Learning Partner Presentation

1. Engineers Without Borders Learning Partner Presentation February 2009 Good Governance Team - Ghana

2. Your Learning Partner Nick Jimenez – LTOV 2008 – Saboba, Ghana

3. OBJECTIVES By the end of this presentation you should know the following: My work • Dorothy level (situation before) • Local government level (District Assembly) • Dorothy level (situation after) The good governance team • Our strategy

4. Dorothy • Dorothy needs access to basic infrastructure to pull herself out of the cycle of poverty • Though infrastructure is surely not the only aspect in development, it is indeed a crucial stepping stone • We look at the major 4

5. 1. POTABLE WATER 2. HEALTH CARE 3. ROADS 4. EDUCATION

6. 1. POTABLE WATER Women of Nalindo Without access to potable water, Dorothy stands to fall victim to easily avoidable water borne diseases • Diarrhea • Bilharzia • Typhoid • Guinea worm • Etc. Child’s leg in Nalindo after guinea worm

7. 4. EDUCATION • Education is indisputably an essential public service and human right. • Lack of access to education severely limits Dorothy’s opportunities. Kpasani children fetching water Informal school building

8. CONTEXT • The District Assembly (DA) is the local government body responsible for developing infrastructure in rural Ghana • Donors have begun to work through the DAs to build infrastructure • Thus, for infrastructure development, the DA is the local authority for the planning and implementation of physical projects

9. THE PROBLEM Decisions are made on best guesses, and can be subject to political interference (corruption) Communities are in the dark with how they receive projects, and thus limited in their ability to participate in development EFFECTS No consistent way of selecting communities for infrastructure PROBLEM Planners lack necessary tools to analyze large amounts of data, and thus make transparent decisions Processes that are in place lack the political will to be followed Planners lack the necessary information to guide even development CAUSES

10. EFFECTS “They told us to get a bank account and collect 200GH¢. We did that and haven’t received a borehole. That was in 2005!” -Men from Nalindo Communities that need infrastructure most are left waiting because of unfair distribution of resources from the government

11. MY WORK - OBJECTIVES Centers around the planning surrounding infrastructure Formalizing that siting process for rural infrastructure Addressing each cause individually • Building tools with government staff • Getting decision makers to own and enforce the formal siting process • Getting the required information (field realities) to guide that siting process

12. 1. BUILDING TOOLS . . . HOW Calling together various stakeholders to design criteria needed to assess communities for infrastructure Designing a scoring methodology so that communities can be objectively ranked for infrastructure Getting community opinion on what the criteria should be. Having communities decide what they can do to show ownership and commitment before the government provides the infrastructure

13. 1. BUILDING TOOLS . . . HOW Building necessary skills with government staff to design and manipulate these data analysis tools Using the tool creation as an opportunity for learning and developing skills Essentially creating a dynamic planning tool, that automatically generates a prioritized list of communities, based on real-time data from the field Picture of douglas and me working at the computer

14. District Education Director District Health Director District Agriculture Director Works Department - Engineer Feeder Roads District Chief Executive (DCE) District Coordinating Director (DCD) District Planning Officer (DPO) Deputy District Coordinating Director 2. POLITICAL WILL . . . HOW Structure of the DA CORE DECISION MAKING POWER TOP OFFICERS DEPTARTMENTS

15. 2. POLITICAL WILL . . . HOW • Decision makers at the DA to drive this initiative. • Making evidence based decisions easier than current practices (step 1 above) • Empowering the decision makers to be able to guide the entire tool development process • Training the decision makers to improve their planning capabilities

16. 1 & 2 COMBINED MUTUALLY RE-ENFORCING BEHAVIOUR CHANGE Top officers requesting evidence to site infrastructure TOP OFFICERS - DECISION MAKERS DEPARTMENTS – KNOWLEDGEABLE FIELD STAFF Dept. having sound, rigorous analysis of field realities to guide decisions

17. 3. GETTING FIELD REAILITIES . . . HOW Conducted a district-wide survey • Gathering crucial data for planning and siting infrastructure (getting Dorothy’s voice heard) • Educating communities on how the government makes its decisions (increasing transparency) • Educating communities on what steps they can do to advocate needs (empowering Dorothy)

18. 3. GETTING FIELD REAILITIES . . . HOW

19. THE SOLUTION Decisions are made based on field realities and corruption is minimized Communities know how the government makes decisions, and knows where they stand on the prioritized list. Also they know how to advocate their needs and better their chances at selection Decisions are made on best guesses, and can be subject to political interference (corruption) Communities are in the dark with how they receive projects, and thus limited in their ability to participate in development EFFECTS No consistent way of selecting communities for infrastructure A formal transparent siting process based on field realities is followed PROBLEM Planners have developed their own custom tools to manage vast amounts of data and prioritize communities The leaders of the government are championing formal processes for siting infrastructure Planners contain an up-to-date accurate picture of the district Planners lack necessary tools to analyze large amounts of data, and thus make transparent decisions Processes that are in place lack the political will to be followed Planners lack the necessary information to guide even development CAUSES

20. EFFECTS • November 2008 – 40 communities were selected for World Vision borehole projects in a transparent manner using the WATSAN ranking tool. • Communities will start owning their development and showing commitment to the government in order to access public services

21. QUESTIONS?

22. Good Governance Team – August 2008 LOUIS NICK JEN KRISTY COURTNEY ROBIN

23. Dan – DPCUCentral Gonja Louis Dorval – Team Lead Jen - RPCU Good Governance Team - Present Nick – DPCU, Saboba Mary - RPCU

24. Government of Ghana National Development Planning Commission Regional Planning and Coordinating Unit (RPCU) District Planning and Coordinating Unit (DPCU) Development Partners Development Partners Community Organizations, Private Contractors, local NGOs Communities MORE CONTEXT Activity Hub

25. MORE CONTEXT

26. TEAM STRATEGY • Do all of my work down at the district level • Build the regional

27. That’s the VERY brief explanation!