EVALUATION OF TtIE A. I. D. -FUNDED PVO DEVELOP~TASSISTANCEPROGRAM IN THE WEST B-D GAZA
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES (CRS) Rural Development Program
Evaluation Re~ort September 1984
Agency for International Development Washiuston, D.C.
The views and interpretations expressed in this report are those of the authors a1.d should not be attributed to the Agency for International Development. -WEST BANKIGAZA PVO PROGRAM EVALUATION Catholic Relief Services (CRS) -- Rural Development Pro.ject (I & 11)
SUMMP,.%Y AND ASSESSMENT 1. The CRS rural Development Project is an excellent participatory, community-building program. The subprojects themselves are almost all successes in that they are completed, needed, wanted, used, maintained and relevant to the village situation. They also are the vehicle for CRS's main task of building commui?ity morale and improving local capability to deal with local problems.
2. A major reason for the success of the program is the leadership and dedication of CRS's senior local staff. 3. Another reason is that the program sticks close to tried and true activities with which both CRS and villagers are familiar: roads, water systems, primary schools, community centers and clinics.
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The CRS Rural Development Project should continue with the same type of village development and construction activities it has been successfully performing for the past nine years. There is a great need for this work with villagers on projects of this size and type. This service to the villagers of the West Bank and Gaza should continue. Rarely does the Americm A.I.D. program accomplish so much with so few of its dollars. We recommend the expansion of these activities with the addition of another field supervisor. 2. The Rural Development actvities should be expanded in Gaza, The most important impact of this program is when it gives hope for the first time to villages where very little has ever come their way. Many Gaza areas seem to be places in need of both basic rural services and hope. 3. CRS should set up a full office in Gaza vith a resident expatriate head. Cgza is very different fror. the West Bank in terms of the nature of the villages and topography, the psychology and politics of the people, the nature of the occupation and the legal system. A successfu1 Gaza program needs someone with the same sort of close lcnowlcdgc that CRS personnel hove of all areas of the West Rank. Since CRS has inherited the CAKE Gaza office and Tiele IT program, CRS should utilize this opporturlity to expand the office to i-nclude rurnl development, health education and handicapped programs.
4. As part of the preparation of the next proposal, CKS should conduct the sort of full rethinking of its overall rural developmerlt strategy as was carried out for the health education activity. The current Rural Development strategy has been unaltered since 1975. The situation iq the occupied territories has changed much since 1975 as a result of the Israeli settlements and the general economic decline. The subprojects of the program, successful as they are, need to be placed within a broader strategy. Wi.thin this strategy, other types of village activities should be considered for inclusion along with the construction subprojects. A program to support individual small income-producing activities, perhaps for women who are no longer hauling water, should be added to the subproject mix. This would build on the construction projects already completed and at the same time address some issues of the growing economic downturn. I. BACKGROUND A. General. CRS is a U.S. private voluntary organization (PVO), regmed with AID, and has been implementing rural development self-help activities in the West Bank and Gaza with AID funding under two separate projects since 1975. These projects are the subject of this evaluation report. CRS also has received two separate grants from AID, totaling $2,170,000 for nutrition and health education programs. Over 10,000 persons have benefitted directly from these programs. AID assistance is due to terminate in January, 1985, but CRS has submitted a proposal to continue the program for an another three years. The evaluation team feels that continued assistance is warranted. In conjunction with this program, CRS has received over $6.5 million in Food for Peace commodities in the past nine years, which have benefitted o.ver 400,000 peop1.e. The program recently expanded significantly as CRS assumed the responsibility for programs previous ly undertaken by CARE. Approximately 100,000 persons will be ass isted nnnua lly under this expanded program (see PVO Program Overview Zeport for additional comments). AID recently also approved a grant of $1.8 million for CRS to undertake a project for handicapped persons in the West Bank and Gaza. This project wiJ.1 be initiated in September, 1984, as the lead activity of a larger, comprehensive program in which the Community Development Fmndation, the Society for the Care of Handicapped Children and others will take part with AID funds. Besides these activities that are supported by AID, CRS, with funds a.nd donated commodities from other sources, undertakes other self-help development activities and provides relief assistance for those in need.
