Mainstreaming Social Development: The

Sierra Leone Experience

SD Days March 30th, 2005Dan Owen (SDV)Rob Chase (SDV)

Yongmei Zhou (AFTPR)Samantha de Silva (HDNSP)

Dan Murphy (SDV)

Camilla Holmemo (SDV)

What are the SD strategic priorities again? Overall Social Development Objective

Empowering poor and marginalized men and women…

Through a process of transforming institutions… For greater inclusion, cohesion and accountability

Strategic priorities More Macro: Clients incorporate SD into

strategies and policy dialog Better Projects: Comprehensive and efficient

mainstreaming of SD into project-level processes Better Grounding: Improve research, capacity

building and partnerships

Sierra Leone and Social Development: So What? Sierra Leone embodies some promising

examples to mainstream social development into operations

More Macro: SD Principles of inclusion and accountability

incorporated into the CAS Better Projects:

Constructive synergies between decentralization & CDD

Better Grounding: Operational research on social development

impact

Sierra Leone: The Context Social Assessment 2004: better understand

poverty and vulnerability in order to strengthen CDD

Findings: Widespread practices of social exclusion Youth marginalization exacerbated by 11-year civil war Communities divided between leading lineages and the

rest Weak institutional structures from grassroots to

national level Need: reestablish mutual trust through inclusive

and accountable governance

Sierra Leone: The CAS Three pillars: governance, pro-poor

sustainable growth, human resource development

Governance pillar supports two promising entry points of governance reform Decentralization and empowerment Public financial management reform

Extreme poverty outside Freetown

GoSL vision of Decentralized Governance May 2004 Election of local councils Local Government Act 2004 requires

Devolution of functions, expenditures, revenue authorities to local councils during 2004-2008

Inter-governmental transfers based on transparent formula and principle of equity

Local councils autonomy in HRM and FM under guidelines

Transparency and accountability in council operation

CAS Helps GoSL Establish Effective Local Governance Support fiscal decentralization to empower LGs

with power and resources (IRCBP) Build LGs capacity in inclusive development

planning, accountable financial management and effective service delivery (IRCBP)

Empower communities to effectively express demand for public services and hold LGs accountable (IRCBP, JSDF, DevComm)

Promote inclusive decision making processes within communities, empower communities to undertake collective action and address own development challenges (NSAP, JSDF)

CAS Helps GoSL Improve Transparency and Accountability of Public Financial Management Improved strategic orientation of budget

(IRCBP, Development Policy Lending) Improved transparency of overall

government resource envelope and allocation (IRCBP, DPL)

Improved accountability of spending units (IRCBP, DPL)

We expect DfID ENCISS Project to help strengthen the monitoring and advocacy capacity of civil society groups

Institutional Reform and Capacity Building Project (IRCBP) – Decentralization Component Facilitating and financing Local Council

Rapid Results Initiatives: immediate disbursement to finance RRIs, implemented within 100 days.

Build functioning LGs which can institutionalize participatory planning have basic FM capacity establish local revenue mobilization capacity first maintain and later expand/improve service

delivery Reward LGs which adopt a transparent and

accountable management culture

Institutional Reform and Capacity Building Project – Decentralization Component (2)

Block grants to LGs so they can practice discretionary resource management skills

Access rules focus on transparency and accountability requirements of LG Act 2004

Allocation of formula-based LGDG among LGs based on equity principle: infrastructure needs, other financing available

Establish a credible transfer system for other financiers to use in future

IRCBP: Lessons Learned Promoting inclusion and strengthening

accountability is about changing people’s belief and behavior. How do we do it?

Nurturing inclusion and accountable governance culture in new LG institutions through Legal framework Processes Values Incentives Provide immediate reinforcement through

publicity and peer pressure Key to start with virtuous cycle

IRCBP: Lessons Learned (2) Strengthening accountability and promoting

inclusion in entrenched system may face more challenges.

Need to disturb equilibrium, e.g., supporting champions for change within government and in society.

National Social Action Project (NSAP) PDO

To empower communities in the process of selection, rehabilitation/construction and operation of social and economic infrastructures

Targeting especially the most vulnerable groups of society and in the areas most affected by the conflict or underserved by the government

Supporting communities in taking collective action for social change.

NSAP COMPONENTS Community Driven Program: Provision of

social services and economic infrastructure (primary schools, health posts, rural water, village roads, sanitation, small projects in agriculture, markets).

Public Works. Finances shelter and feeder roads. (Only in three most vulnerable districts: Kano, Kalahun and Koinadugu).

Management and Innovative Activities. Information, public education, communication, capacity building

NSAP: Strategy for Reaching the Vulnerable Targeting

District level. Resource allocation using vulnerability targeting (areas most affected by conflict, newly accessible areas)

Below district level. Targeting strategy uses Services and Opportunities Mapping to compare vulnerability across chiefdoms and wards.

