Local Empowerment for Government Inclusion and Transparency (LEGIT)

CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT COUNTY AUTHORITIES IN BONG, NIMBA, AND GRAND GEDEH AND CITY CORPORATIONS IN GBARNGA, GOMPA, AND ZWEDRU

July 2018 This document was produced for the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Development Education Network- Liberia under contract to DAI Global.

Program Title: Local Empowerment for Government Inclusion and Transparency (LEGIT) Contract Number: AID-OAA-1-14-00061/AID-669-TO-16-00004 Sponsoring USAID Office: USAID/Liberia Contractor: DAI Global, LLC Date of Publication: July 2018

The authors’ view expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 I. Background and Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Methodology ...... 2 2.2 Assessment Team ...... 2 2.3 Data collection instruments and procedures...... 2 2.4 Assessment Domains ...... 4 II. Assessment Findings ...... 6 3.1 Nimba County Authority ...... 6 3.2 Bong County Authority...... 12 3.3 Grand Gedeh County Authority ...... 18 3.4 Conclusion for County Authorities ...... 23 3.5 Gompa City Corporation ...... 23 3.6 Gbarnga City Corporation ...... 28 3.7 Zwedru City Corporation ...... 33 3.8 Conclusion for City Corporations ...... 37 III. Conclusion ...... 38 IV. Recommendations ...... 39 Sources ...... 40 Appendix: Photo gallery ...... 41

Acronyms

ADRM Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism CDA County Development Agenda CDF County Development Funds CAN Capacity Needs Assessment CSA Civil Service Agency CSOs Civil Society Organizations DAI Development Alternatives Incorporated DEN-L Development Education Network-Liberia FGD Focus Group Discussion HR Human Resources HRM Human Resource Management INGO International Non-Governmental Organization KII Key Informant Interview LBDI Liberia Bank for Development and Investment LEGIT Local Empowerment for Government Inclusion and Transparency M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs NGO Non-Governmental Organization PIR Performance Improvement Roadmap PMC Project Management Committee PPCC Public Procurement Concession Commission SDF Social Development Funds SOP Standard Operation Procedures TNA Training Needs Assessment TOR Terms of Reference USAID United States Agency for International Development

I. Executive Summary

DAI contracted Development Education Network-Liberia (DEN-L) to conduct a Capacity Needs Assessment (CNA) and Training Needs Assessment (TNA) with County Administrations in Bong, Nimba and Grand Gedeh, and City Corporations in Gbarnga, Gompa, and Zwedru. The contract called for the development of a Performance Improvement Roadmap (PIR) after the CNA and the TNA are completed. This report constitutes the CNA.

Three teams from DEN-L simultaneously conducted the CNA in the target counties and cities from 21 February to 1 March 2018. The assessment looked at nine domains, 1. Legal status; 2. Governance structures; 3. Leadership, planning and decision making; 4. Human resource management; 5. Coordination and oversight, internal information system, monitoring and evaluation, and program modifications; 6. Service delivery; 7. Financial resource management; 8. Communication mechanisms with stakeholders; and 9. Adequate resources and equipment.

The CNA used self-assessments, organization capacity assessments, focus group discussions (FGDs), and key informant interviews (KIIs) for data collection.

The assessment discovered that all institutions have serious capacity needs which cut across almost all counties and cities. Issues include weak human resource management skills, deficient financial management and internal control systems, limited office space and equipment, limited logistic capacity for operations, few functional strategic documents or operational plans to guide service delivery, and weak governance processes. Senior management teams and staff are not adequately informed about the legal history or governance structures at their workplace due to the absence of documents and organograms.

While the assessment established that there are cordial relationships between Central Government and all institutions assessed, additional opportunities exist both externally and internally for coordination that would enhance capacity. Capacity gaps also impede taking advantage of additional opportunities. The overarching challenge for these organizations is limited funding for capacity development at all levels. Other issues raised in the different counties could challenge efforts to support good governance and capacity development without changes to the status quo, such as the interference of national-level legislators in decisions concerning local development projects.

