1

UNDERSTANDING THE VARIABLE SUCCESS OF

CITIZEN ACTION PLANS FOR BETTER PUBLIC

SERVICES IN SIERRA LEONE.

A LEARNING REVIEW OF SABI – BY KAS SEMPERE

JANUARY 2020

2

Contents

1. Summary ................................................................................................................. 3

2. SABI’s way of working in a context of weak state decentralisation. .................. 5

3. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 7

4. Findings ................................................................................................................... 8

5. Conclusion: what explains differences in citizen action success? ...................... 18

6. Recommendations ................................................................................................... 20

3

1. Summary

SABI is a programme operating in all 16 districts of Sierra Leone that supports citizens to

identify service delivery problems and find pathways to working with state service

providers to overcome them.

This review asked the question – why does the success of SABI’s efforts to improve public

services vary? By December 2019, 19% of the 212 ward-level actions that SABI had

planned with communities had been completed, while the rest were either ongoing, or

had stagnated. A previous review found that 38% of 786 community-level actions had

been successful.1 What causes this variable success?

The purpose of this review is to understand this variance to improve SABI and increase

the percentage of successful and sustainable actions, fortify public services, and

strengthen the relationships between citizens and the government.

The review drew on SABI’s database of 212 ward action plans, and interviews and group

discussions with implementing partners, Ward Development Committees, community

volunteers, community members and government officials in the districts of Bo, Bombali

and Kenema. Programme background documentation included previous learning pieces

analysing community actions, partner quarterly reports, and a mid-term review of SABI

carried out in 2019.

The most cited factor for a successful action plans is a critical mass of leaders and citizens

that are both motivated and skilled. Other factors such as the relative wealth and

resources of a place, its proximity to stakeholders (governmental, multinational

companies, NGOs) and the involvement of the Ward Councillor as the action plan leader

were also important. However, even effective Ward Councillors still depended on an

organised and capable citizenry able to both direct and manage existing resources for

the public benefit, and to preserve the infrastructure that government and other agents

may have helped set up. Factors obstructing the success of action plans related to

seasonality and, most importantly, to the limitations of the District Council and its District

Development Funds in responding to citizen demands.

Recommendations pursue two main objectives: boosting motivation and knowledge in

citizens and leaders; and helping strengthen the capacity of the district governance level

to respond to citizens.

• Make all local funds visible to citizens, and ensure their good management

• Include the chiefdom as a potential source of funding action plans

• Keep focus on policy literacy and accountability pathways

• Engage national government around factors that prevent action plan

implementation

• Improve the monitoring and evaluation of action plans.

4

5

2. SABI’s way of working in a context of weak state decentralisation.

SABI is a programme operating in all districts of Sierra Leone which supports citizens to

find pathways to working with state service providers to overcome problems in public

service delivery. The main service delivery actors that SABI and the communities it

supports engage with are Ward Development Committees, District Councils, ministries,

and to a lesser extent, parliamentarians and chiefs.

District Councils are important spaces for decentralised service provision and for the

resolution of service delivery challenges. Although they are the bodies to which Ward

Development Committees (chaired by elected Ward Councillors) report community

problems, they are under-resourced. There is also a lack of clarity concerning the

responsibilities of and overlap between the spaces of the decentralised state, occupied

by elected Ward Councillors and district-level elected representatives, and non-elected

officials of chiefdoms, hereditary governance structures which retain considerable

influence. In Sierra Leone’s 16 districts, there are 190 chiefdoms and 446 wards.

Currently, the Local Government Act (2004) is under review, giving rise to hope that

decentralisation may be clarified and better implemented, allowing for improvements to

service provision.

Funded by UK Aid, SABI (2016–2020) is run by a group of international and Sierra Leonean

partners, led by Christian Aid.2 Partner Restless Development supports the design of

community action plans, each based on findings from a citizen perception survey about

public services carried out in the 610 communities where SABI works. Restless

Development passes the survey findings – and community action plans based on the

findings – to three other partners (RADA, SEND and SLSAV) working at ward and district

levels. These partners help wards select action plans, such as seeking legal approval for

community schools or ensuring the delivery of drugs to local health units, where solutions

require the involvement of government actors beyond the community level. These

become ward action plans for Ward Development Committees to take to District Councils

for resolution.

