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

2. Your Learning Partner Nick Jimenez – LTOV 2008 – Saboba, Ghana
I’m came overseas in 2008 February, and have been working in Saboba for 12 months.

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.
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
-imagine that!!!

14. CORE DECISION MAKING POWER
2. POLITICAL WILL HOW
Structure of the DA
District Chief Executive (DCE)
District Coordinating Director (DCD)
CORE DECISION MAKING POWER
TOP OFFICERS
District Planning Officer (DPO)
Deputy District Coordinating Director
DEPTARTMENTS
Now the people inside the red box (core decision making power) are the real players. They contain practically all the decision making power. Primarily the two top officers (DCE, DCD) but the Planning Officer and Deputies also are influential.
The departments underneath are the ones that I am concerned with primarily. These are the departments responsible for providing advice to the decision makers on where infrastructure should go. They use their technical expertise and their knowledge of the field to site infrastructure. The decision makers then make the final decisions.
District Education Director
District Health Director
District Agriculture Director
Works Department - Engineer
Feeder
Roads

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
Without one of these being successful, the other will fail. The must be done simultaneously, and both must be done effectively.
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. Talking to communities – getting their needs
Educating them on the ranking process, and what they can do
Prioritizing needs
Letting them guide the discussion

19. THE SOLUTION
Decisions are made based on field realities and corruption is minimized
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
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
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
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
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 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. EFFECTS
Within weeks after community visits, communities are already coming to show their commitment with formal requests to the government
Communities putting up structures to start their children in school, and get one step closer to formal education

22. QUESTIONS?