1

REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE

IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT MISSION FOR

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT PROJECT

AND

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (ICR) PREPARATION MISSION FOR

NATIONAL SOCIAL ACTION PROJECT

February 15-24, 2011

Aide Memoire

1. A World Bank team carried out a mission in Sierra Leone during February 15-24, 2011 to review the implementation of the Youth Employment Support Project (YESP) and to discuss with the Government the preparation of the Implementation Completion Report for the National Social Action Program (NSAP), including the additional financing for Cash for Works (CFW). The mission followed up on certain key activities under the Decentralized Service Delivery Program (DSDP) on behalf of the DSDP TTL. The team also reviewed the implementation of the Children and Youth in Africa (CHYAO) Trust Fund grant on youth skills training and employment. 2. The team was led by John Van Dyck (task team leader for NSAP/CFW and YESP, Sr. Operations Officer, AFTSP), and was comprised of: Randa el-Rashidi, (task team leader for the NSAP/CFW ICR, Operations Officer, AFTSP), Ibrahim Bangura (Country Officer, AFMSL), Tsri Apronti (Procurement Specialist, ATFPC), and Joyce Agunbiade (Financial Management Specialist, AFTFM). Fatu Karim Turay (Team Assistant, AFMSL) provided administrative support to the team. The mission consulted with Qaiser Khan (task team leader for DSDP, Sector Leader, AFTSP) in Ghana on DSDP. Objectives of the Mission

3. The objectives of the mission were as follows:

(a) YESP. The objectives were to (i) review the implementation progress of the cash for works program implemented by the National Commission for Social Action

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

2

(NaCSA) under Component 1, focusing particularly on issues of targeting and training of contractors and participants; (ii) review the status of procurement for services providers under Component 2 (Skills Development and Employment Support) as well as forthcoming procurement packages on impact evaluation and beneficiary assessments; and (iii) discuss YESP support for institutional and policy development.

(b) NSAP/CFW. The objectives were to (i) discuss the emerging findings of the Government’s project completion report, currently under preparation by the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA), and (ii) discuss with Government the preparation and content of the Bank’s ICR, which is to be completed before June 30, 2011.

(c) DSDP. The mission reviewed the progress on the APL triggers for the second phase of the program and the Community Monitoring Pilot, and discussed the status of monitoring and evaluation activities, as a follow-up to the TTL's mission of December 2-9, 2010.

(d) CHYAO TF for Empowering Vulnerable Youth for Self-Reliance in Kono

District and Western Area: the objective was to assess the implementation progress in particular to: (i) check on the status of the production of the Business Management Support Training Manual; (ii) address any pending disbursement issues related to the Client Connection; (iii) get an update on the implementation of the different components; (iv) confirm that there are no staffing issues which are impacting on implementation; and (v) confirm the revised implementation schedule and the expected program completion date.

4. The team thanks Hon. Paul Kamara, Minister of Youth Employment and Sports; Hon. Mahmoud Tarawalli, Deputy Minister of Labor and Social Security, Mr. Saidu Conton Sesay, Commissioner of NaCSA; Mr. Edmund Koroma, Financial Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED); Mr. Umaru Wurie, Development Secretary, MoFED; Mr. Omar Farouk Sesay, Chairman of the Board, National Youth Commission (NYC), and other members of the NYC Board for making their time available to the mission and for their constructive support. The team would also like to thank the staff of the Integrated Project Administration Unit, NaCSA, Ministry of Youth, Employment, and Sports, DecSec, Local Government Finance Department, UNDP, GiZ, KfW, ILO, JICA, UNIDO, and the EC for their collaboration as well. A special thanks goes to the regional staff of NaCSA who organized the mission’s field visit to Bombali District. 5. Disclosure. The Bank and the Republic of Sierra Leone confirm their understanding and agreement to publicly disclose this aide memoire. The disclosure of this aide memoire was discussed and agreed to with Hon. Paul Kamara at the wrap-up meeting that took place on February 25, 2011. Main Findings and Conclusions of the Mission

