Beneficiary assessment for monitoring : the Zambia Social Recovery Project

OCIAL DENrELOPMENT NOTES ENVIRONMENTALLY AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT NETWORK Note No. 36 May 1998 Beneficiary Assessment for Monitoring: The Zambia Social Recovery Project Zambia's Social Recovery Fund promotes institutions, and evaluated Social Recovery commuunity-driven infrastructure Fund procedures. rehabilitation through microprojects aimed at cushioning vulnerable groups ag>ainst the negative effects of adjustment. The fund was Box 1. Building Capacity for formed in 1991 as part of the Social Recovery Participatory Development Project, which was designed to bu:ild the The most important long-term policy impact of capacity of local communities and the beneficiary assessments has been the governments to plan, implement, and creation of in-country capacity to carry out manage community investments. participatory research on policy issues. The assessments have inspired a number of spinoffs, Since 1992, the fund has used beneficiary including the 1993 Participatory Poverty assessments to ensure that funded Assessment and annual follow-up monitoring. microprojects target the poor (by aLllowing A cost recovery exercise undertaken by the the poor to set priorities for the fund's Participatory Assessment Group in 1994 also support) and improve overall project had considerable policy influence, particularly performance. Orig.ally a mo.tring in terms of ongoing decentralization in the eerrcse, bniciary as menit av health sector. Moreover, the Participatory exercise, beneficiary assessments liave Assessment Group, an NGO whose work has become a valuable tool for fostering been integrated into the national poverty community participation and building in- monitoring system, is a powerful example of country capacity in social assessment institutionalization carried through beyond the methodologies (see Box 1). original project. Four Beneficiary Assessments The second beneficiary assessment, in To date there have been four beneficiary 1993, explored community participation and assessments in Zambia, each with its own ownership; assessed project implementation, objectives. The 1992 assessment studied the supervision, maintenance, sustainability, socioeconomic profile of microproject and impacts; and made thematic beneficiaries, assessed coping strategies assessments of planned and ongoing health, during structural adjustment and drought, education, nutrition, AIDS, and gender gauged communities potential four sharing operations as part of the Southern Africa costs and their perceptions of intermediary Department's client consultation initiative. Bruce Jones is task team leader of the second Social Recovery Project, For more information on the beneficiary assessment, contact Bruce Jones, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, Fax: 202-473-8329, E-mail: bjones@worldbank.org, or Daniel Owen, E-mail: owen@zebra.uem.mz, or dan.owen@mailcity.com. Tlue vie-ws expressed in this note are those of thie authtor(s) and do not necessarily reflect thte official policies of thte World Bank.  The third assessment, in 1994, assessed the progressively more relevant to management effects of microprojects, reviewed the decisions. This approach requires the Social institutional arrangements of intermediaries, Recovery Fund, World Bank staff, and the and compared community priorities with team carrying out the assessments to be fu-nded microprojects.The fourth willing to learn and to adopt new assessment, in 1996/97, evaluated the approaches (see Boxes 2 and 3). performance of the Social Recovery Fund, The first three assessments were carried reviewed community implementation out by a team from the University of issues, and assessed the sustainability of Zambias Rualr Deelopmest Sd microproject benefits. ~Zambia's Rlural Developmen:t Studies microproject benefits. Bureau. In 1995, the Bureau was eliminated Learning from Experience when the university was restructured. Given Beneficiar assesmetmtincreasing demand for its services, the team Beneficiary assessment methodologiesdecided to form a nongovernmental have evolved over time. The first two organization (NGO) called the Participatory assessments used traditonal qualitative Assessment Group; the group receives research approaches, including semi- funding from the Swedish International structured interviewing, focus group Development Authority under the second discussions, and direct observation. Then in Social Recovery Project (effective since 1995). late 1993 the beneficiary assessment team Relying on participatory approaches, the undertook the Participatory Poverty group undertakes beneficiary assessments, Assessment for Zambia. As a result, with pre-project planning exercises, poverty training and experience -Zambia's poverty assessments, and rural appraisal training for assessment was considered best practice - the Social Recovery Fund, the World Bank, the methodologies for the third and fourth government ministries, donors, and other assessments included highly participatory NGOs. research methods and rural appraisal techniques. Tools such as ranking, scoring, and institutional diagramming were used to Box 2. Adapting Procurement in access local knowledge and to better Response to Changing Needs understand how communities (and particularly women) felt about microproject Community-implemented microprojects implementation issues. Participatory rural involve an enormous number of small appraisal methods have been particularly procurement contracts. The Bank's useful in identifying and plarning procurement procedures tend to. usefuloinridectifying and planriing discourage community participation. The microprojects. 0 beneficiary assessments underscored the The first beneficiary assessment was based complexity of these procedures and, as a on a sample of 60 projects and 1,620 result, contributed to revisions in respondents. The second was carried out in procurement guidelines and the piloting 24 field sites with 1,121 respondents; the of new disbursement practices. thir'd in 21 sites. The latest assessment took place in 12 communities. Costs have ranged Winning over Skeptics from more than US$50,000 for the first assessment to US$30,000 for subsequent In 1991, when the Social Recovery Project ones (not including World Bank staff time). began, staff of the Social Recovery Fund were not convinced that the qualitative With experience, the assessments have -. become more focused, more concise, and approach utilized in beneficiary assessments less costly. Because each assessment draws would add value to the project. Just three on the results and shortcomings of those that years later, at a workshop in Lusaka, the came before it, quality has improved local project coordinator described the significntlshave become assessments as the single most important significantly and findings have become tool for project improvement.  Box 3. How Did Beneficiary Assessments Affect the Social Recovery Project? Beneficiary assessment Managler's Action taken Impact finding recommendation . Mandatory * Keep community . Contributions (in cash and . Communities community contributions in kind) required as continue to contributions to the mandatory. conditions for continued contribute, project increase support. improving the participation and likelihood of sense of ownership. sustainability. . Some community- * Develop basic . Criminal proceedings . Increased based project accounting training, clause for fiscal misconduct subproject committees monitor performance added to project forms; accountabilitv. mismanage project more closely, and bookkeeping module being funds; others are not take action if funds developed for committee held accountable by are misused. training manual; the community. procedures for ensuring fiscal accountability being reviewed.