A Difference in the Making: An Independent Evaluation of the Kukes Regional Development Initiative Community Infrastructure Project Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Jonuz Kola, Executive Director of VMA-Kukes.

The information gathered from interviews and group discussion was processed by: Avni Germizi and Ramiz Spahiu.

Translation of the material and text was provided by Elida Cenaj.

The interviews and focus group discussions were conducted by the staff of`“VMA-Kukes” as follows: Avni Germizi, Aida Mucmata, Ramiz Spahiu, Klodiana Pacara, Riza Ademi, Neritan Muja, Violeta Cengu, Izet Ademaj, Agron Bytyci, Osman Cengu, Shpresa Kastrati.

Pre-survey training was given by the UNDP-Albania Local Governance Programme Staff: Natasha Mistry and Eva Martiri.

We thank all those who participated actively in group discussions and all those who devoted their time during interviews. Throughout this report, quotes are given of the beneficiaries to further illustrate the results of the project; these are the voices that matter most.

A special thanks goes to the staff of UNDP, who spent their time to create necessary facilities and who did not intervene in our work, thereby allowing us to conduct a realistic evaluation of the Project.

Kukes, 10/12/2005

Victims of Mines & Weapons Association - Kukes

Tel/Fax 0242 4006, Mobile: 0682070905, E mail: [email protected]

1 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Background to the Assessment 4 2.1 Summary of KRDI’s Objective and Activities 4 2.2 Tripartite Review and Recommendations for the Assessment 4 3. Scope of the Assessment and Methodologies Used 4 3.1 Rationale 4 3.2 Scope and Model 4 3.3 Methodology 5 3.3.1 Phase 1: Training of VMA 5 3.3.2 Phase 2: Field Interviews 5 3.3.3 Phase 3: Focus Group Discussions 6 4. Detailed Findings of the Assessment: Charts and Data 6 Field Interview Questionnaire: Section on “ways of doing” - level of community 4.1 7 participation in the selection and implementation of projects 4.1.1 Are you a member of a community based organization? 7 4.1.2 Have you heard about the KRDI Project? 7 To what extent were you involved in the process of deciding what project your village 4.1.3 8 was to receive? 4.1.4 Did the head of the Commune encourage you or your CBO to participate in the process? 8 4.1.5 Have you received training from UNDP? 9 4.1.6 Was the training received useful? 9 Field Interview Questionnaire: Section on “ways of thinking” - behavior and attitude 4.2 change amongst local government officials, CBOs and community beneficiaries 10 4.2.1 How would you describe you relations with the local government before KRDI? 10 How would you describe you relations with the local government after the 4.2.2 10 implementation of KRDI? Do you think CBOs are an effective means to address the development issues facing your 4.2.3 11 community? 4.2.4 If you are a member of a CBO, how does it function? 11 Field Interview Questionnaire: Section on “ways of being” - direct development Impact 4.3 12 of infrastructure works on the CBO and community beneficiaries 4.3.1 How would you rate the quality of the project implementation in your village? 12 4.3.2 Is the project beneficial to you? 12 4.3.3 Who do you think benefits more: men, women, youth/children, or everyone equally? 13 4.3.4 Is the project beneficial to your village? 13 4.3.5 Did you have any other project that was a different priority than the one selected? 14 4.3.6 Will you contribute to the sustainability of the project in your village? 14 4.4 Focus Group Discussions: Explanation of the Process 15 4.4.1 General summary of discussions in focus groups with Heads of Communes 16 4.4.2 General summary of discussions in focus groups with Heads of CBOs 17 4.4.3 General summary of discussions in focus groups with CBO Members and Villagers 18 5. Analysis of the Findings 19 5.1 Changes in Ways of Doing 19 5.2 Changes in Ways of Thinking 20 5.3 Changes in Ways of Being 20 6. Best Practices, Lessons Learned and Recommendations for UNDP 21 7. Annexes 23 7.1 List of Targeted Villages 23 7.2 List of Questionnaires per Village 23 7.3 Focus Group Discussion Plan 23 7.4 Assessment Terms of Reference 24 7.5 Pictures from the Assessment 31

2

1. Executive Summary

The Assessment of the Kukes Regional Development Initiative (KRDI) was conducted from 07 - 25 November 2005 in 21 villages in the Kukes District by the NGO Victims of Mines & Weapons Association – Kukes (VMA- Kukes) on request of UNDP-Albania. The key purpose of the Assessment was to measure the results achieved so far by KRDI project – specifically focusing on the participation and cooperation of the community and changes in behavior and attitudes at the local level as a result of the project intervention. The Assessment utilized interviews and focus group discussions and covered the villages that have already benefited (or started) the infrastructure projects. In total, over 454 field interviews were conducted with representatives of the local government, members of community based organizations (CBOs) and other members of the communities; 317 (or 69.8 %) of the persons interviewed were males, while 137 (30. 2%) were females. In addition to the field interviews, nine focus group discussions were conducted (utilizing pre and post discussion questionnaires and facilitated discussion methodologies based on a standardized questionnaire) in which 157 persons participated (including members of CBOs, local leaders and community members). Within this group, 49 (or 31.2% of the total) were female, while 108 (68.8%) were male.

As will be shown in this report, it is clear that there have been significant achievements during the implementation of the project despite the relatively short period in which it has been operating (it began in January 2005). The timing of the Assessment provides an important opportunity to expand KRDI’s best practices and address shortcomings at an early stage. It was also clear throughout the process that the community based approach in KRDI has been successful; specifically, the Assessment has shown that if community participation is combined with transparency and a respect for tradition whilst being implemented in a democratic way, then the achievements are often beyond what was initially expected. As a result of KRDI’s work, the communities and local government authorities have acknowledged their responsibilities and started to cooperate and find interesting ways to improve their life in general. Through KRDI, a difference is in the making. It is important to mention that this assessment process was also a valuable experience for the VMA staff. Some of the key findings of the report are highlighted below.

• 76.2% of interviewees describe the relation between the communities and local Government authorities as ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ after the KRDI project intervention compared to 41.8% before it; • 90.9% of people interviewed believe that their CBO functions ‘satisfactorily’ or ‘well;’ • 93.2% of interviewees believe that the CBOs are an effective means to address the development issues facing their community; • 72.4% of people interviewed have received capacity building/training from UNDP in topics such as leadership skills, participatory project identification and prioritization, CBO functioning and procedures, and gender equality; • 84.1% of the people interviewed believe that the project benefits their community ‘a great deal;’ • 92.1% of the people interviewed said they will contribute to the sustainability of the infrastructure project received through provision of maintenance or other services or through payment of tariffs.