B. Program. CRS's rural development project began in 1975 with a program to carry out village self-help projects -- construction of roads, schools, water systems, clinics, community centers and electricity systems -- in partnership with village leaders and villagers. The second rural development project began in 1973 and continues the same program at roughly the same level until this time. The philosophy of this program is to build facilities and ser-,(ices to improve the well-being of villagers. CRS sees these activities falling, into four areas: agriculture, health/sanitation, education and electric power. In addition to the development resulting from the activities themselves, CRS emphasizes the importance of the process of villagers working together with CRS tfi identify and solve their own problems. CliS a cleve1oprnc~nt: personnel cmphasi-ze that the cons cruction proje~:ts are tho means toward ren 1 vil 1 age development: che positive changes in villagers' attitudes and in their increased capability for pragmatic accomplishment. A total of $2,287,166 was provided by AID, under two separate agreements, to com lete 96 subproject:^ valued at $5:;:7,206 (Subproject lists? breakdown ut Attachment A).
C. Accomplishments. CRS has completed n total of 82 of the 96 rural development subprojects to date, and these have directly benefitted almost 200,000 vi 1lagers, approximately one quarter of the rural population of the West Hank where most CKS subprojects are located. The evaluation team visited 36 out of the 82 completed subprojects as well as 10 others yet to be completed. Five site visi.ts were in Gaza, the rest were in the West Bank (Map at Attachment B).
11. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY. See PVO Program Overview Report.
111. ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL
Within the CRS organization, each project operates with considerable autonomy in terms of personnel, budget, reporting, etc. The Rural Development unit staff consists of six full-time people ; project supervisor, field supervisor, accountant, field worker, clerk, and secretary. This team, especially the senior members, have been working together on these projects for many years, and they form an efficient and coordinated unit. Additionally , they are people of considerable dedication for whom this is not just a job hut their life's work. They work out of the CRS projects' office in East Jerusalem, but for the field staff, their reel offices are the blue CRS vans. They are well known to villagers and civil servants throughout the West Bank, and their long reputation is one factor in their success in wfnning village cooperation. IV. PROJECT SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
A. Selection. The specific -~illage subprojects are not identified in the grant agreement with AID. Because they are well- known out in the field, CIiS staff are often approached by village leaders who request a road, school, etc. There are more requests than those CRS is able to fulfill, and the field staff excercises their judgement in deciding which requests to pursue and which ones to defer. This decision is btised on many factors - relative worthinesr of the proposed activity in terms of the improvement it will bring about, the practicality of the project in terms of the village nLi1it.y to pay its share and cooperate, the possibility of approval by tk~c nuthori ties, and the distribution of subprojects by type and 1ocati.on. When CKS and village leaders reach a general agrc-emrmt, CRS writes up a brief subproject pcoposal for submission tn the authorities. CRS in\rolves representatives of the responsible departments (social welfare, water, education, etc.,) early on in the process and this helps at least the initial stages of the approval process.
B. Implementation. CRS draws up a preliminary unofficial ugreement-inArabic with the responsible village representatives of the project. Because final approval ' is generally delayed six months, this provides a written record of the agreements regarding cost -sharing and other responsibilities of the village.
The projects are con:;truction projeccs of one kind or another, and they all Involve the preparation o.f tenders and selection of contractors. For the prepu~:ation of tenders, CKS works with the responsible technical department xho does the technical planning and estimates. At the meeting for opening the bi.ds and selecting the contractors, CRS, village representatives, social welfare representatives, and a representative from the appropriate technicai department are present.
On all of its subprojects, CRS and the village council. or commLttee work together as t I general contractor", sub-contracting out the labor and materials to two contractors. This (a) involves the villagers in the process more than if there were a general contractor, (b) saves the general contractor Is fee, (c) gives CRS and the viilage more control, and (d) uses the 1.abor contractor and equiplnent contractor as ch~clcs on each other, which improves quality.