II. Background and Introduction

DAI’s LEGIT project is working with Bong, Nimba, and Grand Gedeh Counties, and Gbarnga, Gompa, and Zwedru Cities. A CNA for the three counties was conducted from 21 February to 1 March 2018. The assessment with Nimba and Bong started simultaneously with county authorities from 21-22 February 2018. The assessment with the City Corporations occurred 26-27 February 2018. The Grand Gedeh assessment was conducted from 26-27 February while the Zwedru assessment occurred 28 February-1 March. While data collection occurred for both the CNA and the TNA, this report focuses on the CNA.

2.1 Methodology

The assessment took a participatory approach, relying on input from respondents. The assessment team used both quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection. For the quantitative side, a numeric scoring table was used to collect data (see Table 1). The qualitative data collection included self-assessment forms, FGDs, and KIIs. In the self-assessment form, respondents evaluated the different domains before meeting with the assessment team. The assessment team also conducted a desk review on key documents available from the institutions assessed. The documents assessed with Nimba County Authority included: Public Financial Management Act, 2009; National Budget Extract, FY 2017/2018; Civil Service Standard Orders Chapter 4, Section 1:4:2:4, and the Public Procurement and Concession Act (n.d.). With Bong County Administration, the team reviewed TOR for Local Government Administration (n.d.). Documents reviewed at Grand Gedeh County included County Service Report, September 2018 and the Meeting Minutes of County Security Council, July 28, 2017. At Gbarnga City office, the team reviewed the Act to create the City of Gbarnga, County of Bong and grant it a chapter, approved May 24, 1972, published by Authority Government Printing Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, October 2, 1972.

Two FGDs occurred discussing six key questions relating to the organizations’ strengths and successes, capacity and training needs, challenges, opportunities, relationships with Central Government, citizens, and other stakeholders, and recommendations for improvement. Respondents in KIIs included members of senior management (Civil Servants and Presidential Appointees) teams as well as prominent people in the counties and cities.

2.2 Assessment Team

DEN-L used teams of two to collect data from each of the institutions. There were three teams (six persons) across the three counties. The members of the team in Nimba were Peter S. Dolo and Varbah M. Tennie; Bong team were Dorothy K. Toomann and Joseph Suakollie; and Grand Gedeh team were James F. Tellewoyan and Musu D. London.

2.3 Data collection instruments and procedures

As attached in the appendices, two forms were utilized in the assessment. First, an institutional self-assessment (Form 1) was used to assess their institutional capacity. Secondly, a ‘Reality

Check’ form (Form 2) was used by both the assessment team and the organization together to cross check information provided in Form 1. A minimum of nine people from each organization were involved in the assessment, including members of senior management team, middle managers, and operatives (or support staff)

Respondents from each organization worked together as team to complete Form 1. Before this was done, each of the organization staff individually completed Form 2.

The process in Form 2 included scoring the domain themes on a five-point scale ranging from 0 to 4, representing ‘no’ to ‘yes’ with middle points of ‘2’ and ‘3’ representing ‘partly’ and ‘mostly’ (see Table 1).

Table 1: Scoring Illustration Table

0-0.9 1-1.9 2-2.9 3-3.9 4 Do not Domain Statements No Partly Mostly Yes know 1 Statement 1 0 2 Statement 2 2 3 Statement 3 4 4 Statement 4 2 5 Statement 5 3 Total 0 - 4 3 4

Grand Total 11 Average 2.2

Table 1 above illustrates the numeric scoring process used for the input forms. The table in this example has five statements under the domain. In this case, it is assumed that the respondent disagrees with Statement 1, and marks ‘0’ or ‘no’ in the column. The respondent partly agrees with Statement ‘2,’ and so on. Each column is summed as seen in the ‘total’ row. The sum of all totals (0 + 4 + 3 + 4) is 11. This total is divided by the number of statements (five) under the domain, providing an average score of ‘2.2’ for the respondent for this domain. This scoring is done by each respondent for each domain in the assessment. The average found by summing the total then dividing it by the number of respondents. This represents the organization’s scoring for each domain as seen in the radar under the findings.