3

2. Background to the Assessment

2.1 Summary of KRDI’s Objective and Activities: The main objective of the KRDI Project is to contribute to the establishment of sustainable livelihoods for the citizens of the Kukes Region through the rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of small community infrastructure works across the Kukes district utilizing social mobilization to ensure sustainability of the works and contribute to lasting social cohesion. To achieve this objective, the project is undertaking the following activities: • Form and train CBOs for the mapping of needs and prioritization of works; • CBO-local government consultative process and infrastructure project implementation; • Capacity building with Local Government and liaison with national authorities.

2.2 Tripartite Review and Recommendations for the Assessment: After 10 months of implementation, a Tripartite Review (TPR) of the KRDI Project was undertaken from 6-8 October 2005. Participants included members of the European Commission Delegation who provide funding for KRDI, UNDP-Albania representatives, and members of the Government of Albania (including the Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Minister of Interior). The purpose of the TPR was to examine the progress made in KRDI as per the activities noted above, and to assess the changes brought about by project activities. A series of site visits combined with meetings with local government, CBO heads and members, and other stakeholders were organized for the TPR team. Several recommendations were made in order to build upon best practices and address minor issues. One of the major recommendations was to conduct a more thorough assessment of the behavioral and attitude changes. As such, UNDP-Albania developed a terms of reference for the independent Assessment to cover all 21 villages targeted by KRDI in the Kukes District. VMA subsequently carried out this work.

“We are now involved in the process of preparation of our development plans in cooperation with the Commune, because we have learned that in this way we can better solve our problems and address our needs.”

- Representative of CBO Bushtrice

3. Scope of the Assessment and Methodologies Used

3.1 Rationale: In follow up to the TPR in the Kukes Region, and as part of overall monitoring and evaluation activities the UNDP-Albania Country Office decided to undertake a comprehensive mid-term assessment of the results of the EC funded KRDI project in order to develop lessons learned and best practices for improved project efficacy and for utilization in future interventions in the Kukes Region. The results to be assessed were categorized as follows: • Level of community participation in selection and implementation of projects including the extent to which women and the poorest were involved in the project selection process; • Behavior and attitude change amongst local government officials and CBO and community beneficiaries as a result of the training and capacity building offered through KRDI; • Direct development impact of infrastructure works on the CBO and community beneficiaries including changes (positive or negative) in life styles, economic opportunities, migration, education, quality of health, etc.

3.2 Scope and Model: The Assessment covered the following groups: all beneficiaries of training and capacity building initiatives as part of KRDI; and all CBOs, civil society or community groups, communities, and Local Government counterparts that have benefited from an infrastructure project under KRDI. While not all members of the aforementioned groups were interviewed or questioned (see ‘methodology’ below), the sample groupings were selected to

4 ensure broad representation. In order to examine the different results within the project, the following theoretical model was applied to address the categories of change:

Categories of Aspects of KRDI Assessed Specific Issues Explored Change Level of community participation and People (gender dynamics changed, implementation of projects including the extent to new relationships). Partnership and Ways of doing which women and the poorest were involved in the collaboration (is it felt that these have project selection been improved or worsened?)

Method (decision making, systems, Behavior and attitude change amongst local ways of organizing norms), Policy government officials and CBOs and community Development (guidelines, rules and beneficiaries as the result of the training and Ways of thinking regulations, political and capacity building offered through KRDI organizational) Ways of being Direct development impact of infrastructure works Economic (income, jobs, other (aspects of life on the CBO and community beneficiaries including resources), Communication that have changes (positive or negative) in life style, economic (information sharing, networking) changed as the opportunities, migration, education, quality of Technology, (equipment, computers, result of health, etc other) intervention)

3.3 Methodology: UNDP contracted VMA to undertake the survey in order to ensure impartiality and integrity of the results. The assessment occurred in three phases: training and familiarization of VMA staff on survey methodologies, followed by field interviews and lastly, focus group discussions. In total, the Assessment process continued for a period of 18 days from 07-25 November 2005. The role of UNDP-Albania was limited to providing a familiarization training and serving as resource people for the first four days of the survey. At all times efforts were made to ensure the integrity of the results.

3.3.1 Phase 1- Training of VMA Staff: While VMA had existing capacities to undertake detailed surveys, a brief familiarization training was provided by UNDP-Albania on the methodology and standards for a successful , realistic and trust worthy assessment (including focus group discussion facilitation) as well as a briefing on the objectives of the KRDI project and its current status. Two staff from the UNDP-Albania Local Governance Programme led the sessions. In addition, these two staff members accompanied the VMA teams into the field to respond to questions and address issues during the first four days of the interviews. Discussions during the assessment 3.3.2 Phase 2 -Field Interviews: Taking into consideration that the infrastructure projects of KRDI are implemented throughout the Kukes District, three field interview teams were formed to achieve wider coverage and shorten the duration of the Assessment. The teams were equipped with materials and information from UNDP-KRDI including lists of CBO members, and the number/type of infrastructure projects implemented for each targeted village. Additionally, local government officials and UNDP-KRDI staff provided the necessary contact details to allow the VMA teams to establish contacts with members of CBOs in targeted villages. The questionnaire was prepared in advance by UNDP, but adapted by VMA in terms of language used. 11 members from VMA conducted the interviews. The assessment was done through individual interviews with 454 beneficiaries in 21 villages where KRDI operates (see Annex 1 for the complete list of villages). The interviewees were chosen at random and

5 all were over the age of 18 years. Besides interviews in the field, participants in the group discussions (157 in total) also completed the questionnaires. Thus the total number of questionnaires completed is 611 (454 in the field + 157 in group discussion). The interview phase targeted 15% of the total beneficiaries of KRDI projects in each village. In general each interview took between 20-40 minutes to complete. Attempts were made by VMA staff to gather an equal amount of input from men and women, but in the end this proved difficult; out of 454 people interviewed, 137 (30.2%) were women. Prevailing gender stereotypes and cultural mores define the scope of women’s participation in public life in the Kukes District and similarly affected the total number of women interviewed. The interviews were completed in six days time, with a further four days required for data entry. The interview was divided into three main parts to measure the three aforementioned aspects of change. Besides standard answers “YES” and “NO,” questions were also left open-ended to allow for further explanation and elaboration of VMA staff conducting an interview interviewees ‘answers.