Community level. Targets poor/remote communities. PPA and mobilization process ensures inclusion of VGs (e.g., returnees, IDPs, former combatants, widows, orphans).

Shelter Component – Works through NGOs. Finances shelter for vulnerable groups/families (amputees, disabled, widows etc.). Sensitizes communities on related issues.

Project uses specific indicators to track social inclusion and vulnerability.

NSAP: Criteria for Vulnerability Ranking(Below District level) Population (based on 2004 ranking) Education (operating standard education

facilities) Health (operating standard health facilities) Water (availability of potable water) Agriculture (availability of agricultural

services, rating of agricultural activities)

Natural resources (rating of availability of natural resources)

Transportation (rating of accessibility) Commercial activities (prevalence commercial opportunities

and activities) Civic facilities (availability of civic facilities) Support (rating of NGOs/GOSL support)

NSAP: RESULTS Reaching most vulnerable areas (conflict

affected/newly accessible): 33% of CDP projects in most vulnerable districts (target over

50%) PWP/Shelter. 388 shelters rehabilitated benefiting 6,294

beneficiaries. MOU –SLRA, DCs,NaCSA- signed to rehabilitate 100km of

feeder roads (30-40 roads) CDP financed 175 subprojects in poor/remote

communities. Communication campaign focuses on social cohesion

and community participation. Measuring impact. Developing common set of social

capital indicators (trust, inclusion, networks etc.) jointly with IRCBP and JSDF.

NSAP: Addressing Accountability Issues Communities given full control over decisions and

resources. PMCs accountable to the greater community Transparent procedures/rules in place Internal audits of community accounts

PPA and social mobilization process promotes transparency and accountability at all levels.

Strengthens links between local councils and communities

Information campaigns publicizes info about NaCSA (operating procedures, “rules of the game”, budgets, achievements, etc.)

NaCSA fully accountable to parliament.

Empowering the Grassroots: Capacity Development to Strengthen Social Capital (JSDF) Objectives: “Learning by doing” via bottom-up support

to decentralization (IRCBP link) Address Social Assessment finding of

fragile social capital: inclusion, trust, collective action, groups and networks, information and communication (NSAP link)

Scope: 2 year pilot in Bonthe and Bombali

Districts; Operates in 60 villages, 10 wards per

district. Recipient: Decentralization Secretariat

Empowering the Grassroots: Capacity Development to Strengthen Social Capital (JSDF) Design Highlights: Development Planning at village and ward

levels Strategic plans, identify concrete goals and action

steps to achieve them Community-Driven Initiatives at village and

ward levels Via Development Grants Results oriented, will use successful model of

RRI Community Driven Monitoring and Evaluation

(CDME) Communities choose indicators, track

progress, and make changes when necessary Simple, effective management tool

JSDF: Pre-requisites for Inclusion and Accountability Political will of key national

stakeholders critical Support institutional structures at

lower levels that can be sustained In Bombali District, average of 45

villages per ward Quality technical design: simple,

relevant, and scaleable approaches Engage most vulnerable: youth and

women

JSDF: Operational Value Added vis-à-vis Inclusion and Accountability Mobilization process allows communities to

examine intangibles (i.e. inclusion, accountability), that are reflected in planning and action

Support behavioral change by fostering a culture of inclusion and accountability at community level

Management of Development Grants Financial accountability via “learning by doing”

Community-Driven Monitoring and Evaluation: Inclusion and Accountability: explicitly and implicitly

JSDF: Lessons Learned? “Process” – nice rhetoric; Is it doable?

Necessary? In terms of addressing urgent development

needs, “Subsidiarity Principle” may not yet trickle down to community level. A proactive approach in short- to medium-term necessary.

Sustainability of village/ward level block grants questionable in short-term. Key is to demonstrate absorptive capacity of sub-district structures to Local Councils, GoSL, donors.

Are We Really Supporting Inclusion and Accountability? Joint Impact Evaluation Empowering people, transforming institutions,

promoting inclusion and accountability? Joint Impact Evaluation

Impacts on inclusion In development planning and implementation Inclusive leadership/decision-making

Impacts on accountability Public spending and services Communities empowered to hold leadership

accountable

Supporting Inclusion and Accountability: How did we do? Relative pros and cons

Which approach is more effective in promoting inclusive and accountable local governance?

Value added of participation? How are we going to do this?

Annual household surveys to track before/after Targeted quality studies in key sectors Annual Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys JSDF: Randomized impact evaluation –

qualitative + quantitative

Operational research on SD impact – so what? Better grounding: operational research

and capacity building Better projects: careful downstream

analysis More macro: build capacity to link

operations to policy through research and analysis