CRS staff follow the construction process very closely and offer forceful. advice on where to get materials more cheaply, or what lfi!.ir< t b:r built stronger, etc. Because they have built so many (7f: the same projects under the saine conditions for so long, CRS f:'.eld staff speak from experience and the others know it.
At the same time, CRS staff work with the village 1-eadership to help collect the money, solve any village disputes that might stall the subproject, and help in continued negotiations with official engineers or whomever. They insist on meticulous r (:cord-- ltccpirrg systcrm , cspecia Lly regarding financial matters. TIis normal, bul tllcy make quite a show of it, so as tr! protect the villdge committee from any suspicious accusat i-ons .
The CKS rural development project is one 0% the most successful activites we have visited in several. countries in terms of its development of the hurnr.in potential and energy of a village. The CliS personnel give flesh and blood to the theories of "participation", I I dialogue", etc., thnt are so often bandied about in development circles but rarely accompl.ished. First of al-1, the CRS staff clemnnds that the villagers be involved in all aspects of the project. Then they demand that everything be done to pe;-fection, patiently but forceful Iy exp!.aining why a certain action will enhance the project or give it- much longer life. At the same time, the CKS staff show thnt they are ready to work as long and as hard on the pr~jectas anyone in the village. The combination of involvement ntid cluali.ty from the villagers produces a project that is a source of pride for years. Al! rnechers of the evaluation team were impressed by the consumate skill of the field staff, and we all learned things that can be used in other similar situations.
IV. TYPES OF PKOJKCTS---- - . During the site visits we viewcsd essentially four types of project?: roads (interior and access/agricu1tura1), village public buildings (primary schools, community centers, c linjcs) , water networks and electricity networks. Within each category, two or more projects were very much alike, although the villages varied.
A. Roads. CKS has aided 35 rood projects, out: of which the team visited 1.5. Many of the road visits involved driving on the road ~ndviewing its condition, importance and observable effect on the local economy or sanitary conditions. Other road visits involved e?r~erisi.ve discussions with village leaders and villacers,
The agricultural and access roads have in many cases made a resounding difference to the viI.1agt.s and countryside they linked together. After these roads had been built through impossible terrain, in the minds of the villagers, they were heroic accomplishn~ents. Along nll of tliose roads, one sees the evidence of their developmen ta 1 ef Cect : new1 y c learcd land, olive seedlings one year younger than tile road, and small industries, such as charcoal-making. Village interior roads have less economic impact. However the transformation of the village appearance and the seemingly improved sanitation situation i.s striking. It is not just a case of paving village streets, but of totally renovating narrow, twiscio~, rocky, steep, muddy, dusty, donkey paths. Interior and village access roads benefit about all of the village residents. The ngricult:urnl, roads benefit rhe farmers with fields in the area, but due to the fragmented scattered nature of land holders, these roads also serve a broad cross-section of the village.
An important issue regarding roads i.s maintenance. CKS takes pride i,,:building roads that last. They j-nsist on using more asphalt than the con tractors recommend. They take specia 1. care with steep slo~es,corners, drainage, etc. The results are impressive. Oat! always knows which part of the road was a CRS subproject by its good condition, even if it is nine years old.
R. Bilil.cfnp-. CRS has aided i.n the construction of 33 village schodlsi- clinics and community centers. The team visited 15.
For very poor villages with few or no services, a primary school i~r,(3.13 early priority (after water., or before, if a water system is not fetcsible). In spice of this, school projects were reported by the field staff to be the most dtfficult in terms of evaluating village cooperation. Partly this seems to be because villagers do not believe the school will a.ctually be completed and that the n:oney will not be expropriated. Often the completion of the first school has led to other succe~;sful projects.