3

A. Youth Employment Support Project (YESP)

6. The mission met for the first time with the new Minister of Youth Employment and Sports (MYES), Hon. Paul Kamara. The meeting discussed the Government’s youth agenda with the Minister. The mission also requested clarification from the Minister on the division of roles and responsibilities between his Ministry and the National Youth Commission (NYC), in light of the 2009 NYC Act which charges the NYC with the responsibility of implementing, coordinating and monitoring development programs. These programs are aimed at creating employment opportunities for youth; developing a comprehensive national youth development plan; collaborating with other government agencies and NGOs on youth skills training; addressing drug abuse by youth; disseminating information on services for the youth; and coordinating the activities of youth groups and youth-serving organizations. MYES and the Ministry of Labor and Social Security (MLSS) also agreed to work together to clear up confusion about the responsibility for the overall employment portfolio. 7. The mission also met with five members of the Board of the National Youth Commission, including the Chairman. The members of the Board expressed their desire to take an active role in the monitoring of the project. To increase their knowledge of the work to be carried out on the ground in the Project (particularly in regard to the Cash for Work component), the mission and NaCSA reiterated the offer made during the last mission to organize a field visit for Board members and the Minister of Youth Employment and Sports, which could take place in April/May 2011 once physical implementation begins. The mission also noted that funds will be available for monitoring by the NYC in the 2011 Annual Work Plan of the Project. 8. Launch workshop. The mission and project team had hoped that the project Launch Workshop could be held during the mission to enable the presence of the task team. However, the schedule of H.E. President Ernest Bai Koroma has not permitted the workshop to be held since effectiveness in October 2010. It was agreed that the Launch Workshop should be held by mid-March even if the President is not available. MYES suggested the date of March 10 for the workshop, hopefully with the participation of the President, but if not, the Launch Workshop could be presided by other senior Government officials such as the Vice President or the Minister of Youth Employment and Sports. The participation of the World Bank Country Manager will be sought in lieu of the task team. Component 1: Cash for Work 9. Geographic targeting. NaCSA has completed the process of geographic targeting to determine how CfW sub-projects will be distributed across the country. Based on lessons learned from the CfW component of the closed NSAP operation, the methodology for geographic targeting was fine-tuned to improve the share of the very poorest benefitting from the program. As in previous phases of CfW, the geographic targeting allocates a higher proportion of funding to poorer districts, but now within districts the targeting mechanism is able to identify the poorest wards in the most vulnerable chiefdoms (see figure 1). The methodology for the chiefdom and ward level is attached as Annex 1. Another adjustment is that the population

4

variable in for district-level targeting now takes into account the poor population rather than the total population. The results of the geographic targeting are attached as Annex 2. 10. Training of contractors. NaCSA has discussed with ILO their support to the road contractor training, and a draft MOU between the two organizations has been prepared. NaCSA is working out issues concerning equipment needed and the level of reimbursement to ILO for managerial oversight, and the agreement will be finalized by mid-March, 2011. After the initial training of trainers (for NaCSA and SLRA engineers), contractor training for the 68 selected road contractors will proceed in 5 batches. Given that the Bank’s Rural Private Sector project is also rehabilitating feeder roads with similar contractors, the Bank proposed that the idea of extending the contractor training to contractors implementing feeder roads under this project be explored by SLRA and NaCSA. 11. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the training of contractors in the area of agriculture has been issued and proposals have been received. NaCSA expects to evaluate the proposals and forward their recommendation for award of the contract to IDA for no objection at the beginning of March 2011. ToRs for contractor training on renewable energy and environmental activities was sent for review by the Bank on February 23, 2011 and no objection was given the same day.

Figure 1: Geographic targeting methodology

12. Mentoring of beneficiaries. IDA provided no objection on November 30, 2010 to the Terms of Reference for a service provider to provide mentorship support on Money Management and Entrepreneurship Skills for Cash for Work beneficiaries. NaCSA has received proposals from interested service providers. Request for no objection to IDA is expected in early March 2011.

13. Commencement of physical implementation. NaCSA indicated that it expects physical implementation of Cash for Work sub-project to begin by the beginning of April 2011.