3.3.3 Phase 3 - Focus Group Discussions: The focus group discussions were held one week after the completion of the interviews. Nine discussions were held using a VMA facilitator and standardized set of questions (in addition to the field interview questionnaire). The participants and number of focus group discussion sessions were as follows: Heads of Communes (1) ; Head of CBOs (2) ; CBO members and village inhabitants (6). More detailed information on the timing of the focus group discussions and the participants can be found in Annex 3.

“This, what we are doing is increasing our self-confidence and is returning us to the wonderful organization that our village had 40-50 years ago. These kinds of village organizations were pretty strong; they even gathered the village to maintain it and imposed the will of the majority. I can mention the keeping of the cattle, watering, solidarity and volunteering for collecting grass, etc.” - Resident of Caje Village

4. Detailed Findings of the Assessment – Charts and Data

The below diagrams provide an in-depth, question by question presentation of the findings of both the field surveys and focus group discussions. Each section is presented as per the order of questionnaire – first measuring “ways of doing,” then “ways of thinking,” and finally “ways of being.” For each question, the total number of interviewees is provided as well as the percentage of the total. The detailed narrative analysis of the data follows this section.

6 4.1 Field Interview Questionnaire: Section on “ways of doing” - the level of community participation in the selection and implementation of projects.

4.1.1 Are you a member of a community based organization? (454 interviews completed)

Yes

(7 Persons) No, did not know (100 Persons) 1% 22% No, because there are other members of (27Persons) the family involved 6% 54% No, because I do not have time to get (243 Persons) engaged (243 Persons)5% No, for different unexplained reasons (5412% Persons)

No because we are females, and as such can not participate

4.1.2 Have you heard about the KRDI Project? If so, who is the Donor? (454 interviews completed)

The donor is the EU (100 Persons) (145 Persons) 22% 32% UNDP

European Commission

17% I do not know 9% 20% (77 Persons) EU Commission & UNDP (41Persons) (91 Persons)

“We have learned that our participation and cooperation with each other are our main resources - before we did not even know that we possessed them!” - Resident of Shemri Village, Petkaj Commune

7 4.1.3 To what extent were you involved in the process in deciding what project you village was to receive? (454 interviews completed)

(76 Persons) A great deal 16.7% (159 Persons) 35.0% some

20.7% Little (94 Persons) 27.5% None (125 Persons)

4.1.4 Did the head of commune encourage you, your CBO, or village to participate in the process of selecting the project? (454 Interviews completed)

(117 Persons) Yes through formal meetings 26.0% (211 Persons) (159 Persons) 46.0% Yes, through informal meetings

No 28.0% (126 Persons)

“I learned that by working together we can build the strategy of our commune and that the local government is not that bad as I had thought. If we sit and work together, we understand each other very well” - Resident of Bushtrice Commune

8 4.1.5 Have you received training from UNDP in the course of prioritizing and receiving the projects? If yes, what kind of training? (454 interviews completed)

(7 (13 (11 Persons) Persons) Persons) (112 Persons) 1.5% 2.9% No, they have not taken part in the (89 Persons) 2.4% 24.7% trainings 19.6% Yes training for CBOs

Yes, training for identification and prioritization Yes for gender equality 48.9% (222 Persons) Yes, in leadership

Not answered at all

4.1.6 If you received training, was it useful? (329 interviews conducted based on the answer to the above question).

(41 Persons) 12.0%

The training was successful

The training was not successful

88.0% (288 Persons)

“We learned that the majority of the problems that we currently have can be resolved within the village if we take an active role and offer our goodwill” - Resident of Zapod Commune

9 4.2 Field Interview Questionnaire: Section on “ways of thinking” - Behavior and attitude change amongst local government officials, CBOs and community beneficiaries as the result of KRDI’s capacity building offered through KRDI.

4.2.1 How would you describe you relations with the local government before KRDI? (454 interviews completed)

(111 Persons) (163 Persons) 24.4% 35.9% Good

Satisfactory

17.4% Not well, was no cooperation in this process 22.2% (79 Persons) No relations at all (101 Persons)

4.2.2 How would you describe you relations with the local government after the implementation of KRDI? (454 interviews completed)

(97 Persons) Good, becaue we have cooperated 21.4% in all aspects (11 Persons) 2.4% Satisfactory because the commune 53.7% did not become an obstacle (101 Persons) 22.5% (102 Persons) Not Good because there was a lack of cooperation

No changes at all

“I learned that the family income will be improved if we work together, because in this way we can finish projects and increase employment.” -Resident of Shkinak Village

10

4.2.3 Do you think CBOs are an effective means to address the development issues facing you community? (454 interviews completed)

(9 Persons) (7 Persons) (15 Persons) Yes, because we know the 2.0% 1.5% Yes, because we betterknow and 3.3% priorities and are able to prioritize prioritize the needs them (132 Persons) Yes, we take part in the process 29.1% actively

No, because they do not have the 64.1% required capacity (291 Persons) Don't know

Not answered by the interviewers

4.2.4 If you are a member of a CBO, how does it function? (243 interviews completed based on the answer to the above question)

(22 Persons) 9.1%

CBO functions well

35.0% 55.9% (85 Persons) The CBO functions satisfactorily (136 Persons)

The CBO does not function well

“We have understood that the government is not able to do everything, and that nothing is able to be accomplished if we do not work together.” - Reside of Topojan Commune

11 4.3 Field Interview Questionnaire: Section on “ways of being” - direct development impact of infrastructure works on the CBO and community beneficiaries including changes (positive or negative) in life style, economic opportunities, migration, education, quality of health etc.