As t:he roads, buildings were well-designed by CRS technical staff. They would insist on those little thi.ngs that make a builtlinq more durable, more comfortab1.e and useful, and more attractive than the standard designs. These sorts of improvements are inexpensive (or even free) but they make a big difference. As with the roads, one always knows a CKS village building that was assisred by CKS. One is, $1 I--I1 such buildings is whcther U. S. funds should go to strcrcturcs ttlats the "government" sl-lould really const~.uct. It seems to this team that it is prefernble for the viLJtige1-s to do it themselves rather than wait another 20 yenrs for iI: to be dune for chem. Jordanian law rcquil-es each village to ~)rovidrits own school.
C. Water. CKS hn.s aided in the construction of 14 village wa.ter systems. 'fhe evaluation team visited eight: of those sites.
Village water systems vary. Typically, one involves a well, tl pump, a reservoir, street lines, with individual house connections (paid for by resident) with a meter and a tap. The main and important difference in systems relates to the water source which could be from a neighboring vll.1nge system, s spring, the Israeli water grid, or from a new Jewish settlement's pumped supply. Villngers and CRS try always to create o water sys tem that increases the village's independence rather than reducing it. But this is not always possible. In one case, we visited a village situated near a known crater source, but it was forbidden to dig o new we1 1. They must wait years for an expensive ripe system to link it to a larger network 10 km. away. The beneficiaries of the water systems usually include the whole village. Women benefit most from the savings in time and labor. Since ngricultural wells cannot be dug, piped water often frees up other water for domestic animals and agriculture. In this way (and with the waste water from domes tic water) hous~hold gardens are springing up. Water is the easiest project if terms of village cooperation, and it is normal for villages to organize themselves to dig and refill the trenches to conserve thc budget for extended pipes. . CKS has 5 village electrification in construction), all in the north. The team visited four sites.
Electrical systems, like water systems, vary mainly accordkg to their source. It is preferred, for essentially practical reasons, for each village to have is own generator rather than be dependent on an outside grid. Three of the sites we visited are having electricity for the first time and have their own generator. The fourth village, Zabnbdeh, used to have its own system. It wus old, improper1.y done, and dangerous, and the generntor had burnt out. This evaluation is spccificelly slated to rcvicw orily the CRS rural development projects. I-lowcver, as part ai! the team's mission to provldc fin overall review of U.S. ussistance to the occupied territories, we have briefly considered another aspect of CRS'S activities.
A. Health Education and Food Distribution. We had on informative and extensive discuss ion with the CKS personne !. involved in the Nutrition and Health Education Project. The effort they have put themselves through to rethink, rework and reorient that endeavor and to retrain themselves impressed us strongly. It is more impressive that they did this, not because it was a bad project, but to make a basically good project better. We also applaud the specific changes they &re making, from complexity to simplicity, from lecture to dialogue, from textbook subjects to realistic life situations, from a ticket for food distribution to a program derived on its own mc~rits. We raised concerns some of us have about food distribution programs in general, and the implication of food distribution for an occupied country, in particular. We saw that the levels of food distribution had decreased steadily over the years, the quality and types of commodities had been improved, and that the CKS director shared most of our concerns. She is conimitted to continue to limit, reduce, and redirect food assistance. At the same time, CRS is taking up the Gaza food program left behind by CARE, and we question how the new responsi.bility will affect the direction of the overall CRS food program. Obviously, CRS has left the worst aspects of food distribution behind. It is epxected that CRS will leave some positive effect on food distribution i~ Gaza.
B. CRS Image. CKS has a negative reputation among some in the West Bank, especially intellectuals. It is a reputation it does not deserve and which can be corrected. It seems to us in CKS'S interest to make an effort to improve its image among this group in order to assure the smooth operation of its programs and cooperation with other groups working toward the same worthy goals.
Basically, CKS has a reputation for being insensitive to issues that concern Palestinians and for being too wiling to compromise with the occupation authorities on issues that others are resisting. Surely, most of thAs is known to the CRS personnel, but it seems useful for us as outsiders to review the reascns for this negative image. 1. In the past CKS has used language in its documentrs that is unacceptable to Pales tir~inns. "Judea and Samarin" instead of "the West Bank" is one reoccurring example. Other statements just do not ring true to most residents here -- "Israel is an occupying force mostly occupied in maintaining law and order." Such things were written (and perhaps said) by former CRS officials no longer here. But the memory of such CKS past attitudes still haunts the organization. 2. The CRS Ruro.1 Development Program is perceived by some as an "infras turccure program" saving money for the Israelis and not contributing to independent development. This perception is false and the "infrastructure vs. development" dichotomy is an over-simplification of the value of development. Nonetheless the dichotomy is widely adhered to, especially after the Benvenisti report. CRS should find a way for more people to see the dynamic development processes involved in its Rural Development Project . 3. We mentioned food distribution above. Some people associate CRS with the negative aspects of food programs and are unaware of CRS's efforts to turn it into a more progressive program. 4. CRS's successes in getting relatively fast project clearances from the occupation authorities raises suspicions and jealousies. CRS's bragging about its record does not help. 5. Within the framework of the above four points, many are ready to believe even more serious rumors that are spread about CRS . The current CRS movement of reorganization and planning for future rural development activity strikes us as a good opportunity to make efforts to alter the image.
Attachments : A. CRS Subsroiect Lists (2) B. Map of ~ubirojectsites-visited A'Ig1'RCI~NI'A ( J.)-. 1 _cum ADD/NE-G-~~~Q AUGUST 31, 1975 - AUGUST 30, 1974 I Total Number Subprodeo to;'/$ Breakdown by District ~ebrh - 21 R8m.ll.h - 13 Jeni n - 4 Yablur - 3 Bethlehem - 3 Tulkarem - -1 45
Category r Acceee Roadr lo. Subprodeate r 7
vi1 laga Share ($1 9,323*70 3,907.03 6,485.54
Categorg r Primary Schoolr
Subproject CRS Village Number Share ($1 Total ($1 09 6,606e24 We4, 44.00 11,251.04 lOt60l.96 6,723.19 8,?96*71 6,061.58 8,456.97 5,732.72 4,766.99 3,636*'59 -2- HEBROU (cant lnuad) Categoq r Col~munityContara NO. SubproAeotr r 3 Subprojaot CBS Villaga Number Shrre ($1 Shara ((I) Total (81
RD. Submo~ectst 3 Subprojeot CRS Ifumber Share 2 1 9,478017 29 10,561018 2 lO,27O099 3 30,3lO. 34
Categorv t Water Delivery No. SubproAectr r 2 . Villllga Share (81 1,601.83 1,113e72 2,715.55
Category_ t Out-Patient Cliniar Ro. Subprojectr t 1 Subproject CRS Numb sr Share ($1 32 13.743071 1 13,743.71 EfEBROI - Category Number CRS Subprojectr Share ($1 Total ($1 Accese Boade 7 73,751.00 129.639.22 Primary Schoole Community Cent err Main Streets Water Delivery Out-Patient Clinla MQ, Subpro.lec t r 1 Subprojeot lumber Totsl (I) 12 9,507*50 13 78247.92 . 17 9,417.94 2 3 15,166.20 36 l3,884,j2 5 57,2211*88
Category I Accsar Roada
Nor Subprojectr 8 2 Subprojeot CRS Villqe Numb or Share cu Share ($1 -Total ($1
Csts~oryI Main Street8
Subprodect CRS Village Number Share ($1 Share (8) 04 5,776.29 4,311.68 -46 5,719038 3,220.85 2 11,495*67
Categorp t Comunity Center.