5

Component 2: Skills Development and Employment Support

14. Status of procurement for service providers. The deadline for submission of Expressions of Interest passed on January 25, 2011. In total 47 EoIs were received by IPAU from international and national NGOs, private firms, and individual consultants. IPAU will prepare long-lists for each lot of interested service providers describing each candidate’s qualifications. Based on this, a shortlist of six service providers per lot will be produced. This short list and the proposed RFP will be submitted for IDA’s no objection by March 15. IPAU expects to hold an informational session for shortlisted service providers 1-2 weeks after the issuance of the RFPs.

Component 3: Institutional Support, Policy Development, and Impact Evaluation

15. Institutional Support. The Bank had given no objection for the Annual Work Plan prior to the mission conditional on further discussion during the mission regarding salaries for NYC staff providing services in the context of the project. After discussions during the mission, the Bank and UNDP agreed to share evenly the salary costs for key functions of the NYC such as M&E and policy research and development, which would include the salaries of an M&E officer, a program officer, and support staff, as well as some operational costs. The Bank and UNDP noted that they would not be able to support salaries for MYES staff due to rules against topping up of civil service salaries. 16. Policy Development. MYES has proposed two policy development activities to be supported by YESP: (i) a review of the National Youth Policy, and (ii) an assessment of the medium-term scale and content of national TVET priorities in light of projected future economic needs. The Bank requested MYES to prepare short concept notes (one page each) by end April describing the proposed objectives and methodology for these activities for discussion prior to preparation of TORs. 17. Monitoring and Evaluation. The mission and counterparts reviewed the results framework contained in the Project Paper and agreed on revisions to clarify the baseline and targets for indicators 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 15. In the project paper, targets for these indicators were presented as absolute values rather than cumulative values building on the baseline values. A revised results framework is attached as Annex 3. The mission also participated in a meeting between IPAU, MYES, and NaCSA to discuss division of roles and responsibilities for the project, confirming the principle that implementing agencies have the responsibility for primary data collection, while IPAU and MYES will play an important overall reporting and oversight role. It was agreed that technical level M&E staff from the three institutions will continue to meet on a regular basis.

6

18. Complaints handling mechanism/hotline. The mission and counterparts in IPAU, MYES, and NaCSA discussed the outlines of the proposed complaints handling and grievance redress mechanism. It was agreed that IPAU and MYES would prepare by mid March a short Concept Note describing the proposed functioning of the mechanism, where it would be housed, and its staffing implications.

19. Impact Evaluation. TORs for the impact evaluations of Components 1 and 2 are under preparation. TORs for a Beneficiary Impact Assessment to be conducted at mid-term for Component 2 are also being developed, and all are expected to be completed by end March 2011.

20. Financial management. Given the implementation stage of the project, a mini-review of the FM arrangements was conducted, and observed in compliance with the FA. The two DAs (at IPAU and NaCSA) are already active, with the initial total Advance of $2.8m made (IPAU-$1.2m and NaCSA-$1.6m). However, there have not been much implementation activities on the components. Full utilization of the funds is envisaged, once the remaining issues concerning the 2011 AWP are resolved. The project is also expected to prepare the full disbursement projection/forecast based on the AWP.

21. In compliance with the Financing Agreement, the engagement process for the project’s External Auditors should have commenced by the fourth month of effectiveness. Staffing arrangement at IPAU needs to be strengthened, depending on the finalization of the IPAU proposal. All other FM arrangements at IPAU and NaCSA are observed to be adequate, at this stage of implementation.

22. Procurement. A revised procurement plan was discussed and revisions suggested. IPAU will submit the revised plan to the Bank by early March 2011. In light of staffing constraints in IPAU, the Bank agreed to Government’s request that the Youth project finance a new procurement staff until such time as IPAU's future structure and funding mechanism is resolved. Once the review of IPAU arrangements is completed and new arrangements agreed, the support for this position as well as other existing IPAU arrangements will be subject to change.