The FDGs and KIIs were completed after filling out the forms. For FGDs, participants were divided into two groups. The first group included administrators and leadership. The second group comprised of mid-level managers and support staff. The KIIs used the same questionnaire as the FGDs. Key informants at the county level included directors of County Service Centers, heads of chief and elder councils, human resource directors, superintendents, and administrative assistants to superintendents. KIIs for the City Corporations included administrators, former or current mayors, chairpersons or members of City Councils, and other prominent city stakeholders.

The FDGs and KIIs concentrated on six points, 1. Institutional successes and strengths; 2. Immediate capacity and training needs; 3. Challenges hindering organizations from addressing capacity needs; 4. Existing opportunities; 5. Relationship with Central Government; and 6. Recommendations to Central Government and other stakeholders to build institutional capacity.

2.4 Assessment Domains

There are nine domains in this capacity assessment.  Domain 1: ‘Legal Existence’ assessed the legal establishment of the institutions. It considered the legislative act which established the entity and the availability of this legislation for staff to review, as well as other relent legal history.  Domain 2: ‘Governance Structure’ looked at the structure of the organization and the ease of functions within the structures.  Domain 3: ‘Leadership, Planning and Decision Making’ considered the function and hierarchy of senior management team, middle managers and support staff. It also assessed organizational policies, decision making processes and any existing strategic plans.  Domain 4: ‘Human Resource Management’ reviewed the organization’s overall human resources (HR) processes. It assessed the existence of HR manuals, job descriptions, performance reviews and training plans.  Domain 5: ‘Coordination and Oversight, Internal Information System, Monitoring and Evaluation’ assessed various institutional capacities under these categories.  Domain 6: ‘’Service Delivery’ considered the organization’s main activities and the responsible parties. It also considered any existing operational plans.  Domain 7: ‘Financial Management and Internal Control’ reviewed all institutional financial transactions including banking and recordkeeping.  Domain 8: ‘Communication Mechanism with Stakeholders’ looked at institutional communication strategies. Stakeholders include Central Government, communities and constituents, and other agencies.  Domain 9: ‘Adequate Resources and Equipment’ assesses the adequacy of office space and equipment.

Findings of the assessment are presented in line with the domains.

Domains related to leadership, decision making and planning, HR management, coordination, oversight and communication were prioritized because satisfied and engaged employees and quality communication are central to institutional growth. The next domains of concern are financial management and service delivery. Maintaining good financial systems can help mitigate

4 potential conflict and other issues that lead to institutional collapse. The domains of legal existence, governance structure, and adequate resources and equipment can be improved over time.

III. Assessment Findings

Findings are presented in three segments. The first segment consists of both the scoring results table which provides individual scores in each of the domains and the total scores and average scores for all respondents.

The next results segment is the radar, which is presented in figures and summarizes the scoring. The final average score for each of the domains is presented in the radar. The radar has four main gridlines representing the scale of 0-4; the middle circle of the radar represents ‘0.’ Organizations with full capacity will have the entire spider web of the radar tied on the outer gridline. While organization with low capacity will have their points tied on the inner circle. Where there is variation in capacity based on the averages of the different domains, they are clearly seen by the movement of the lines tied to the gridlines.

The third segment is the findings from the FGDs and KIIs.

3.1 Nimba County Authority

Nimba County is located in north central Liberia. The county has 19 administrative districts, 37 chiefdoms, and 75 clans. The current Superintendent is Dorr Cooper, who has just been re-nominated by the Weah administration.