Subprojeo t CRS Village Number Shrra ($1 Share ($1 34 1681)17m20 12,688.68 42 26 ,980.60 25.293.63 - F 2 43,297080 RAMALWB I (continued)
Cate~oryI Primary Sohoolr
NO* Subprodeotr I 1
Cate~oryI Poultry Unit
Subprojsot3 I 1
Subprojeo t CP.3 Villap Number Share (u Shue ($1 Total ($1
Number CRS Village Category 3ubpro.Ieo tr Share ($1 Share (8)
Roads I Accees 2 17,852065
Community Centerr 2 43,297.80
Primary Schoole 1 20,605.50 JZNIN : 4 SubproLrfi
Category : Acceer Roadr +
No. Subprojects : 2
Subproject CRS Village Number Share ($1 -Tgtal (ill 41 9,899038 49345.21 14,244.59 44 20,005.03 11,861.09 31,946012 - -,--__I -. 2 29,9a4.41 16,206.30 46,190.71
Category : Main Streeta
No. SubproJecte : 1
Subproject CRS Village Numb e r Share (#l Share ($) -Total ($1 -07 15,111.08 99278.74 24,389.82 1 15,111.08 9,278074 24 ,389 082
Category : Vocational Training Equipment
No, Subprojects : 1
Subproject CRS Villnge ---Number Share (S) Share ($1 --Total (II)
-JENIN - (~ecap)
Cate~ory - Number CRS Village Subprojecte Share ($1 Share ($1 Total ($1 Accese :toad# 2 29,984.41 16,206.30 46.19 0.71
Main Streets P 15,111 .08 9,278.74 24,389*82 Voc, Trng. Equip. -- 1 17,957022 12,955.95 30,91347 4 63,052.71 38,440*99 101,493*70 Ctrtemry r Out-Patient C1lrLi.c
No, Sub~rojecte : 2 Subproject C R3 Vi llam Nwobe r Share (8) 91al.e (3). .Total (8
No, Subvro.iects : 1
Subproject C RS Vi 11 age Number share ,(Q Share ( $1 Total.. --26 9,767.27 6,553.46 16,320.73 1 99767.27 6,553.46 16,320.13 NABLUS - (~eca~) Nwnber Vlllaga --Cate~ozly S~bt~.leot~ 2h saxe (I .Total ($1 Out-Patient Clinic 2 17,002065 12,826,73 29,829,38 Access Roade -1
BETHLMfiM - 3 Sub~ro.lectq Catemrv : Water Delivery
Subproject C RS Vi1l.a~ Nunbe r Share(?) %are($l Total ($) -2 5 5,192.16 3,476002 8,668,18
Catemry r Community Centere
No. Sub~mject~t 2 Subproject CRS Village Nwnbe r Sham Share ($1 . Total (8) 05 6,543.43 4,544.83 11,088.26 -06 8,270e44 6,214.78 14,493.22 2 14,821.87 10,75?. 61 25,581.48 Nwber CRS Village Category Subproject Sham ($1 Share (8) Total ($1
Water Delivery 1 5,192.16 ' 5,476.02 0,668.18 Community Centem -1 14,8?1,87 10,759.61 25,581 48 2 20,014e03 141235.63 34,249.66
-Categoq : Main Streeta No. Subprojects r 1
Subpro jeot CRS Village Number Share ($1 Share (t) Total ($1 40 8,237.44 5,245.46 13,462.92 1 8,237.44 5,245*.48 13,482r92
REC ONC ILIATIOEI
Number CRS Village District Subpro jeats Share ($1 Share ($1 Total (8)
Hebron 21 8 349,304.72 Ranallah 13 228,181.75
Jenin 4 101,493610
Nablus 3 46,150.11
Bethlehem 3 34,249.66 13,482.92 Percentage by Categs
-1 Category No.Subprojecte 46 4 Acceae Roads 12 26.7 Watsr Sys teme 8 17.8 Main Streete 7 15.6 Community Centare 7 15.6 Primary Schoole 6 13.3 out-patient Clinics 3 6.6 , Poultry Unit Voc. Trng, Equip,