Table 1: Next Steps for YESP

Action Responsibility Expected

Completion

Launch Workshop held MYES March 15

Signing of MoU between NaCSA and ILO NaCSA/ILO Mid-March

Signing of contract with service provider for agriculture contractor training

NaCSA End March

Signing of contract with service provider for environment/renewable energy contractor training

NaCSA End March

Signing of contract with service provider for NaCSA End March

7

beneficiary mentoring

Commencement of physical implementation of CFW

NaCSA Beginning of April

Organization of visit to CfW sites for Minister of YES and NYC Board members

NaCSA April/May

Shortlist and RFP for Component 2 submitted for IDA no objection

IPAU March 15

Component 2 informational session held for shortlisted candidates

IPAU End March

Preparation of short concept notes for proposed policy development activities

MYES End April

Preparation of Concept Note for complaints handling system/hotline and ToRs for additional M&E staff (if needed)

IPAU mid March

Completion of TORs for Impact Evaluations and Beneficiary Impact Assessment

WB/IPAU/NaCSA/ MYES

End March for BIA; end April for IEs

Commence engagement process for the project’s External Auditors

IPAU/ Audit Service Commission

ASAP

Submission of revised procurement plan IPAU Early March

8

B. ICR for NSAP and Cash for Work (CfW)

23. Further to discussions with NaCSA during the previous mission (September 13-24, 2010), the mission sought to collect information for the World Bank’s Implementation Completion Report (ICR), and discuss the emerging findings of the Government’s project completion report. The purpose of the ICR is to assess to what extent the project met its development objectives; improved the institutional development arrangements, the impact of the operation on beneficiaries, the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation, and discuss the transitional and sustainability arrangements of the operation. The ICR will also provide feedback on the Bank's and Borrower's performance and draw lessons from the project for dissemination. 24. While the mission would like to thank the NaCSA team for allotting a generous amount of time to work with the mission, the delayed preparation prior to the mission means that progress is still behind the previously envisaged schedule. A concerted effort on the part of NaCSA will be required to ensure completion of its ICR by the deadline of end March, 2011.

25. During the mission the team met and held discussions with the NACSA management and staff. A field visit was organized to Makeni, Bombali district, to review a sample of completed sub-projects prepared under NSAP and CfW. The WB team was accompanied by Sainku B. Fofanah, Regional Coordinator (North), Aminata Sheriff, District Coordinator (Bombali), and Lahai Sowa, Regional Engineer (North). The sub-projects visited included: (a) Rosanda street rehabilitation and 3 culverts (CFW); (b) the Mother and Child Health Post (MCHP) in Robat (NSAP); (c) the Al-Hallal Islamic primary school, Rosint (NSAP); and (d) a vegetable farm managed by a women's development association in Kolokolo (CFW). The visits collected information on the efficacy of NSAP/CFW in: (a) financing social and economic infrastructure across the country; (b) fostering community participation and prioritization; (c) ensuring the use of standardized procedures and guidelines from the operations manual; and (d) strengthening coordination with other projects at the district level.

26. In line with the ICR guidelines, the mission worked with the NACSA staff to support the team in addressing the following issues:

• The operation's objective, design, implementation, and operational experience.

• Lessons learned and incorporated into project design from earlier operations as

well as the NSAP and Cash for Works Phase I and II.

• Project links to the original and current Government policies.

• Cost effectiveness /cost efficiency, allocative efficiency, procurement FM and

disbursement efficiency.

9

• Social and environmental safeguards.

• Institutional arrangements and capacity building.

• IEC process.

• M&E design, implementation and utilization.

27. During the mission, the NaCSA team prepared a draft report using the ICR guidelines provided by the World Bank team. The mission commented on the draft to help ensure consistency and coherence with the ICR objectives and guidelines, and left a set of written questions for NaCSA’s response (see Annex 3). A VC will be arranged by mid-March to discuss the status of outputs and any pending matters and answer any questions. 28. The following next steps are envisaged:

Table 2: Next Steps for NSAP/CfW ICR

Action Responsibility Expected

Completion

Consultant hired to assist in data entry for Cash for Works sub-projects

WB March 10

NaCSA ICR to be completed and endorsed by Government

NaCSA End-March

NaCSA to provide Bank with quantitative data requested for WB ICR per templates provided

NaCSA March 21

NaCSA to provide written response to the questions/comments

NaCSA Mid-March

VC to discuss the status of outputs and any pending matters and answer any questions.

WB/NaCSA Mid March

World Bank ICR finalized WB End May

C. Decentralized Service Delivery Project (DSDP)

29. Following the DSDP progress review mission held from December 2 to 9, 2010, the present mission was requested by the DSDP TTL to follow up on progress made in key project activities. This “mini-review” focused on the performance on DSDP phase II triggers, the Community Monitoring Pilot, and the next steps highlighted for action in the aide memoire for the December mission. 30. Triggers. The mission reviewed the progress on the triggers with DecSec, LGFD, and IPAU. The current status of the triggers is summarized in Table 3. Overall progress appears to

10

be progressing satisfactorily, with triggers 1, 2, and 5 currently met. For triggers 3 and 4, progress is unclear and decisions will be need to be made during the Mid-Term Review (MTR) in May 2011 to resolve issues concerning the relevance and clarity of these indicators, as described below. 31. For trigger 3, while Government has been able to reduce the number of separate Local Council (LC) grants from nine to six, there are concerns that there may be negative consequences for expenditure monitoring if the number of grants is reduced to the target of four. A discussion of these concerns during the MTR is advised to determine whether the target for this trigger should be revised. 32. Trigger 4a is unclear as to the definition of “available resources,” making measurement of the trigger open to varying interpretations (for example, are LC own-resources and other donor funds included as part of available resources?). This trigger also seems unrealistic for LCs to achieve even under the best of circumstances, as they cannot be expected to execute fully funds received in the November 15 tranche by the end of the year. Local Governemnt Finance Department (LGFD) proposes the following revised text for the trigger to be considered during the MTR: “variance between available resources (resources identified in LCs AWP) and executed budgets should not be more than 10% in a given quarter for the preceding quarter.”

33. LGFD also committed to collect and compile data for trigger 4b covering FY10 before the MTR.

Table 3: APL Triggers (from the PAD)

Indicator Target Progress to date

(1) In FY10 and FY11, at least 30% of domestic revenues (less wages, interest obligations, statutory transfers to NRA, and the Road Fund) are transferred to LCs on an annual basis;

30% 41%

(2) GoSL transfers to LCs in FY10 and FY11 adhere to the quarterly disbursement schedule published in the beginning of each fiscal year. In the case of a revenue short fall, GoSL transfers to LCs would be expected to decrease by an equal or lesser proportions;

February 15, May 15, August 15 and November 15

Done. Transfers have adhered to agreed schedule.

(3) A reduction in the number of Government grants to LCs to fund education, health and sanitation, solid waste management and water expenditures from nine to four by

4 The number of grants has been reduced from seven to six since the last aide memoire, after consolidation of a grant for agriculture.

11

Indicator Target Progress to date

FY12;

(4) In FY10 and FY12, (a) variance between available resources and executed LC budgets should not be more than 10%; and (b) at least 9 LCs in FY10 and 15 in FY11 should meet at least 75% of their LC-specific service output targets (as per LC Subsidiary Agreements);

<10% (a) The definition of “available resources” is unclear, and it is not realistic for LCs to execute funds in the November 15 tranche by the end of the year; (b) this data will be collected before the MTR.

(5) A policy developed on the assignment procedures and “Terms of secondment” for sector staff at LCs

Completed. The National Decentralization Policy, containing policy on secondment procedures, was launched in February 2011.

34. Community Monitoring Pilot. Proposals for the Community Monitoring Pilot have been opened and negotiations are underway with the NGOs. As bids came in far above expectations, negotiations are not expected to be sufficient to bring costs within the available budget. Therefore, it was agreed that the Additional Financing paper required by the Bank for the European Commission co-financing will provide an opportunity to reallocate IDA funds to support the higher than expected costs of the Pilot, as well as to extend the project closing date to accommodate the implementation period required for the Pilot (and the disbursement of EU funds). This would allow the Pilot to proceed without reducing its scope. The Government has agreed to send to the Bank a reallocation and extension request as soon as possible. 35. Status of “Next Steps” agreed during the last mission. Actions relating to (i) the revision and roll-out of the Comprehensive Local Government Performance Assessment (CLOGPAS) instrument; (ii) the development of the pilot version of the Local Council Core Indicator Monitoring Database; (iii) the brief for Ward Development committees (WDCs) on LC service delivery responsibilities, (iv) safeguards training, and (v) submission of withdrawal application for the 4th DSDP LC transfers have been completed. Actions agreed during the last mission that are not complete are indicated with an asterisk (*) in Table 4 below with new dates for expected completion.

Table 4: Next Steps for DSDP

Action Responsibility Expected

Completion

Collection of data for trigger 4b LGFD Prior to MTR

National Public survey to be completed* DecSec NPS to be launched before MTR

List of IEC deliverables for the service providers to be submitted to the Bank*

DecSec ASAP

12

Training for IEC focal points in LCs* DecSec March

First LC expenditure analysis (to cover Q1, Q2, and Q3) submitted to the Bank*

LGFD Feb. 28 (same as in last mission)

First tranche of Capacity Building grants disbursed to LCs

DecSec Feb. 28

Development Planning Training launched DecSec March

Government to send a reallocation and extension request

IPAU ASAP

Additional Financing paper for EU funding approved

WB June

D. CHYAO Pilot Project--Empowering vulnerable youth for self-reliance in Kono District

and Western Area

36. After a setback the due to illness of the previous COOPI Project Manager, the project is moving ahead with a new Project Manager in place since November 2010 based in Koidu. New local staff have also been hired and COOPI reports that it now has its full complement of staff. The pilot project, which is being implemented in Kono District and Freetown, involves training in literacy and numeracy, conflict management, entrepreneurial skills and business management, technical training in agribusiness and environmental management, and apprenticeships with private artisans and businesses. 37. After the turnover in Project Managers, the project is moving forward again. Literacy, numeracy, and conflict management training based on the REFLECT model commenced in November 2010 and will provide a minimum of 150 hours of training. Master artisans and businesses (including Airtel) have been identified to provide apprenticeships. 150 youth farmers will be selected to receive support to participate in the Seed Multiplication contract out grower scheme under the national Smallholder Commercialization Program. The mission met with the consultant who has been preparing the Business Management Support Training Manual, which is nearly completed and is expected to be finalized by early March 2011.

38. COOPI asked the Bank to help resolve certain project constraints. First, given the delays due to staff turnover at COOPI, it appears that an extension of the project closing date (currently June 30, 2012) will be required to allow completion of all project activities. COOPI and the Bank will agree on the number of months’ extension required in March 2011, when there will be greater visibility about the exact timeframe for project completion. Second, COOPI noted its difficulties in removing the names of its former staff from the Client Connection system and replacing them with those of current staff. The mission requested COOPI to forward copies of all communications with the Bank’s IT support desk and Client connection coordinator in Ghana so it could help track down the source of the problem. Because of its inability to access Client Connection, COOPI is running short of funds and has also missed the February 13, 2011, deadline to submit its Interim Financial Report (IFR). The Bank provided COOPI with printouts of the relevant pages in Client Connection to help it prepare the IFR.

13

Table 5: Next Steps for CHYAO Pilot Project

Action Responsibility Expected

Completion

Agreement on number of months’ extension required and processing of extension request

WB/COOPI End March

Access to Client Connection granted for current COOPI staff

WB ASAP

Finalization of Business Management Support Training Manual

COOPI beginning of March.

Submission of IFR COOPI ASAP

14

Annex 1

STEPS IN VULNERABILITY MAPPING

1. Prepare a matrix of localities and variables to be considered in the mapping e.g. Chiefdom or Ward Vs Population of Poor people; Food Availability; Accessibility to food; Food Affordability (see attached matrix). Please note that population figures are

already indicated/filled in the table (obtained from census data). 2. Record the (estimated) totals of each variable for each locality as follows:

- A) Poverty Rating: Do Pair-wise ranking of localities by comparing one

chiefdom for instance against all other chiefdoms within the district. The

chiefdom with the highest frequency score is the poorest and given the

highest ranking (e.g. 14 out of 14 chiefdoms)

- B) Food Availability: i) Record no of Agric. Extn. Workers and rank – the

location with the highest no. of extn. workers getting the lowest rank; ii)

Record no. of key agricultural activities (crops grown/livestock/fishing) and

rank as in i); and iii) Record volume of staple/key crop produced (data

available with District Agric. Officer and rank as in i).

- C) Accessibility to Food: i) Rate linkage of chiefdom/ward HQ town with food

production areas within chiefdom/ward on a 1-10 scale and rank locations as

in 2(B) above; ii) Rate linkage of chiefdom/ward HQ town with market

centres outside of chiefdom/ward or district on a 1-10 scale and rank as in i)

above.

- D) Affordability of Food: i) record Market Price of crop/animal produced (Le.

Per kg/ton) and rank as in A) above; and ii) Do pair-wise ranking of key

15

economic activity besides agriculture within specified locations. The

chiefdom/ward with the highest scores is considered better-off and

therefore given the lowest ranking.

- E) Potential for Innovative Activities: i) Rate the potential of each location

for production of renewable energy (e.g. Biomass; Green-manure; Fertilizer;

Compost) on a 1-10 scale and rank giving the location with the highest score

the highest rank; and ii) Rate potential of location for land reclamation on a

1-10 scale and rank as in i) above.

Note!

For indicators A, D(i) and E the relationship between score

and rank is direct i.e. the higher the score the higher the

rank.

For indicators B, C and D (ii), the relationship is inverse

i.e. the higher the score, the lower the rank

3. Find the average rank of all the variables for each locality (see 1 on attached matrix)

4. Organise the localities in descending order of the various ranks. i.e. list the localities in

order of their ranks (see 2&3 on attached matrix)

5. Group the ranks by category. i.e. ranks that are the same or very close constitute the same category or group (see 4 on attached matrix)

6. Find the average rank of all localities within each category or group (see 5 on attached

matrix)

7. Divide the average rank of each category or group by the total of all the average ranks (i.e. the total of 5 above) and express as a percentage by multiplying by 100 (see 6 on

attached matrix)

8. Multiply the % derived from 7 by the total allocation for the district/chiefdom to calculate the proportion of resources to be allocated to various geographical niches (chiefdom/ward).

16

Annex 2: Geographic targeting results

Table 6: Allocation of sub-projects among Districts

Table 7: Allocation of subprojects among chiefdoms

17

Annex 3: NSAP/CfW - ICR Questions/Comments

• Implementation: What were the key factors affecting implementation? Did the project start on a slow note and was implementation slow? What was done to accelerate the process? Were the: (a) timeliness of transfers improved; (b) quality of and local

participation in the planning process improved (%XXX;,(c) the quality of the

infrastructure built improved (% satisfaction), and (d) ability to respond to food crisis or

exogenous shocks (how many people were supported?

• Targeting and equity: Were there challenges in targeting and equity, in terms of geographical disparity in resource allocation within some districts and between urban and peri-rural communities? How was political interference and elite capture mitigated? What were the total number of beneficiaries for NSAP/CfW (direct and indirect)?

• Variations in project implementation: Have there been variations in project implementation performance of districts/sub-regions? If yes, how were these addressed and has this issue been resolved?

• Sub-project completion, variations and functionality: How was under budgeting and price increase addressed prior to the restructuring of the project and following restructuring (need feedback from NaCSA).

• Institutional arrangements. What were the capacity challenges and how were they addressed? What was the operation’s effect and impact on institutional development? Were new systems or program areas designed or implemented during NSAP/CfW I and II to improve management and operations?

• Transparency and Accountability. What measures were put in place to fight corruption and ensure that communities were engaged in these efforts?

• Benefits: Key impacts on communities/LC etc.. – need numbers to support the discussion on benefits

• FM: was NSAP/CfW integrated with Government budgeting, disbursement and reporting systems? Were the delivery of financial audit reports timely? What activities were undertaken to improve FM?

• Donors: We need a write up from NaCSA on collaboration between NSAP/CfW and other programs. � Are there any evaluations on the work done by WFP? How was the

coordination undertaken? The World Food Program focusing on acute needs of food aid, malnutrition and mother and child health in the most food insecure areas.

• Revisions to Project Costs under CfW-Can we get the tables showing original and revised by component and expenditures please: The original credit proceeds have been re-allocated to adjust expenditure categories vis-a-vis actual utilization o f credit per Government request dated June 8, 2008. Category 3 and 5 allocations have been increased whereas Category 1 (a), (b), 2 and 3 have been decreased.

• Third party implementation under CfW – was this introduced under CfWI? NaCSA will contract third party implementing agencies, such as community-based organizations (CBOs), farmers’ organizations, NGOs, or small private contractors to undertake actual implementation of works, while NaCSA and local councils will be responsible for supervision and quality control. (CfW Project Document p. 7)

18

• Beneficiary enrollment: Did each beneficiary enroll in the program for two months and received a cash transfer equivalent to 50 percent o f the poverty line (2004)? (CfW p. 10 , July 2008 Project Document)

• Monitoring and Evaluation: How is data captured for each sub-project and how is the information fed/transmitted from the district level to HQ? How was the data utilized? Can we get data showing all outputs/outcomes to support a write up on social development and impact on poverty. How was the functionality at the district levels? Was there limited capacity and institutionalization of the M&E system at the district level leading to poor entering and utilization of data. What activities were used in M&E (assessments, routine data entry etc…)? Did the M&E provide a robust empirical basis which served to make ongoing adjustments to the program as well as evaluate achievement of development objectives?

• Poverty reduction impact: Need data from NaCSA to provide information on the operation’s positive effect on poverty, extent to which the project benefits reached the target group identified in the PDO, and review if there were any leakages of benefits.

• Envir/Soc. costs covering mitigation measures: Were mitigation measures for environmental and safeguard issues included in the overall sub-project budget?

• Project Risks: What were the major risks to project implementation? Other risks?

• Gender Impact: Need to include a discussion on gender impact under NSAP and CfW.

• IEC: Role of IEC in sensitizing the communities, resolving complaints, delays and raising awareness of the role of NaCSA (NSAP and CfW).

• Sustainability/Transitional arrangements: What are the transitional arrangements for handover of the project and sub-project operations? What plans are in place to ensure Sustainability of reforms and institutional capacity? What is the risk that the benefits will not be maintained or realized?

• Tables: Please see request sent in ICR template document. (i.e. need costs, original, revised by component expenditure and allocations; and tables showing outputs achieved by Component etc…)

19

Annex 4: Arrangements for Results Monitoring (revised February 22, 2011)

20

Data Collection and Reporting

Project Outcome Indicators

Baseline Targets

Frequency and

Reports

Data Collection

Instruments

Responsibility for

Data Collection

1. Direct Project Beneficiaries (number),

of which female (%) 1a. Beneficiaries of cash for work programs (number of

individuals temporarily employed)

Of which female

1b. Beneficiaries of skills development and employment

support programs (number)

Of which female

0 0 0

0

0

0

29,500 9,450 23,500

7,050

6,000

2,400

Annual

Project Administrative data

NYC/NaCSA

2. Beneficiaries who are employed or self-employed in the field of training six months after receiving skills development and employment support (%)

N/A 60 Once during implementation

Baseline and Follow-up Survey

NYC/Consultant

3. Statistically significant difference in terms of employment of beneficiaries compared to control group (yes/no)

N/A Yes Once during implementation

Baseline and Follow-up Survey

NYC/Consultant

4. Beneficiary completion rate for skills development and employment support interventions (%)

N/A 85

Once during implementation

Baseline and Follow- up Survey NYC/Consultant

Intermediate Outcome Indicators

Component 1: Labor Intensive Cash for Works

5. Community-based subprojects implemented (number) (disaggregated by district and type of project)

0 470 Quarterly Project administrative data

NaCSA

6. Completed sub-projects that conform to ministry standards, designs and norms (%)

N/A 100 Quarterly

Project administrative data

NaCSA

7. Communities that have community oversight committees in place (%)

N/A 100 Quarterly

Project administrative data

NaCSA

8. Roads rehabilitated, rural (km)

0 378 Quarterly Project administrative data

NaCSA

9. Person days provided in labor-intensive public works (number) (disaggregated by categories men/women, district and type of subproject)

N/A 3,335,100 Quarterly Project administrative data

NaCSA

10. Community-based subprojects having lotteries (number) (disaggregated by district and type of subproject)

0 353 Quarterly Project administrative data

NaCSA

11. Beneficiaries receiving mentorship support (disaggregated by categories man/woman and district) (number)

0 16,450 Quarterly Project administrative data

NaCSA

21

Note: Sections highlighted in grey are revised in this version.

22