At the same time, headline findings from the citizen perception survey are presented to

government authorities at annual ‘service summits’ in each district. In these summits,

citizens and government actors discuss the data and select three district action plans.

Finally, Christian Aid and partner Focus 1000 conduct advocacy at the national level for

those actions that need it. SABI also makes grants to other existing organisations that

work to create a better environment for the completion of action plans – DADA (an

association that supports district governments to raise public revenue) and SLUDI (an

association for the rights of people with disabilities).

6

At each of these levels, some action plans are successful, while others stagnate or

take time to complete. This review explored the factors that influence the

variability of success rates at different levels, focusing most closely on ward action

plans.

This review is the third of a series looking at different aspects of the impact and

sustainability of citizen action plans for accountable governance in SABI.

7

We use the following definitions of key terms in this report:

• Citizen action: the actions taken by the communities and wards SABI works with.

• Accountable governance: a situation in which a government is accountable to its

citizens for public service delivery, including the resolution of service delivery

problems.

• Accountability pathways: the journey that citizen actions take to hold different parts

of government accountable for resolving the service delivery challenges identified in

action plans.

3. Methodology

This learning review is based on a two-week visit to Sierra Leone by Christian Aid research,

evidence and learning adviser Dr Kas Sempere, who carried out fieldwork with SABI M&E

coordinator Mr Bangalie Lamin.

Fieldwork took place in Bo, Bombali and Kenema Districts, selected to be representative

of the Southern, Northern and Eastern provinces. In total, we held focus group

discussions with four Ward Development Committees: one urban, two peri-urban and

one rural3. Focus groups usually had around fifteen participants who had previously

engaged with SABI, and were selected by field officers, volunteers and data collectors on-

site, and questions aimed to identify the factors contributing to the success or stagnation

of ward action plans. Ward visits lasted around two and a half hours.

We interviewed two Christian Aid senior programme officers, and M&E and field officers

from RADA, Restless Development, SEND and SLSAV in all three districts, apart from the

Restless Development field officer in Kenema. As well as those from Bo, Bombali and

Kenema, we also interviewed field officers from Pujehun (Southern province); Tonkolili,

Falaba, Kambia, Karene, Koinadugu and Port Loko (Northern and North-Western

provinces); and Western Urban (Western province).

To explore the factors contributing to the success or failure of SABI’s work, we reviewed

and verified SABI’s 2019 national database of 212 ward action plans4 with field officers,

and then compared the reasons that led to the resolution or non-resolution of actions

for the same problem in different locations. We asked the same question to Restless

Development volunteers and field officers – why were some communities getting their

problems solved, while others were not? In Bombali, we interviewed SABI’s new grantee,

DADA. We included them on the grounds that lack of resources at the district level was

consistently cited as a factor hindering the completion of action plans.

Finally, we attended the Moyamba District service summit (Southern province), hosted by

SABI. This helped explore how ward action plans get upgraded into district action plans.

Unfortunately, we were unable to interview national partners Focus 1000 and SLUDI and

had little time to interview district government authorities beyond the District Project

8

Officer and Inspector of Education in Bombali. As such, national and district level analysis

of factors influencing variance is weaker than analysis of ward and community levels.

Programme background documentation included previous learning pieces analysing

community actions, partner quarterly reports, and a mid-term review of SABI carried out

in 2019.

All respondents gave their informed, voluntary, written consent to participate in the

review, and responses from individual community members, field workers and

volunteers were all anonymised.

4. Findings

In this section, we describe factors that cause variability in the success of SABI action

plans. In 2019, there were 212 ward action plans5 aimed at improving public services. At

the time of this review in December 19% of these actions – 40 cases – had been

completed, while 72% were ongoing, 4% had stagnated and 5% had an unknown status.

These actions had started in February, and the relatively short period between February

and December partly explains why most actions were still ongoing. This success rate of

ward action plans compared to a 38% of 786 community action plans completed in a

similar time-frame, analysed in a previous review6. Ward actions tend to require more

resources and involve more actors than community-managed ones, so the lower

percentage – 19% to 38% – is not surprising. We now explore factors that enabled or

limited the completion of ward action plans.