Percentage by D$atsioJ
D ia tric t
Bebron Ramallah Jenf n Nablus Bethlehem
, Tulkarem
Percentwe of Grant Funds
-. -. Dietrict Hebron R 3.1081lah Jeni n Nablue Bethlehem Tul karem Total :lumber Sub-projects : 51
&rilding/Improving Accees Roads : 10 Drinking Wgter Delivery System : 6 Buildin$Improving Main Streete 2 6 Conetruction Community Centers z 6 Construction Primary Schoole r 7 Construction Out-Patient Clinicer 3 Construction Vocational Training Workshope :1 Providing Vocational Training Zquipment n 4 Providing Farm kninery t 3 lnetalling/lmproving Eb3c tricity Systems r -5 51
ACCESS ROADS - Subproject CRS Number !kwxu&n 02 Mieeilyeh, Jenin 03 &-Tam, Jenin 96 'Assira, Nablus 13 mas, Bethlehem 19 Idna, Hebron 2 1 Khas, Bethlehem 2 2 Ka'abneh, Hebron 30 'Araka, Jenin 39 hrquin, Jenin -51 Bethlehem, Bethlehem 10 CRS VILLAGE Location u SXARE (31
Zhawarreh, Bethlehen 41,482.03 29,445.24 Beit Hanoun, Gaza 31,737.14 13,638.72
MAIN ST-S - 6 SuT:,projeo t -be r
- 6 Subproject CRS VILLAGE -%be r Location SH.ARE (3) SEEUil TOTAL ($1 10 Till, Nabluo 24,090.68 24,800.98 48,971, 66 11 Aroura, Ramallah 23,786.38 19,934.09 43,720.47 26 ' @Azzou.n,Tulkarern 38,561.27 35,311.59 73,892.86 41 'Attil, Tulkarem 39,622.18 56,M5.50 95,827060 43 Tira, Ramallah 38.739.- 21,791.- 60,530.- -50 Deir Balah, Gaza 42,407.30 22,834.70 65,242.- 6 Subproject cns VILLAGS .Number Locatieq SMe (4) TOP& ( dl. 0 5 Zababdeh, Jenin 28,753.01 19,183.50 47,936.51 16 Salat in, Caza 709558.82 17 Raqa' , Hebron 59,019.70 25 Raba, Jenin 67,028.18 27 'Einaboue, Nablus 579103.68 33 Snsirg, ha 12,786.75 -3 5 Zawaydeh, Gaza 110,743.76 7
OUT-PATIhNT CLINICS - 3 Subproject Nunbe r Location
39 Taffuuh, Hebron -59 Beit-Lahya, Gaza 3
Subproject CRS VILLAGE Nwnbe r Jds2whn SIIA!G (3) SIrn (il) TOTAL ($1 -58 A1-Bir, Bethlehem 43,745.- 71,374.- 1 43,745.- 71,374.- -3% -62i/o
VOCATIONAL TRAINING E;2UIPbGRl" - 4 Subproject VILLAGE Number Location sw!L&l 23 'Paybeh, Ramallah 14,212.89 14t 297 .-
48 'Azarieh, Bethlehem ' 8,051.64 3,494.55 Doura, Hebron 17,450071 9,038.31 Beit Kabl & 3, Hebron 16,292.68 7,036.- Subproject Number Location 42 lkhalin, Bethlehem 24,765.44 46 Sa'abieh, Hebron 27.926.50
Subproject Number Location 20 Zbouba, Jenin Zababdeh, Jenin Bunm;Lna, Jedn Qaff een, TulL~arern Hashimieh, Jenin -- -- 195,388.90 -51*3$ RECONCILIA!ION CRS Cate- SIJm (1;) Accees Roade 340,755.78 Water Systems 197,229.33 Main Streets l53,62OO85 Community Centers 207,226.81 Primary Schools 288,743.45 Out-Patient Clinios 80,375.92 Voc. Trng. Workshops 43,745.- 1 Voc. Tng, Equip 56,007.92
3 Farm Machinem 80,670.94
Electricity %sterns 195 9 388.90