4.3.1 How would you rate the quality of the project implementation in your village? (454 interviews completed)

(104 Persons) 22.9% Good (15 Persons) Satisfactory 3.3% 48.2% Not Good (219 Persons) I don't know 3.3% (15 Persons) 22.2% The project has not started (101 Persons) yet

4.3.2 Is the project beneficial to you? (454 interviews completed)

A great deal because it has had positive impact on the household (61 Persons) (12 Persons) economy (9 Persons) Yes, it has improved health services 2.6% 2.0% (9 Persons) 13.4% 2.0% (143 Persons) Yes, it has improved education 2.6% 31.5% services (12 Persons) Yes, it has improved health, education and cultural services 15.2% Yes, because it has created a good (69 Persons) environment for the communty 30.6% (139 Persons) Some- without giving any explanantion Little, no explanation

None

“We learned that we should sit and plan together if we want our problems to be solved, rather than complain to others and wait endlessly as we used to do in the past.” - Resident of Bushtrice Village

12 4.3.3 Who do you think benefits more: men, women, youth/children, or everyone equally? (444 Interviews Completed)

(6 Persons) (84 Persons) 1% 19% Men (22 Persons) 5% Women

Youth 74.7% (332 Persons) Equal benefit toat all

4.3.4 Is the project beneficial to your village? (454 interviews completed)

(19 Persons) (9 Persons) (22 Persons) A great deal because it has 2.0% 4.2% improved the economy of the 4.8% (131 Persons) whole village 9.7% (44 Persons) 28.9% A great deal because it has improved the village life

A great deal as it has improved education and culture 32.4% 18.1% It has improved health services (147 Persons) (82 Persons)

A little because the irrigation A little because the irrigation chanalchannel serves serves to to a asmall small number numberand not toand the not whole to the village whole i Very little

“ We learned how to work together. We learned to help ourselves, to do things better and to change our future step by step.” - Head of Commune, Bicaj

13

4.3.5 Did you have any other project that was a different priority than the one selected? (454 interviews completed)

(71 Persons) Yes, It was the road 15.6% (5 Persons) construction 1.1% Yes, it was the health centre (6 Persons) 1.3% Yes it was the construction of the school 1.8% Water supply 1.1% 77.5% (5 Persons) The resevoir for irrigation (352 Persons) 0.9% 0.7% (4 Persons) The mill (3 Persons)

Sewage system

No other priority besides the one selected

4.3.6 Will you contribute to the sustainability of the project in your village? (454 interviews completed)

Yes through maintenance

(21 Persons) (45 Persons) (15 Persons) Yes, through services 9.9% 4.6% (115 Persons) 3.3% 25.3% Yes, through payment of tariffs

Yes, through maintenance and 56.9% services (258 Persons) no

14 4.4 Focus Group Discussions: The numerous questions used to generate discussion in the focus groups can be grouped into two categories as follows: i). “What role have you played in the project implemented in your village? ii). What changes has the KRDI project has brought in your community and in your life?” The “Spider Web” method was used to differentiate changes made in the community and to identify lessons learned based on the responses to the questions. Each member of the focus group took three different “post it” papers and wrote examples of change for each of the three categories (ways of doing, thinking and being). Every participant individually expressed the change that he /she had noticed as a result of the project. The first group discussion with Heads of Communes was mostly concentrated in the category of “ways of thinking. “The second group with of Heads of CBOs was largely focused on the “ways of doing” to identify problems encountered; there were two focus groups formed due to the number of Head of CBOs. Lastly, the third focus group consisting of CBO members and inhabitants was mostly focused on the changes made so far within their communities as a result of infrastructure projects; six focus groups were formed in six villages. The tables on the following pages present the summary of the focus group discussions.

Conducting the Assessment in the rural areas

15

4.4.1. General summary of discussions in focus groups with Heads of Communes Questions Summary of responses They have been informed by local staff of KRDI through the formal and informal meetings that have been conducted in the targeted communes and in Kukes . Head of Commune said How do people learn that they have done the same thing with their communities in formal and informal meetings about KRDI projects and as well. They have also been supported by KRDI staff to conduct community meetings. The 1 what do they know majority said that this project helps for the improvement of infrastructure of the village and about it? improvement of the quality of their life. They said that during the meetings with KRDI they learned that the project requested the community to be organized in CBOs in order to benefit from an infrastructure project. • Acting as facilitators in the community to convince them to participate in the process, What role did you have • Have helped community members to identify projects and to prioritize them in KRDI projects? How 2 Have helped to organize CBOs did you participate? • • They have participated to monitor projects implemented in their villages • They have worked to ensure community contribution The majority of participants (old people)said that long time ago they have had such types of “Everyone in community “Community Organizations” to share responsibilities of grazing animals, collecting grass should be involved in etc. It was explained how the community could benefit a project if organized in CBOs. The decision concerning 3 former experience was considered for the old types of organization that involved community life community participation for the grazing of animals, irrigation, etc. Communities were made Improvements.” What is aware about the importance of CBO. It was enforced that it is important to change the your opinion? mentality and they could not wait for ever for others to change their situation. How would you describe Quality of projects of KRDI is good. There is always space for improvement as mentioned by 4 the quality of KRDI Head of Shishtavec Commune. projects? These projects bring change in the mentality of the community members with regards to the solution of problems and bring improvement of economic conditions of the What comments do you communities. The projects bring increased responsibility of parties, local government have about KRDI officials and community members. They require and achieve cooperation between 5 project? community and local government representatives. They fight against parasitism cultivated in the last 15 years. They bring new forms of community organization and participation in decision making using the system of voting. These projects help to better understand the importance of free vote and transparency in decision making Do you have any comments/opinions In general they are satisfied and consider KRDI projects as tools of encouragement to better about how local cooperate with all the other stakeholders, community and CBOs. Position of local 6 stakeholders have authorities has changed with regards to the solution of problems for their communities – participated in KRDI they are now part of the solution. projects? All expressed that the projects have improved the life of communities where the projects are Did the projects implemented eg:: the land is better irrigated which gives better yields, the village road is 7 improved community improved, the conditions of schools improved., the village people are employed by the life? In what aspects? companies who accomplished construction works under project implementation. Meetings sometimes seem to be events when leaders and KRDI staff The leaders of KRDI have never decided themselves about the projects to be implemented. 8 decide on the projects to They have helped to carry out the process of prioritization. The whole process has been be Implemented. What is transparent. A voting system is applied. the opinion in your community? What if you were in charge of the KRDI? How The majority of participants answered:” We would have tried to increase the quantity of 9 would you do a better funds in order to realize bigger projects and to include other villages in KRDI projects” job?