A critical mass of motivated and skilled leaders and citizens is the most

frequently mentioned success factor

In interviews, an organised community was the most repeated factor for the success of

action plans. For this organising to be successful, we found that both motivation and

knowledge were indispensable. For instance, we met a good-hearted Ward Councillor in

Bombali with energy to improve things, but no strategy or knowledge about the

government criteria for seeking legal approval of community schools, which meant that

this action plan stagnated. At the same time, knowledge without motivation is often

ineffective. Government officials often expect communities to demonstrate their

legitimacy by working or contributing resources before their demands for public support

are taken seriously.

We found some cases where the success of action plans was enhanced because citizens

had at least one leader that backed them up and was able to talk to the authorities. For

example, citizens from Logbereh community in Bombali visited an NGO office to request

support to build a school water point but were denied access to the office. But when the

same group returned with their Ward Councillor, they were allowed access to the

9

premises for a meeting. The NGO was impressed, as this was the first community that

had come to them with a plan; community members had also built two rooms and a

playground space themselves. Once the Councillor had written a formal letter of request

to the NGO, it constructed water points in the school and the community.

Interestingly, knowledge input from SABI in the Logbereh example encouraged the

community to work around their leaders, as the Regent Chief was not as supportive as

the Ward Councillor. SABI informed them that the only person who could make a decision

on their school-related challenges was the Deputy District Director of Education, not any

other chief or elected leader. This encouraged them to persist in finding accountability

pathways that bypassed their unsupportive traditional leader.

Some volunteers and field officers found it a bottleneck to work with the peer group

‘champions’, individuals who volunteer to take infographics to their peers, but who

sometimes become unresponsive. They noted that, when this happens, they wanted to

be able to talk to communities directly.

On the other hand, community representatives are key in supporting their leaders, such

as the Ward Councillor. A Christian Aid senior programme officer noted:

Normally, the Ward Councillor goes there [to visit

the district authorities] to engage monthly, but

sometimes they don’t take them seriously, as they

are alone. But if a [community] convoy goes and

discusses, they see the strength.

We would often find scenarios of divided leadership, where not all leaders were

interested in or agreed on supporting action plans. For instance, a community in Simbo

Town Ward 275 in Bo had a Ward Councillor who was committed but a Local Chief who

was not, while Telu Bongor (Ward 292) in Bo was said to have an absent Ward Councillor

but an active Paramount Chief. SEND staff noted how, even when there are several

committed leaders, political differences between them can limit collaboration between

the Ward Councillor, the district authorities, and the Paramount Chief, and between the

Ward Councillor and Ward Committee members.

In general, the greater the number of active leaders working together, the more options

the action plan has for success. We found some action plans which were successful after

several attempts or accountability pathways in which different leaders were involved. It

is important that community members understand the full constellation of their leaders

and representatives, which can include the Local Chief, the Ward Councillor, the Section

and Paramount Chiefs, district-level representatives and Member of Parliament, as well

as relatives abroad and other champions or resource people such as a District Medical

Officer, or a School Inspector.

10

For SABI, these findings imply the importance of strengthening the motivation and

knowledge of leaders. Amongst those interviewed, motivation depended on having at

least one action completed, or knowing that another community had completed their

action plan; an encouraging field officer, volunteer or other inspiring individual; and

knowledge about budgets and resources available at ward, chiefdom and district level.

Knowledge of the availability of funds influences success

The relative wealth of an area is another important factor for the success of action plans.

However, success depends on good resource management, transparent information

about local funds and resources (see Box 1), and who owns and controls the funds and

resources needed to implement action plans.

We found some cases of mismanagement of local resources such as school subsidies and

drug supplies. For instance, the field officer in Falaba district noted that selling drugs to

foreigners from Guinea or cattle-herders from other districts in the mountains of Falaba

in the dry season is common. So, the “drugs out of stock” problem, so common in SABI

action plans, is often attributed to supply shortages from the government, but in some

cases local mismanagement of government supplies also contributes to the problem. The

field officer in Falaba gave a point of view on the problems in Kurubola, Neya Chiefdom:

It is really challenging. When the drugs arrive, we [SABI] call on the Councillor and the

facilities management committee chair for transparency. After two weeks, there are no

drugs. They are eaten [mismanaged] by the clinic’s staff. The facilities management

committee never knew their roles and responsibilities. Now, they are following up. The

Ward Councillor is monitoring the committee. He was a previous committee member, so

he knows the responsibilities well.

Not all community members SABI works with know about funds that are available. Some

showed surprise when they learnt that local funds such as the school subsidy existed.

SABI needs to keep sharing information about local funds and resources through its

policy literacy sessions so that citizens are aware of them and are better prepared to

monitor them. As Ward Development Committee members noted in Ward 33 in Kenema:

Before, the Ward Development Committee didn’t know about their responsibility but SABI

taught them. One responsibility is to mobilise people and identify projects the

government should be doing for them and channel through the Councillor. If the project

is approved, they are also responsible to monitor… when Free Education sends some

supplies... or for free medicals… they are responsible for those deliveries… For every

development that is coming.

Before, the head teacher would be eating [misusing] the [school] subsidy. SABI explained

[to the Ward Development Committee] that there was a subsidy, and it went to the head

teacher. The head teacher said that the money came and that they shared it amongst

11

themselves [teachers]. When I knew, I went to the Councillor. The next subsidy, the head

teacher won’t be sharing that money. It was agreed [by the School Management

Committee] to use the subsidy to build toilets for the school. And the next one is for the

water.

[Before] people constructing [school fences, buildings…] would take materials. Now, they

know there is a monitoring system so no one takes materials.

Land availability is another aspect affecting successful implementation of action plans.

While urban and peri-urban areas may seem richer and better resourced than rural areas,

partner staff working in Freetown and central Bo told us how scarce and expensive land

is. This restricts or delays the completion of some action plans such as school and clinic

construction. Some prefer to rent a container rather than building a clinic, but the rental

company may request a 20-year contract, for a solution that should be temporary, and

which citizens of Rokupa in East III Chiefdom found abusive. Similarly, water provision

systems can also be costly. The field officer for Western Urban (Freetown) told us that

water tanks were provided by the government for free during the Ebola crisis, but are

now managed by a private company and have become expensive. Staff also noted that

working in urban areas was hard as people were more dispersed. All these factors affect

the progress of action plans.

Land ownership influences the way local resources are used to complete action plans. If

the land on which schools and clinics are built or the buildings themselves are privately

owned, the government may refrain from sending resources; in Ward 275 in Bo, this

happened with the delivery of a solar panel to a clinic. We heard of similar cases in Bo,

Bombali and Pujehun where action plans to set up schools and clinics slowed down

because they were located on private land.

Local funds and resources in Sierra Leone communities

Citizens in average communities in Sierra Leone are close to several types of resources:

1. School subsidies and school performance budgets are delivered by the Ministry of Finance by direct

bank transfer to schools. Only legally approved schools can access subsidies, while performance budgets

are awarded competitively to the best operating schools.

2. Drug supplies are delivered to all public primary health units every three months by the Ministry of

Health, through District Health Offices.

3. District development funds. Funds coming from the central government; taxes (the District Council

does not collect taxes but receives 40% of the taxes collected by the Chiefdom); market and property fees.

Expenditure is controlled by the District Council. Ward Development Committees do not have funds.

4. Chiefdom development funds. Royalties from mining or other natural resource-based corporate

activities in the territory; taxes (60%); market fees.

5. Members of Parliament may support projects in their constituencies, but this is not a legal obligation.

6. NGO projects and private sector corporate responsibility social projects from companies

operating in the area. SABI aims to ensure that these projects are overseen by government to strengthen

governance structures.

12

The limitations of District Development Funds and the potential of Chiefdom

Development Funds

We found many SABI action plans in which community and ward representatives had

visited district authorities, both District Councillors and ministerial district

representatives (MDAs) such as the District Medical Officer and the Deputy Director of

Education. That community members know that the district should be providing services

and that Ward Councillors should support communities to tackle service delivery

problems at this level is very positive; reinforcing this knowledge and activating the

accountability relationship is one SABI’s goals.

However, RADA and SLSAV staff reflected that district authorities found it difficult to

respond to increasing requests because they do not have enough resources and are tied

to national-level decisions when it comes to activities like drug distribution and school

approval.

Most of the case stories shared by field officers portray district officials who agree to hold

meetings with community and ward representatives – on top of their routine meetings

with ward councillors. They tend to respond to the issues raised in three ways: “I will refer

you to x”, “this issue could be solved by yourselves in the community”, or “I have heard

you, and let’s wait until resources arrive and we will prioritise”. Meeting these responses

with further citizen action can be challenging. The field officer in Tonkolili, for example,

managed to help integrate three serious road problems that could not be solved by

communities into the waiting list for a rehabilitation budget in 20207. But processes like

these are slow and uncertain and citizens can become demotivated easily if they do not

see their demands met in the mid-term. A RADA staff member explained:

SABI was seen as a threat by MDAs, District

Councils… giving citizens information while they

don’t have the resources [to respond]. Giving

citizens awareness, and knowing and knocking on

doors, creates conflict.

Comparatively, Chiefdoms are relatively independent from central powers, in particular

when private sector companies pay them royalties for exploiting natural resources like

minerals and timber. With SLSAV staff members, we calculated that at least 10% of

Chiefdom Development Funds should be used for community purposes according to

Article 34A of the 2009 Mines and Minerals Act8.

A RADA staff member also raised the importance of involving the Paramount Chief in

certain actions:

13

The Paramount Chief is more powerful than the [Ward] Councillor… Playing with the

Paramount Chief ensures that action plans are achieved… Some action plans are for the

full Chiefdom which covers more than a Ward, so the Paramount Chief is required… The

Ward Development Committee does not have a fund, but the Chiefdom Development

Committee has… The Chiefdom Development Committee covers the Ward Development

Committee, [but] the Section Chiefs are not part of the Ward Development Committee.

And they are key decision makers.

In the ward action plan database, most of responses to the question “who led the action

point implementation” for both completed and ongoing plans were “the Ward

Councillor”9. In order of frequency, others named were: youth leaders, Facilities

Management Committee Chairperson, the Ward Development Committee Chairperson,

the Paramount and Section Chiefs, the School Management Committee Chairperson, the

Town Chief, and the Chief Health Officer. By far, the most successful leader in getting

actions completed was the Ward Councillor.

The leadership of Ward Councillors is positive, as they are meant to play a central role in

citizen representation as elected officials. However, the fact that not all the action plans

led by the Ward Councillor are successful – and the limitations of the District Council to

respond to these – point to the need to diversify accountability mechanisms beyond the

Ward Councillor while, at the same time, strengthening the chances of success via this

primary accountability pathway.

SABI needs to help strengthen the district and ward levels as the elected governance

structures but it may also be wise to integrate the Chiefdom Development Committees

and Funds more strategically into the programme, especially in resource-rich areas such

as the Gola forest in Kenema where timber companies are active.

Proximity of communities to key stakeholders does not always help get action

plans completed

Proximity of communities to key places and institutions such as district council offices

and health posts is another factor that helps action plans get completed. But the evidence

is mixed.

Not surprisingly, the cost of transport is a bottleneck for remote wards compared to those

closer to decision-makers. In Bo, RADA noted that a return trip to the district capital could

cost up to 50,000 Leones (US$5) while SLSAV staff based in Bombali said for some

communities, it was 150,000 Leones (US$15) one way. If a group of three people want to

visit a district official, the fare may take months to collect.

Another difficulty in rural areas, for the field officer in Tonkolili for Yoni Mamaila

Chiefdom, is the lack of awareness on the importance of education by the parents:

14

For school furniture, there were no parents’ contributions. They believe everything has to

be done by government. This area is far away from the other communities where the

parents did contribute… The two previous cases were parents contributed are in urban

areas, closer to the city of Magburaka. Someone living in the urban area knows the

importance [of education] but in interior villages such as this one it is very difficult; a lot

of sensitisation is needed.

On the other hand, we found a case where the district authorities had prioritised

resources for rural areas. Representatives from Simbo Town, a ward in central Bo, had

requested a solar panel and a refrigerator from the District Health Office. The District

Medical Officer responded that solar panels were prioritised for rural areas, because

urban areas should be covered by the general electricity supply from the national grid; in

fact, this is often faulty. Similarly, refrigerators were intended for rural areas while wards

like Simbo Town could preserve their vaccines in the district health facility, which was not

deemed a permanent solution by the ward representatives trying to implement their

action plan.

