditional school encroaching on the rights of students of the conventional school, was resolved: the traditional schools agreed to begin their daily programs from 00:00am – 06:00am to allow the students up to the night school to come and receive their learnings for the day.

List of education sector membership, meeting agenda and notes, attendees and documents received from partners during meetings were also provided. A copy of the 2017 work plan including community and private sector engagement activities was presented. The plan is still being used.


Program implementation status, quality assurance, standards, certification of AE facilitators/teachers, supervision of AE facilitators, and monitoring and evaluation of AE activities were the elements assessed under this category.

During the discussions, a county work plan was produced and found to be basically that of ABE prepared under the Advancing Youth Project in 2017. The plan becomes outdated in early June as the school and financial years end. The new plan will include ALP activities that will be initiated with the Accelerated Quality Education Activity, beginning with the M&E officer support to the site mapping process

In Lofa, there is a problem with filing at the county office. Information may not be reaching down to the DEOs appropriately. M&E plan is not shared with the DEOs and they are not aware of its availability. The PQS User Guide is with the county but new DEOs are not aware of them. Lofa has 50% (3) new DEOs. There is a need to include the PQS in the DEO training in June of this year. All old DEOs are fully aware of the PQS and what they are for. There is a supervision plan that is developed and being used by the AE Supervisor. It is updated for 2018.


The county has most or all documented financial management systems and they are appropriate. They are either not known to staff and/or are not consistently adhered to. They also have appropriate documented financial control procedures, all necessary documented financial documentation procedures and some documented financial reporting procedures. They are either not known to all staff and/or are not consistently adhered to.

For evidence, they produced the financial manual; documents showing some use of financial system; copies of checks issued to vendors; vouchers; official receipts; and copies of financial

Through discussions, EDC discovered that the Finance Officer had been liaising with the PTAs on the use of the PTA funds. However, PTAs are now refusing to provide them information on the funds because they are accusing the county of not supporting the schools.

PTA representative is present with school Registrar during the national academic registration process and receives the amount being collected from each student for the PTA and delivers it to the PTA for use in accordance with its intended purposes.

For the school grants, they are issued for every transaction between the schools and the EOs. Lofa EOs were trained with the school grant system, and discussions with staff prove that all the current staff are aware of and use the financial system. The registrar of each school handles the system on behalf of the said school. Principals and DEOs are aware of the financial system because they are the primary staff responsible for the school grants. School grants constitute the majority of financial transactions in the county. Other staff that are not directly involved with finance issues are not aware.


The county has approved job descriptions for county and district staff and for ABE facilitators. There is a clear recruitment and hiring process, driven by the national Civil Service Standing Orders. The process is transparent but the guidelines are not consistently applied; and not all staff have been /oriented to them. In fact, despite the Standing Orders and the Education Act 2011, recruitment and hiring remain centralized and the duties assigned to the Lofa County Education Board with respect to hiring are not implemented. County staff were trained in performance appraisal in 2017 but have not yet begun the appraisal process,

There is general awareness of and access to The Education Act of 2011; ToRs for staff; HR manual in the form of the Civil Service Standing Orders), and appraisal forms. However, not every DEO has a copy of every document and it is unclear who is responsible for providing them.

Summary: Lofa Institutional Capacity Scores 2018

Figure 17 presents a summary overview of Lofa County 2018 Institutional capacity scores – from the highest to the lowest scoring categories. Unlike Margibi and Nimba, Lofa positions Financial Management (56.25%) as the lowest scoring category – while like Grand Bassa and Montserrado, Lofa positions as the highest scoring category Human Resource Management (81.25%).