16

4.4.2 General summary of discussions in focus groups with Heads of CBOs

Questions Summary of responses How do people learn They have been informed through local staff of KRDI project and from the heads of about KRDI projects and communes in formal and informal meetings that they have held in their villages. 1 what do they know about They have learned that the project demands that the community should organize with CBO. it Community itself should contribute itself for the projects that are to be implemented What role did you have in Some of them have indicated that they have ruling role, some others said that they play role KRDI projects? How did 2 in gathering the community in order to decide for priorities. They are selected from the you participate? members of CBO to monitor the projects that are being implemented in their villages.

“Everyone in community The majority have pointed out that with majority of votes they are organized for taking should be involved in decisions in the approved project. There were many comments from certain groups to decision concerning 3 oppose this type of organization initially though. The use of vote has been decisive and has community life led to increase of villager’s participation in changing their lives. They stated that they view it Improvements.” What is as a good way of solving their problems that favors the majority. your opinion? According to their statements, the quality of the project is satisfactory. There are debates How would you describe 4 from the community of Borje in selecting a firm from Tropoja to work in Borje for the quality the quality of KRDI project? of the project. “We learned that we should and plan together if we want to solve our problems, instead of complaining to each other and wait endlessly as we used to do in the past.” What comments do you “While working together I learned that the local government is not that bad as I had 5 have about KRDI projects? thought before” This project has been a good experience in solving the problems of the village through participation and freely electing people, and for improvement of the relationship between the members of the local government and the community itself. Do you have any In general, the members of the focus groups said they are happy with KRDI. They view the comments/opinions about project as a motivator that stimulates the local government to work together with the 6 how local stakeholders community and for the community service. The local government has changed and has have participated in KRDI become more cooperative. projects? Did the projects improve All of the respondents indicated that the projects have improved the life of community. In 7 the community life? In different aspects, as for instance the road of the village, conditions of school, the seasonal what aspects? employment of the villagers, etc. Meetings sometimes seem to be events when leaders and KRDI staff decide on The leaders of KRDI have never decided by themselves for the projects. They have assisted us 8 the projects to be for prioritizing the priorities. This was a transparent process. We have always voted for the Implemented. What is the priorities of the village. opinion in your community?

17 4.4.3 General summary of discussions in focus groups with CBO Members and Village Inhabitants

Questions Summary of responses How do people learn Participants indicated that they have been informed through the local government 1 about KRDI and what do representatives as well as the local staff of KRDI project in the formal and informal meetings they know about it? that they have conducted in their villages. What role did you have in The majority indicated that they have played role in the prioritization of project selection. 2 KRDI projects? How did Others indicated that they are employed in the projects that are being implemented in you participate? their villages. Others said that they have contributed with labor or other skills. “Everyone in community The majority of the participant said that they have previously had such organizations. After should be involved in plenty of debates, they started to focus on making the CBO work.. They indicated that 3 decisions concerning through participation in CBO they have improved their life and solved a part of their community improvement.” problems. They also said that the inclusion of voting system for selecting the priorities has What is your opinion? increased the interest of community. How would you describe The quality of the projects was thought to be satisfactory. There were some comments 4 the quality of KRDI made by the community in Borje about selecting a firm from Tropoja to work there. projects? Similarly, the quality of the project proceedings is weak in Arren village the citizens said. What comments do you Generally, the community evaluates the KRDI project as good and considers it a new form 5 have about KRDI project? of organizing them and for changing the mentality. This project has been a good experience in solving the problems of the village through participation. Do you have any In general they are happy with the project of KRDI –especially that it makes the local comments/opinions about government work together with them. Every respondent mentioned the increase of the 6 how local stakeholders level of participation in commune and local level. The majority of respondents indicated have participated in KRDI that even the local government attitude has changed and that they have become more projects? cooperative and helpful. Did the projects improved The projects have improved the community life. In different aspects, such as the quantity 7 community life? In what of the irrigated land, improvement of the road of the village, the conditions of the school, aspects? seasonal employment of the residents and other means. Meetings sometimes seem to be events when leaders and KRDI staff decide on The leaders of KRDI have never decided by themselves about the projects nor intervened 8 the projects to be and told the villagers what to accept. They have assisted in prioritizing. This was a Implemented. What is the transparent process. We have always voted for the priorities. opinion in your community? What if you were in charge The majority of the respondents stated: We would request from the directors to increase 9 of the KRDI? How would the funds in order to implement the projects that for our community are the first priority, you do a better job? meaning to improve the roads since the majority of our villages have very bad roads.

18 5. Analysis of the Findings

The vast amount of data and information presented above is best analyzed based upon the ‘categories of change’ that shaped the assessment.

5.1 Changes in “Ways of Doing:” According to the findings obtained from the interviews for the first aspect of the assessment, it is observed that a high number of respondents are CBO members - 53% of the total number of respondents (or 243 People). Additionally, they emphasized that through the CBO mechanism they are actually returning to a pre-existing tradition of community organization that addressed village needs. 74% of the persons interviewed mentioned that they have participated in the process of selection of priorities in their villages through the CBO process or because of it. Similar sentiments were raised in the focus group discussions.

In terms of UNDP-KRDI Project support to CBOs, it was observed that 72.4% of the interviewees (or 329 out of 454 persons in total) had participated in different trainings and had described them as useful. It is important to note that women were not engaged to a large extent and had not participated in trainings as it was expected in the formulation of the training modules. It is clear that there is room for change in order to increase the number of women participating in training and CBO mechanisms. In this aspect, the KRDI project has not been as successful as it could and has not greatly affected “ways of doing” from a woman’s perspective. Indeed, only 2.4% of interviewees have participated in gender training clearly indicating room for expansion of this component.

The findings of the assessment also show that the majority of community members have participated actively in the prioritization of their needs. Interviews showed that almost all respondents (83.2% - or 378 people) had participated to some extent in the process of selection of projects independent of whether they were members of the CBO or not. Additionally 74% of respondents (or 336 persons) indicated that they were encouraged by the local government and the CBO to take part in the process of selection of the projects for their villages.

The data and information captured during the focus groups discussions show that there has been a clear change in the way that local communities organize themselves and cooperate with their local government counterparts. It also gives a clear message that when democratic rules are used properly and when the communities participate on a large scale in the process of decision making for the selection of priorities, the problems are better solved.