We also found that some remote communities get more than those closer to district

decision-makers if they have a critical mass of organised and persistent leaders and

citizens. In Bombali, we found a case where the most remote community in a ward was

the most active; the Restless Development field officer noted that another reason for this

was that the District Medical Officer was from there. Meanwhile, another community in

the same ward was judged the most passive in the hub despite its proximity to the road.

In the attendance of community members to health posts, many other factors influence

outcomes apart from distance. They include the sensitisation and awareness of citizens;

the enforcement of by-laws by the authorities that oblige citizens to attend clinics no

matter the distance; the quality of staff treatment at the health post that encourages

attendance; seasonality, which influences whether the road leading to the health post

was obstructed by floods; and peaks in population flows that affect the relative availability

of drugs in the clinics.

New presidential sector priority on Free Quality Education having mixed efffects

The President of Sierra Leone, elected in 2018, set free quality education as the

government’s main priority. This has been reflected in an increase in the proportion of

the national budget allocated to education and the creation of new structures such as the

Teaching Service Commission in charge of approving teachers. However, has this affected

education action plans positively at local and ward levels?

Evidence is again mixed. On the negative side, the school inspector of Bombali district

noted that the Ministry remains understaffed. He told us that they are only four school

supervisors for the whole district. Amongst other tasks, school supervisors are charged

15

to check whether non-official schools comply with the requirements for government

approval and are thus key in that process. Ward 103 in Bombali has had “school approval”

as its SABI action plan, but despite sending a formal request for school approval over a

year ago, had not received an approval visit.

On the positive side, SLSAV staff noted that since the new government in 2018, more

school subsidies are arriving (although delayed) and it is now a requirement for schools

to send a proposal to obtain school subsidies and show receipts of expenses after they

have received funds. We did hear more community and ward members mentioning

“school subsidies” in our discussions than in previous visits, although it is hard to attribute

this to the Presidential policy. We also heard there have been more school and teacher

approvals recently than in the past, particularly in the newly created districts, but we do

not have the official statistics.

A look at SABI’s dataset on ward action plans tells us that there is no boom effect of Free

Quality Education governmental responses to SABI ward actions related to education, as

so far, they have the same rate of success and progress as health ward actions. Of the

212 ward-level action plans for 2019, 119 were related to health, 82 to education and 11

to social protection. There was little difference in the success of action plans by sector –

22% of completed actions in education versus 18% in health. 71% of plans in both sectors

were ongoing.

There is also no boom effect in the sense of community priorities moving from health to

education. While the major ward-level challenge was the lack of school furniture with 45

cases, other major problems were related to health and included the lack or insufficient

size of a primary health unit (28), the lack of drugs in the health unit (24), a hard to reach

health unit (23), low antenatal care attendance (17), and the lack of electricity in the health

unit (14). The need for school (and teacher) approval followed, with 11 requests.

It is possible that visible effects may take more time to become apparent, it remains to

be seen how the new presidential priority will affect Free Quality Health issues in the

coming years, in a country where priorities and decision-making are still highly

centralised10. For the time being, we were told that district health representatives still visit

communities more than district education representatives, for instance when they

distribute drugs four times a year. SABI may want to follow up on sectoral analysis of the

progress of action plans, for instance, on whether the construction of primary health

units and the distribution of drugs improves, worsens or stagnates in time, compared to

education issues such as school approvals.

The speed in the success of action plans varies by district and season

Nearly half of the completed ward action plans were concentrated in Port Loko district

(16 out of 40). The districts of Bo, Kenema and Pujehun followed, with five or six

completed plans. The rest of districts had two, one or zero plans completed. Thus, success

varied from 0% in several districts to 94% of actions completed in Port Loko, with the

16

district average being 19%. This either means that Port Loko has been exceptionally

successful this year in completing ward actions compared to other SABI districts, or that

there have been challenges in accurately updating action plan databases.

This geographic variation in results for ward action plans mirrors variation in results for

community action plans in a past learning review, where success per district varied

substantially from 8% in Western Rural to 70% in Falaba11. We suspect that the most likely

explanation for this variance in success is the lack of standardisation between field

officers collecting data on what ‘successful actions’ mean.

In the review of community action plans, we suggested that SABI field officers saw

‘success’ or ‘completion’ of an action as having a response from the government, even if

that response was a ‘justifiable no’ – for instance, if the citizen request did not fall in line

with policy, or funds were not available to implement it. However, the impression that we

got from reviewing the progress of actions with some field officers is that they see

‘success’ only when actions have led to improving public services. This is the way in which

this review has analysed actions. If we had taken the ‘justifiable response’ criteria, the

percentage of successful actions would have been higher. A better clarification of the

term would improve the standardisation and quality of the data SABI collects.

With the caveat of comparisons between districts being difficult, the two districts that

performed poorly in completing actions for both the community and ward datasets are

Western Urban and Kono. No district is at the top of completed action plans for both

community and ward-level plans, but Kenema, Port Loko and Pujehun have performed

well in both. Other wards performed well with community-level plans but not with ward-

level plans. We do not have a clear explanation for this variance, but these findings can

help SABI read where support is most needed.

Besides geography, seasonality also affects the completion of actions. For instance, the

rainy season delays some activities as we found for the construction – often with mud

bricks – of a waiting room in a health post and for a school extension. In Falaba, the

population is larger in the rainy season than in the dry season, and the field officer says

that the clinic needs to seasonally adapt the quantity of drugs it uses. There is also little

community or government activity during December, because of harvest and Christmas.

Death of leaders and the time it takes to replace them also tends to result in a lack of

community gatherings.

17

18

5. Conclusion: what explains differences in citizen action

success?

Factors leading to variable outcomes in the success of actions are often an encounter of

motivation, capabilities, and external opportunities that, together, make change

happen12.

A critical mass of leaders and citizens that are both motivated and skilled was the most

cited factor for success by interviewees. Other factors such as the relative wealth and

resources of a place, its proximity to stakeholders (governmental, multinational

companies, NGOs) and the involvement of the Ward Councillor as the action plan leader

were also important. However, they still depended on an organised and capable citizenry

able both to direct and manage wealth and funds for public benefit and to preserve the

infrastructure that government and other agents may have helped set up.

In terms of motivation and knowledge, SABI could focus on sensitising communities

about all available local funds, making them visible and improving chances of their good

management by citizens; keep focusing on accountability pathways and policy literacy at

ward level, namely on clarifying to citizens the conditions that enable school approval,

clinic construction, and access to free medical care. Also, on exploring with citizens all the

multiple accountability pathways available so that they can dribble and bypass those that

show ineffective.

There are external factors obstructing the success of action plans such as seasonality and,

most importantly, to the limitations of the District Council and its District Development

Funds to respond to citizen demands, that are hard to control. Still, SABI could respond

to these factors by adapting its programme planning to the season’s calendar, continuing

to support revenue generation at the district level as is piloted through grantee DADA,

tapping more strategically into the potential resources of Chiefdom Development Funds,

and engaging more with the national government – in fact, many decisions concerning

action plans such as school approval and drug supplies are national.

Other factors were rather neutral in influencing the success of SABI citizen action plans,

for instance which sector the identified problem was in, or the prioritisation of education

by the country’s government. While the presidential priority given to education did not

show effects on action plans, its potential influence may take longer to show, so it is worth

monitoring. The same goes for the current review of the Local Government Act, which

could potentially strengthen ward and district governance, and the relationship between

the two levels.

Finally, we found wide variance of results by district, but this may be more due to the lack

of standardisation in monitoring and evaluation processes by district staff than by the

nature of districts themselves. Perhaps the clearest action for SABI to improve is the

monitoring and evaluation of their action plans, including the standardisation and

adaptation of monitoring and evaluation definitions.

19

20

6. Recommendations

This review suggests recommendations to SABI in two broad areas. First, it should focus

on actions to boost motivation and knowledge in citizens and leaders, as these factors

were those most cited during discussions of the success of action plans. Some of the

measures suggested includes making visible all available local funds and keep focusing

on policy literacy and accountability pathways.

Second, it should focus on helping strengthen the capacity of district governments to

respond to citizens, as this was one of the major bottlenecks mentioned to solving action

plans. Specifically, this review recommends that SABI:

Make all local funds visible to citizens and ensure their good management. The

potential availability of funds is a great trigger of motivation, but citizens often do not

know about funds like school subsidies, School Performance Budgets, trimestral drug

supplies, criteria for free drugs, District Development Funds, or Chiefdom Development

Funds. This is important in a period where new resources may reach communities under

the Free Quality Education programme and where the government is asking for stricter

justification of school expenditure.