Figure 17: Lofa ICA 2018 – Highest to Lowest Category Scores

The highest scoring Human Resource Management capacity is reflected in established Civil Service Orders frameworks and guidelines for transparent processes of recruitment, hiring and performance review. Yet as in other county patterns, capacity gaps persist in implementation of guidelines in spite of capacity building in these critical categories. On the lower end of the continuum, the lowest scoring Financial Management category - again like patterns in other counties shows systems of finance, control procedures, documentation and reporting in place. Yet, systems and procedures are not adhered to, due to a lack of financial management opportunities at the county level. This was evidenced in tensions between school level PTAs who had funds not trusting or providing information to county level management who lacked funds to support schools. The following sections show stakeholder selection of county financial systems and control procedures as top priorities for planning and action to address these critical institutional capacity gaps.

Priorities for Action

Table 13: Lofa Top Ten Priorities 2018

Lofa County ICA Based Priorities for Capacity Development

Priority Ranking Capacity Elements 1 1.2 Institutional Support for ALP 2 3.1 Work Plan Development 3 5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation of AE Activities

Development Priority Ranking Capacity Elements 4 7.4 Staff Performance Expectations 5 7.1 Job description for Ministry and Service

providers 6 5.2 Quality Assurance 7 6.1 Financial Management Systems 8 6.2 Financial Controls 9 3.3 Stakeholder Involvement 10 Community and Private Sector Involvement

Figure 18: Lofa Priorities by Capacity Element

Lofa Action Planning Objectives

1. Develop an all-inclusive work plan by end of May, 2018 2. Update existing county M&E plan to include ALP 3. Conduct staff performance expectation by end of August, 2018 4. Conduct monthly monitoring of ALP activities in Lofa 5. Liaise with AE partners to identify and support community and private sector

involvement plan 6. Organize and coordinate regular quarterly stakeholder (AE) meeting 7. Liaise with partners and communities to ensure continuous facilitator payment

10.Conduct proper supervision of AE facilitators in Lofa and report regularly on same

V. Conclusions

Figure 19 below presents the ICA scores for each county as a single colored line, with data points for each ICA category. The chart cannot be used to compare county capacity because it is a self-assessment and the basis of the consensus rankings agreed by the self-assessment teams may be quite different. However, the chart does highlight the wide range of perceived capacities across the various categories.

Figure 19: 2018 Cross County ICA scores

This chart speaks to the need to respond to cross-cutting and county specific priorities. There seemed to be two recurrent themes running through the discussions: the first was the acknowledgement that in many cases, there are standard, national guidelines or procedures that are simply not followed consistently which resulted in lower scores; the second is that centralization drives a more passive approach to management and leadership in the counties. In fact, looking at Figure 20 below, the highest priorities for action (work planning, monitoring and evaluation and institutional support for ALP activities) are in areas that can readily be undertaken within current authorities at the county level. The overall focus of the Accelerated Quality Education Activity Year 3 workplan is to enable Education Officers within counties and

the priorities highlighted and ensuring that their exercise of these duties is viewed as an integral part of their jobs, not a project only or temporary responsibility.

Figure 20: Cross–County Scores-Priorities Mapping 2018

Counties were asked to turn their priority action items into activities for their overall county operational plan and their ICA related activities are now ready to integrate in the county plans. Since the government financial year begins on July 1, this is timely, and since the school year begins in September, there will be natural opportunities to work on these issues. Activities under the Accelerated Quality Education Activity will also begin to address many of the common issues in the three lowest ranked categories overall, i.e., governance, program performance management and to some degree HR. These activities include policy development and institutionalization, use of quality standards and accreditation, curriculum and materials development, teacher/program monitoring and performance improvement and issues related to gender. Many of these issues are also embedded in the Program Quality Standards for Alternative Education which can be readily adapted for Accelerated Learning Programs.

The Accelerated Quality Education Activity Capacity Strengthening Strategy, when approved will be integrated into the overall work plan for the Activity and will be shared with the MoE headquarters and counties for integration into their plans and coordination of schedules. Pending the approval of the Accelerated Quality Education Activity Work Plan and the ICA Plan, the activities can be mapped in detail to the priorities described in this document.

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT

Documents

Transcript of INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT