54756 Social Development 285 December 2007 Findings reports on ongoing operational, economic, and sector work carried out by the World Bank and its member governments in the Africa Region. It is published periodically by the Operations Results and Learning Unit on behalf of the Region. The views expressed in Findings are those of the author/s and should not be attributed to the World Bank Group. Multi-dimensional results measurement in CDD projects Experiences from the Malawi, Tanzania, Findings and Uganda Social Action Funds by Krishna Pidatala & Nginya Mungai Lenneiye What results? reduction, (b) improved social In the last decade, Malawi, Tanzania, welfare, and (c) improved and Uganda have used the transparency and accountability. Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach1 to implement Evolution of the social funds projects that exhibit multi-sectoral mechanism linkages, complex institutional Social funds generally transfer structures and implementation resources to communities, allowing processes, creative tension between them to prioritize, implement, and the supply and demand sides, and manage sub-projects that lead to convergence at the Local community empowerment, increased Government Authority (LGA) level in social capital, improved access to environments compounded by the basic social services, and ultimately pace of decentralization. improved livelihoods. Direct financing The projects have broadened the of communities leaves local issue of results focus from the government authorities with the measurement of a few input-output power to oversee how communities indicators to include intermediate are using the resources. outcomes (which measure Social funds continue to evolve, beneficiaries potentially reached by requiring that the activities to improve outputs produced by the projects). and measure results keep pace with In the process, these projects have changes. First-generation social funds been able to scale up from `isolated such as MASAF I and II (1995­ boutique-type projects' to a mass 2003) and TASAF I (2000­04) production of outputs through focused on the creation of participatory decision-making, local infrastructure (schools, health centers, capacity development, and community water points, etc.); second-generation control of resources. social funds include vulnerable groups, At the national level, the projects and addressed cash transfer have contributed to (a) poverty mechanisms to food insecure 1 In the Africa Region, the CDD approach promotes (i) community empower- ment; (ii) empowerment of local governments; (iii) realignment with the center; (iv) improving transparency; and (v) capacity development. households through innovative public focusing on the big picture, especially the MDGs to which the project works programs (PWPs). the Millennium Development Goals, activities would contribute; and (b) Experiences from a post conflict (b) developing sector norms and identify and categorize community situation in Northern Uganda led to standards, (c) fostering quality participation contribution to some of transitional social funds, such as assurance, and (d) implementing an the sub-indicators of the MDGs NUSAF (2003­08), to experiment overall framework for the (Table 1). This exercise finally drills with power-sharing between implementation of M&E and MIS. down to those community communities and local governments, participation activities that contribute accountability and conflict resolution. Community contributions to specific aspects of some of the Lessons learned from MASAF I/II, to MDGs MDGs. TASAF I, and NUSAF were The three social action funds incorporated into third generation (MASAF-3, NUSAF and TASAF-II) Nature of outcomes social funds, and components were have adopted a practice of linking From the work in the three social abolished, and a single National outputs to sector norms and funds, a general hierarchy of Village Fund was created with clear standards, as well as to country development and intermediate access and approval criteria. concerns when calculating outcomes for social funds using the Approvals are done at the intermediate outcomes, capturing CDD approach has been developed community and local authority level, Table 1: MDGs, Tanzania PRS and community participation (TASAF II contribution) MDG (in PRS) Community participation contributing to MDG Halve the proportion of people living Wages from Public Works, income from projects for the vulnerable and below the poverty line incomes from investments funded from own savings, etc Achieve Universal Education Improved learning environment through provision of infrastructure and training of communities, etc Promote Gender Equality Social mobilization to increase girls in schools, toilets for girls, train school committees, etc Halve the proportion of people without Community water projects, water harvesting , training water maintenance access to safe water committees, improved sanitation, etc Reduce Under-five Mortality by two Community food production projects, immunization promotion and improved thirds health service delivery, etc Reduce Maternal Mortality by three Awareness on risks, Family Planning promotion, train Village Assembly , quarters supply of FP kits Halt and Reverse the spread of Vulnerable group support, Youth skills training, Community Health Funds, HIV/AIDS Community health awareness, etc with the national level being relegated contribution rather than attribution (Table 2). In this respect, social funds to ensuring that sub-project activities when it comes to impact indicators in have adopted a "learning by doing" are in compliance with national sector the context of Millennium approach and have countered the norms. Ring-fenced funds were Development Goals (MDGs). This centralist assumption of decreasing included to ensure that community has been a useful way to engage efficiency as one proceeds priorities do not leave the most sector specialists in identifying downwards from the center to the vulnerable behind and resources are bottlenecks in the attainment of community level. In that context, it is appropriately targeted. MDGs while improving the results a work-in-progress and should be Implementation of the CDD framework beyond mere input-output construed as such. approach through social action funds measurement. The use of intermediate outcomes entails a multi-sectoral team to be In Tanzania, the results focus makes it possible for the projects to effective. This requires support by approach under TASAF II makes it measure progress towards the sector technical staff at all levels -- possible to (a) align project activities achievement of each type of