An example from a CBO member villager of Belaj, Zapod commune illustrates clearly the change brought about KRDI; he said “Three times the fund was allocated by the Government of Albania to build our school in the last 15 years, but it was not possible to build it. This time, after the establishment of CBO we voted on our priorities and the school is being constructed now. All those who had been against the building of the school in the past 15 years, were obliged to accept the will of the vote of the majority.” A side note to this story – as a result of the decision of the majority and the clear decision of the community to build the school a village inhabitant donated the land for the school.

CBOs have started to establish rules and procedures for their meetings and also started to be involved in the formulation of commune development plans. It is worth mentioning that the commune development plans have started to be considered as viable mechanisms for coordinating development as a result of CBO involvement. This is a further example of changes in the “ways of doing.”

19 5.2 Changes in “Ways of Thinking:” 94% of the respondents (423 persons) indicated that CBO is the most effective form to address problems of their village. Similarly 91% (221 of 243 people) of the CBO members stated that CBO functions “well” or “satisfactorily.” This shows that the project has brought about drastic changes in the mentality of the beneficiaries targeted by KRDI. It has also important changes in the process of decision making, and prioritization of their needs.

From the interviews it becomes clear that after the beginning of the project and as a result of trainings and participation, the community has changed its behaviors and ways of thinking with regards to cooperation with local government authorities (heads of communes, village leaders, representatives of regional councils etc.). The level of trust between the groups has obviously increased. 76. 2 % (346 people) of the persons interviewed said that during their work with the projects of KRDI relations have improved with local government representatives, as compared to 41% of who have declared that they had good relations with the government officials before the beginning of the Project. Similar findings came from the focus group discussions. It was frequently mentioned that KRDI has brought fundamental changes in the targeted communities, especially with regards to mentality. The people now better understand that their problems are not solved complaining to the outsiders, but by working together and cooperating.

5.3 Changes in “Ways of Being.” This aspect was perhaps the most difficult to measure due to the relative short duration in which the project has been active. Nonetheless, it is clear from the interviews and focus group discussions that an impact has already been made. When asked about the quality of the project, 48% of beneficiaries (219 persons) indicated that the quality has been good, 22% while of them asserted that the quality is satisfactory. 3.3% indicated that they are not very satisfied since it is not implemented as predicted (specifically in Borje village in Arren Commune in regards to the selection of the firm that did the construction). All the respondents indicated that they benefit from the implemented projects in their village. They suggested that in relation to the project that is implemented they have positive impact in the economy, health and education. In economy it mainly has had an effect on building the water drainage, while in education there is an increase in the quality as result of the improvements of the conditions in school. It is important to note that even during the interviews though there was a lack of water in Bardhoc despite the construction of the water supply system.

74.8% of the respondents (or 332 people of 454 total) indicated that all persons benefited equally from these projects. Through the focus group discussions however it was indicated that compared to the other categories, women benefited the most. They specified as examples schools, health centers etc, whereby majority of those employed are mainly women. The water-supply system also benefits women as they are the ones who fill the water in plastic cans and they carry the water in their backs. Sanija from the village of Bardhoc asserts: “I am happy that the rope is removed from my neck from carrying water.” However, this cannot be taken as an indicator of the increase of women’s participation in decision making. This mainly indicates a benefit to the difficulty and duration of women’s work.

Indeed, from the interviews made in the targeted villages it should be mentioned that the number of women members of CBOs interviewed was relatively small. This is an indication that they are not fully involved in the process of community participation. This is illustrated from an interview in Shemri when a woman noted “This [CBO process of selecting a project] is not our business, because the Kanun restricts our participation in the village life.”

95 % of the respondents from Lagje No. 2 in the municipality of Kukes where the green environments have been increased indicated that this project has mainly benefited the eldest and children. In their comments they also noted the need to add lighting to the park.

20 According to the respondents, the 69% (314 of 454 persons) of them indicated that the project is beneficial for the whole village, but there are even those who do not benefit at all, or only benefit partially, such as in the case when there are building of the water systems that do not cover the land of the entire village (such as the case with Arren and Shkinak).

Almost all the respondents indicated that they will contribute to the sustainability of the project based on their abilities. The majority of them said that they will contribute in the maintenance of the object. A part of the respondents asserted that they will contribute by paying the different bills.

5.4 Other Findings: It appears that the word “donor” is not translated well in Albanian, and in many occasions UNDP is considered by the community as a donor without differentiation of about the scope of EC investment. During the interviews it was observed that almost all respondents where familiar of the fact that a donor was involved, but they were unclear whether it was from European Union or not. There were occasions when they confused UNDP with the European Commission. Only 6.3% of them claimed that they had never heard about the project of KRDI, while the majority (93.7%) indicated that they had heard about the project. 74% know that the donor is the EC but often they confuse it with EU. Only 8.7% of them do not know at all who the donator is. This implies that there should be a higher visibility and much more defined visibility for the EC at the local level.

6. Best Practices, Lessons Learned and Recommendations for UNDP

From the assessment it is clear there are many best practices. The most significant perhaps is the community based training for CBOs to think and plan collectively to identify their priorities and participate in the process of development. Other best practices include the following: • The high participation of the community members in the process of project selection of their villages; • Contribution of the community in the sustainability of the project through the maintenance, payment of different bills, etc.; • Extensive participation in formulation of development plans for the communes; • Encouraging the voicing of opinions (without any fear for the dissatisfaction they may have with regard to project) through surveys such as this; • Increased community participation at the village level; • Increased level of communication, trust and cooperation among the local governors and the community during prioritization and project implementation; • To continue the good example that has started by giving trainings/projects in a public and transparent manner.

In terms of lessons learned, it is clear that some areas need to be improved; these areas are as follows: • Necessity to increase women’s participation in the process of decision making and participation in public discussions; • Increased youth involvement in the decision making process which enables them to be employed in the project construction’ • Increased recognition of the donor with focus on the EC; • Written media and public awareness material should be used more often as the lack of electricity negates televised and radio communication; • Increased funding per project would be ideal as currently the amount often makes it difficult to meet the defined demands/priorities of the community (thereby causing them to switch to priority 3, 4, 5 etc.); • To observe the possibility of mutual projects among communes, since many communes have mutual problems and priorities (pooling of funds for common needs);

21 • To include more local associations for small projects in their respective areas of expertise (eg: agricultural producers association for those projects that could benefit farmers and crop growers); • More attention must be given to the selection of firms that have a good relationship with the community, since even the firms coming from the same community can take over more responsibilities (the community in Borje and Arren are unsatisfied).