Include the Chiefdom level to add one more resource for potential finance of action

plans. A common challenge cited during the review to implement action plans was the

lack of District Council funds. A more systematic approach to chiefdoms could ensure

that this accountability pathway is developed, and that chiefdoms engage through their

Chiefdom Development Fund, rather than through the discretionary contribution of

individual chiefs. This would help diversify accountability pathways so that citizens have

as many options for success as possible.

Keep focus on policy literacy and accountability pathways. Knowledge is an essential

ingredient for sustainability when it meets motivation and external opportunities. The

current processes of school and teacher approval led by the national presidency open an

opportunity for SABI. SABI’s policy literacy could focus on helping communities meet

criteria for school approval. School approval comes with school budgets, which give

communities small but ongoing resources to improve their schools, including through the

purchase of school furniture, the lack of which was a very frequently cited problem. For

health-related challenges, SABI’s policy literacy could help clarify the conditions that allow

for the construction of clinics (or mobile clinic solutions) and the criteria for entitlement

to free medical care, to help declutter drug supply.

Engage national government around the factors that prevent action plans from

being implemented. Many respondents noted that District Councils are tied to national-

level decisions when it comes to activities like drug distribution and school approval. In

SABI’s final phase, it is important to prioritise consolidating national advocacy around

existing challenges, rather than gathering more information at the community level.

21

Finding and exposing the various bottlenecks in school approval and drugs supply, two

national processes that strongly affect community action plans, could be the priorities.

Improve the monitoring and evaluation of action plans. Better monitoring, evaluation

and learning means improvements to the database of action plans. One improvement,

which would minimise errors and duplications, would be to provide as many questions

as possible with batteries of closed responses. Another would be to clarify definitions of

what “completed/ongoing/stagnated” means so that all field officers are using the same

definitions. Overall improvements in the quality of MEL mean improving quality

throughout the monitoring and evaluation chain – from partner field officers and M&E

staff, to SABI senior programme officers and the M&E Coordinator.

22

23

SABI Christian Aid Office 2 Sesay Drive

Cockerill South Off Wilkinson Road Freetown Sierra Leone

+232 76501502 sabi@christian-aid.org sabi-sl.org

..

Photo Credits

Cover page: Christian Aid/Prince Kenneh, page 3: Christian Aid/Prince

Kenneh, page 5: Christian Aid/Prince M Kenneh, page 16: Christian

Aid/Prince M Kenneh, page 18: Christian Aid/Prince M Kenneh, page

21: Christian Aid/Prince M Kenneh

24

1 http://sabi-sl.org/sabi-learning-review-report/ 2 See the SABI partnership members on http://sabi-sl.org/about-us/who-we-are/ 3 Wards visited were 292 (Tellu Bongor, Bo District), 275 (Simbo Town, Bo), 103 (Makatay, Bombali), and 33 (Baoma, Kenema) 4 The Ward Action Plans database complements the work done in a previous review that looked at the triggers of community action based on the Community Action Plans database. 5 This review defines “action plan” as the process designed to solve a problem, formed of “action points”. SABI calls these “problems” and rather uses “action plans” to define the overall strategy in a ward, which may include one or more problems. 6 http://sabi-sl.org/sabi-learning-review-report/ 7 Feeder roads are responsibility of the district council; trunk roads have a national remit (Tonkolili field officer) 8 Article 34A distributes the “surface rent” as: 10% for the Constituency Development Fund; 15% to the District Council, 15% to the Paramount Chiefs, 10% to the Chiefdom Administration; and 50% to land owners. According to staff, the first 10% belongs integrally to the Constituency while part of the other amounts could be used, upon discretion, on community purposes as well. www.sierra-leone.org/Laws/2009-12.pdf 9 Note this question had data on action plan leaders in 27 of the 40 cases of completed actions. 10 http://sabi-sl.org/local-power-structures-and-decentralised-service-delivery-systems/ 11 http://sabi-sl.org/sabi-learning-review-report/ 12 Michie S., Atkins, L., West, R. (2014) The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions, UK: Silverback Publishing