mainly at the central and local with higher level goals in the context Development Outcomes. On the basis government level. The role of the of MDGs and the PRSP, and select of this framework, efforts are center is important as it helps with (a) Table 2: Hierarchy of outcomes under projects with a CDD approach Type of development outcomes Intermediate outcomes (1) Empowerment (a) improved local organization (b) increased participation (c) improved local governance (d) increased transparency, and (e) increased accountability (2) Increased Social capital (a) increased inclusion (b) increased trust and (c) increased collective action (3) Expanded social services delivery (a) access to improved learning environment (b) access to improved health facilities or essential health packages (c) access to improved water sources, and (d) access to improved sanitation (4) improved livelihoods Increased incomes from (a) income-generating activities (b) conditional cash transfer programs, and (c) non-conditional cash transfer programs.. underway to review specific Improving results measurement levels of implementation (community, indicators in a number of CDD In the course of supporting the local government, and overall operations to ensure that they (a) implementation of the three social program). Some lessons for measure progress towards outcomes, funds, various innovations have been practitioners include (a) focus on and (b) are in compliance with IDA tried in order to improve the results monitoring at the project level; requirements. Table 3 shows measurement of results (Table 4). (b) look for contribution and clear improved potential access to basic These have taken place at the three linkages to MDGs at impact level; (c) services delivery in the three projects. introduce social accountability Table 3: Contributions to intermediate outcomes (improved potential access) Indicator Output Measure Populations with improved potential access1 MASAF TASAF NUSAF TOTAL Population with improved access to:- Health OPD 1,560,0002 600,000 460,325 16,660,327 Safe water Water-point 161,750 62,250 281,400 508,400 Irrigation Irrigation scheme 22,000 18,000 40,000 Markets Community market 48,000 81,000 45,000 174,000 Roads Road 612,000 918,000 210,000 1,740,000 natural resources Projects 29,000 225,000 162,0001 416,000 HIV/AIDS prevention Projects 30,000 19,926 20,740 70,666 Households with improved access to:- water for livestock Earth dam 82,000 96,000 10,000 188,000 food storage facilities Storages 3,000 35,000 50,000 88,000 Children with improved access to:- Learning environment Classroom 116,370 136,150 129,000 381,520 Sanitation VIP 23,775 9,475 23,700 56,950 Teachers with improved accommodation House 670 1,166 1,150 2,986 Health staff with improved accommodation House 1,533 222 1,840 85 Orphans reached with support Projects 1,260 21,275 52,230 74,765 Widows with access to higher incomes Projects 864 14,700 72,755 88,319 Elderly with access to support Projects 468 58,795 12,356 71,619 Disabled reached with support Projects 106 27,893 7,547 35,546 Under-fives reached with support ECD centre 57 135 8102 1,002 Others (eg IDPs) 420,000 420,000 Totals 16,732,855 2,327,987 1,959,098 21,019,940 1 Potential based on sector norms and outputs. 2 This figure can be reduced to 1 million due to the large number of understaffed and undersupplied facilities. Table 4: Types of results measurement innovations Level Area of innovation Progress Community Community monitoring & Social Accountability approaches & instruments such as Community feedback Score Cards, Citizen Report Cards and annual poverty reports introduced Community Statistics day Specific day is set aside on a periodic basis when community statistics are collected, stored and reported on. This encourages empowerment, transparency and helps in results measurement, analysis and decision making at the community level to improve results. Local level Accountability Project Management committees made more accountable to elected local structures at the village level Local Alignment with the centre Work with district planning process to align the supply side programs Government to capture community demand driven priorities Demand-driven capacity Allow local governments to plan and request specific capacity enhancement development and training within a funding envelope that is both well defined and transparent Program Delivery benchmarks The Community Sub-Project Cycle (CSPC) is an important instrument developed in the distribution of power, activities and accountabilities. Appropriate delivery benchmarks have been developed in this context to measure results, processing efficiencies, service gaps and capacities of different stakeholders. Community Service These service packages , defined by the respective sector ministries, Packages (CSP) comprise a minimum set of interventions that (a) are affordable and suited to community level management and maintenance (b) are within national sector norms and standards , and (c) contribute to specific MDG indicator targets.­ to ensure that the investment is functional and sustainable Harmonization of systems Work to harmonize procedures and systems (MIS, financial & procedures management procedures) with other initiatives at the local government level in the context of decentralization and MTEF. Knowledge & Information Introduced KISS systems to share knowledge, increase transparency, Sharing System (KISS) reduce transaction costs and preserve institutional memory Performance Management Experience from private sector used to introduce the culture of culture performance management, albeit with varying degrees of success approaches; (d) incorporate MIS and Conclusion is essential to attain results in M&E into project work processes; (e) While social action funds result in an these operations; and the encourage bottom-up priorities using expanded service delivery, challenge is how to overcome PRA techniques into district planning empowered communities, increased sectoral-resistance on the part processes to strengthen the local social capital and improved of implementers and Bank government-community space; and livelihoods, sectors play an important teams while improving on (f) use South-South learning and role in ensuring quality and reporting systems. Impact experience sharing for intra-project sustainability by their contributions to evaluations are urgently needed learning, intra-regional learning, and ensuring better development in these operations to assess cross-regional learning. outcomes. Therefore, a multi- how much of the `potential' has dimensional, multi-sectoral approach been translated into `actual' service access.