Key Recommendations for UNDP include the following:

• To conduct gender trainings in order to increase women’s participation in the process of decision making. ; • Finding new ways to include women in decision making not only formally but even practically. In future projects there should be a strong and clear emphasis on women’s participation; • To continue organizing communities in CBOs, to increase the participation and include as many members from the community as possible; • To work on increasing the capacities of CBOs through continued trainings; • Seasonal employment of community members with contractors should be higher than that achieved now; • To look at the possibility that many community projects are implemented by the CBO itself in order to increase the ownership over the results; • The selection criteria should include as priority activities those that stimulate production which will lead to creating employment, especially for women and youth.

22 7. Annexes

7.1 List of Targeted Villages

Total Number of Total Number of Village Families in Village Households Interviewed 1 Arren 93 14 2 Bardhoc 1 85 13 3 Bardhoc 2 110 17 4 Bele 159 24 5 Bicaj 220 33 6 Borje 231 35 7 Caje 110 17 8 Gjegjan 32 5 9 Gjegje-Bushtrice 110 17 10 Kalimash 169 25 11 Geshtenje Kalis 112 17 12 Kolsh 65 10 13 Kukes L.2 380 57 14 Mgull Malzi 134 20 15 Pakisht 101 15 16 Petkaj 152 23 17 Qinamak 150 23 18 Shtiqen 245 37 19 Topojan 174 26 20 Zall Lusen-Ujmisht 95 14 21 Shkinak 102 15 Total 3029 454

7.2 . List of Questionnaires filled for each village (and Team Assignment)

Date: 09/11 10/11 11/11 12/12 13/12 14/11 Gjegje (16) Mgull (20) Shtiqen (34) Bardhoc,(13) Team I Borje, (34) Qinamak(23) Geshtenje (16) Petkaj (23) Team Bele, ( 24) Caje, (16) Kolsh (10) Arren(14) Kukes(20) II Pakisht ( 15) Shkinak (15) Kukes(17) Team Gjegjan (5) Kalimash (25) Bicaj (35) Kukes(18) II

7.3 Focus Group discussions

Date: 10/11 20/11 21/11 22/11 23/11 24/11/05 Petkaj, Shemri Heads of CBO Heads of CBO members CBO members Team Briefing s Communes +Village people +Village I (Training) Kukes (Kukes) Zapod people Topojan: CBO

members Heads of CBO & CBO Heads of CBO Kukes CB+Village +Village Government rep members s CBO members people people Team (10) (Mixed) and +Village Bicaj +Village people ( Shtiqen II rep. of Develop. people offices in Kukes quarter

23 7.4 Assessment Terms of Reference (Including Questionnaires)

1). Rationale: In follow up to the Tri-partite review of European Commission funded projects in the Kukes Region, and as part of overall monitoring and evaluation activities the UNDP-Albania Country Office will undertake a comprehensive mid-term assessment of the results of the EC funded KRDI project in order to develop lessons learned and best practices for improved project efficacy and for utilization in future interventions in the Kukes Region. The results to be assessed are broadly categorized as follows: a). Level of community participation in selection and implementation of projects including the extent to which women and the poorest were involved in the project selection process; b). Behavior and attitude change amongst local government officials and CBO and community beneficiaries as a result of the training and capacity building offered through KRDI; c). Direct development impact of infrastructure works on the CBO and community beneficiaries including changes (positive or negative) in life styles, economic opportunities, migration, education, quality of health, etc.

2). Scope: The Assessment Mission will cover the following groups: all beneficiaries of training and capacity building initiatives as part of KRDI; and all CBOs, civil society or community groups, communities, and Local Government counterparts that have benefited from an infrastructure project under KRDI. While not all members of the aforementioned groups will be interviewed or questioned (see ‘methodology’ below), the sample groupings will be selected to ensure broad representation.

3). Methodology: To ensure impartiality and integrity of results, a local NGO will be utilized. It is foreseen that the assessment process will occur in two parts and utilize two methodologies to measure the categories of changes resulting from the KRDI project as noted in the chart below.

Categories Aspect of KRDI to Assess Specific issues to explore of Change Level of community participation in People (Have gender dynamics changed, or new selection and implementation of Ways of Doing relationships formed? What about partnership and projects including the extent to which collaboration – is it felt that these have improved or women and the poorest were involved worsened?) in the project selection process; Behavior and attitude change Methods (decision-making, systems, ways of amongst local government officials Ways of organizing, norms) and CBO and community beneficiaries Thinking as a result of the training and capacity Policy Development (guidelines, rules and building offered through KRDI; regulations, political and organisational) Ways of Direct development impact of Economy (income, jobs, other resources) ‘Being’(aspects infrastructure works on the CBO and of life that community beneficiaries including Communication (information sharing, networking) have changed changes (positive or negative) in life as a result of styles, economic opportunities, Technology (equipment, computers, other) the migration, education, quality of intervention) health, etc. Any Others

The first part of the assessment will utilize a standardized survey (see annex 1). This survey has three parts to assess the different aspects of KRDI listed above. The survey will be undertaken in all 21 villages in which KRDI has activities. The sampling size for each village should not be less than 15% of the total village households; the specific households will be chosen at random by the NGO; efforts will be made to gather input from an equal number of women, men and youth by utilizing the household data available. One section of the questionnaire focuses solely on the development impact of the project and will only be utilized for villages where the infrastructure work has been completed.

24

The second part of the assessment will utilize focus group discussions and occur after the survey has been completed and data analyzed; this is done to ensure that positive lessons learned and other issues highlighted in the survey can be explored in greater detail during the discussions. Targeted towards a smaller (no more than 10) groups of representatives (local government representatives and CBO leaders), the discussions will be conducted by the local NGO and utilize the following “open-ended” question (rather than the multiple-choice answers of the aforementioned questionnaire): “What changes (positive or negative) have occurred in your region or community as a result (directly or indirectly) of the KRDI project?” Different focus groups will be formed to assess the changes noted in the chart above. Specifically, the following are the focus groups to be formed: i). Heads of Commune. All heads of communes that have been working with KRDI will be brought together and asked the questions listed in annex 2 –but with a specific focus on issues raised during the survey concerning “ways of thinking.” ii). Heads of CBOs. In several focus groups the head of the CBOs will be brought together to explore the changes in the “ways of doing” as noted in the above table, as well as the other points noted in annex 2. iii). CBO members and other village inhabitants. Focus groups will be made for villages that have received a project (and thus can discuss the development impact of it) and those that are currently in the process of completing the infrastructure work. As with the other focus groups, all questions as noted in annex 2 will be discussed; as the CBOs and village inhabitants are the ‘hub’ of KRDI’s efforts (meaning that they both are part of the process of choosing the priority infrastructure work as well as directly benefiting from it) the questions for these focus groups.

The “Spider Web” format for focus group discussions will be utilized. With this method individuals write on ‘post-its’ all the examples of ‘changes’ from their individual perspectives and paste them in a category of change as described above. This allows for transparency (everyone can read other’s examples) as well as equal opportunity for individual to contribute information, especially for those less assertive in oral discussion. The facilitator will then encourage open dialogue elaborating on examples, indicators of change, the identification of factors that contributed to change (positive or negative), lessons learned, issues and challenges and recommendations. A list of guiding questions (see annex 2) will be used for the focus group discussion. The local NGO will receive a familiarization course from staff with the UNDP Local Governance Programme (LGP) over a course of 1-2 days prior to undertaking the two aspects of the Assessment. Additionally, staff of LGP will make themselves available for the first focus group discussions if so requested by the local NGO.

4). Timeline: It is envisioned that the assessment will take place from 24 October – 4 November, and be followed by the final report on 10 November.

5). ToR Annexes i). Questionnaire for all villages targeted under the KRDI project ii). Guiding questions and themes for the focus group discussions

25 Terms of Reference – Survey Questionnaire for CBO Members and Other Residents of Villages

Date Survey Undertaken (day/month) ______/______

Gender of survey respondent M F

Age: ______Village: ______

Commune: ______

Aspect of Project Questions for CBO Members Answers to Assess 1). Are you a member of a community based organization? Level of community participation in *** If the answer is “no” then please elaborate why in the space below Yes selection and *** implementation of projects including the extent to which women and the No poorest were involved in the project selection process; 2). Have you heard about the KRDI project? Yes *** If the answer is yes, please ask if they know who the main funder/donor of the project is and write the answer below ***

No

A great deal

Some 3). To what extent were you involved in the process deciding what project your village was to receive?

Little

None

4). Did the head of the commune encourage you or your CBO or village to participate?

*** If the answer is yes, please enquire further on how this was done – Yes (informally, through formal meetings etc.) and write the answer below***

No

26

5). Have you received training from UNDP in the course of prioritizing and receiving the project?

*** If the answer is yes, please enquire further as to what type of Yes training has been received and write the answer below***

No

Yes 6). If so, was this training useful (did it help you understand and participate more effectively?) No

Behavior and attitude change 1). How would you describe your relations with the local government amongst local (commune heads, village elder, members of the regional council etc.) Good government before the KRDI Project officials and CBO *** Please elaborate on their response below – seek specific reasons and community Satisfactory either positive or negative for their response *** beneficiaries as a result of the training and Not Good capacity building offered through KRDI; Did not have any

2). How would you describe your relations with the local government (commune heads, members of the regional council etc.) after the Good work of the KRDI Project?

*** Please elaborate on their response below – seek specific reasons Satisfactory either positive or negative - for their response ***

Not Good

No change

3). Do you think CBOs are an effective means to address the development issues facing your community?

*** Please elaborate the response below. If “yes”, then ask them to Yes explain why and if the answer is “no” then why not? ***

27 No

4). If you are a member of a CBO, how does your CBO function?

*** Please elaborate the response below focusing on the positive Well and/or negative aspects of how the CBO functions including frequency of meetings, rules of procedure, understanding of the role of the CBO etc. *** Satisfactory

Not well

1). How would you rate the quality of the project implemented in Good your village?

***If the answer is “Not Good” please enquire further as to what needs Satisfactory improvement and write the answer below***

Direct development Not Good impact of infrastructure works on the CBO and community Don’t know beneficiaries including changes (positive or 2). Is the project beneficial to you? negative) in life A Great deal styles, economic *** Please elaborate the answer below, specifically in terms of opportunities, whether it has or has not improved individual or family quality of life

(and how – be it economic, health, education or other affects), migration, Some changed the need to migrate seasonally or permanently for work or education, quality of health, etc. education, or provided other benefits or not. If the interviewee cites “no” please also specify why ***

*** This series of Little questions only to be asked for villages with completed None projects ***

3). Who do you think this project benefits more (if anyone)? Men

*** Please have the interview elaborate on their answer in the space below. Why does the project have a greater impact on one of the Women groups listed below? Also consider the reverse – why doesn’t the project impact the other groups? *** Youth

Of equal benefit to all

28 4). Is the project beneficial to the village? A Great deal *** Please elaborate the answer below, specifically in terms of whether it has or has not been of benefit to the village in terms of economic development, health, education, migration etc. If the interviewee cites “no” please also specify why *** Some

Little

None

5). Did you have another project that was a different priority than the one selected?

***If the answer is yes, please inquire what their priority is and write it Yes below. Also inquire as to why it was not selected***

No

6), Will you contribute to the sustainability of the project in your village (through maintenance, paying fees for services etc?).

***If the answer is “yes” please elaborate how the interviewee will Yes contribute ***

No

Terms of Reference Annex 2 – Guiding Questions for the Focus Group Discussions

*** The NGO is encouraged to add questions as necessary ***

1) How do people learn about KRDI projects and what do they know about it ?

2) What role did you have in KRDI projects? How did you participate?

3) You know, everyone in community should be involved in decision concerning community life improvements. That kind of involvement is not easy. What is your opinion?

29 4) How would you describe the quality of KRDI projects ?

5) What comments do you have about KRDI projects /

6) Do you have any comments/opinions about how local stakeholders have participated in KRDI projects?

7) Did the projects improved community life? In what aspects?

8) Meetings sometimes seem to be events when leaders and KRDI staff decide on the projects to be implemented. What is the opinion in your community ?

9) What if you were in charge of the KRDI ? How would you do a better job ?

30 7.5 Pictures from the Assessment

31

32

33

34

35

36