3.1.1 Results for Nimba County Authority

Table 2: Scoring results table for Nimba County Authority

Domain Respondents Scores Total Avg Legal Existence 4 4 3.2 3.2 4 4 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 36.8 3.6 Governance Structure 4 3.2 3.2 3.2 4 3.2 4 3.2 3.2 3.2 34.4 3.4 Leadership Planning and 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.2 2.7 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.5 34.7 3.4 Decision Making Human Resource 2 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.8 2.3 2 2.1 1.8 2.2 20 2 Management Coordination and Oversight 2.3 2.3 2.9 1.8 1.6 2 2.3 2.1 3 3 23.3 2.3 Service Delivery 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 3 3.3 3.3 3.3 4 30.6 3 Financial Management and 4 3.1 3.2 3 2.2 3 2.1 2.6 3.2 3.2 29.6 2.9 Internal Control Communication Mechanism 4 3.2 3.8 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3 2.8 2.8 32.4 3.2 to Stakeholders Adequate Resources and 1.5 1.2 1.2 2 1 2.7 1.2 1.5 1.7 3 17 1.7 Equipment

Table 2 shows the scoring results for Nimba County Authority. A total of 10 respondents completed the assessment and each respondent’s scores for each of the domains are shown. The total column shows the aggregate scores of the 10 respondents and the average scores are shown in the last column.

Figure 1: Radar Results for Nimba County Authority

3.1.2 Scoring Narrative for Nimba County Authority Legal Existence As seen in Figure 1, the score for Legal Existence in Nimba is 3.6. This means the respondents mostly agreed about the legal existence of the County, but there are some existing issues. The County was established by an Act of Legislature in 1964. However, copies of the Act are not available in the County. The assessment team was informed that the Act might be in the National Archives.

Governance Structure Figure 1 shows the score in this category as 3.4, indicating that respondents mostly agreed on existing governance structures. The respondents described functioning structures in Nimba County. This includes the superintendent, commissioners, paramount chiefs, clan chiefs, zone chiefs, and town chiefs. They also named other structures as the County Service Center, County Security Council, Project Management Committee, Mine Resettlement Coordination Committee, Chiefs and Elders Councils, Joint Security Forum, Nimba Civil Society Council, County Development Steering Committee, Nimba Radio Association, and others. An organization chart for the County is still under development.

Leadership, Planning and Decision Making Leadership, planning and decision making scored 3.4. This means that respondents mostly agreed that capacity in this domain is developed. According to respondents, the county has an administrative management team. The team includes the superintendent, administrative assistant, assistant superintendent for development, political and liaison officer, assistant superintendent for fiscal affairs, and the county inspector. However, members in the

7 management team are not familiar with the 1964 Act creating the county. Respondents revealed that Nimba has a County Development Agenda (CDA) which is considered the county’s strategic plan. The assessment team did not receive copy of the CDA. The assessment team was informed that the CDA has not been effective for more than two years now since, according to them, the county has not received the County and Social Development Funds for the period.

Human Resource Management Human resource management was a low scoring domain at 2. This indicates that respondents partly agreed that capacity in this domain is developed. According to the respondents, there is no standard mechanism for staff recruitment, and positions are not advertised. This occurs because the county administration is typically staff members seconded by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA). There is no employee handbook. There is no performance review or staff appraisal system. There are no training plans for staff.

According to the HR Director, Nimba County has 503 employees and 16 volunteers on the 2018 payroll. When requested to provide a copy of payroll, the team was informed that the information was managed by superiors in Monrovia, and that a copy of payroll was not available in Sanniquellie.

Coordination and Oversight, Internal Information System, Monitoring and Evaluation, Program Modifications The score in this domain was 2.3, indicating respondents partly agreed that this capacity is developed. There are three key departments in the County Office; administration, development, and fiscal affairs. The administration department is headed by the superintendent who is also responsible for the entire county. The development department is headed by the assistant superintendent for development. The fiscal department is headed by the assistant superintendent for fiscal affairs.

Interviews revealed the existence of regular senior staff meetings, but general staff meetings have not been held since early 2017. There are no mechanisms for employees to provide regular feedback. While there are systems for sharing internal information including memos, verbal conversations, phone calls, and general staff meeting, these systems are rarely used. While the county has a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Officer, decisions are not based on M&E data because feedbacks is not usually considered.

Service Delivery Respondents mostly agreed that the capacity of Nimba in service delivery is developed as represented by the score of 3. At the County Service Center, Nimba residents can receive services including but not limited to, traditional marriage certificates, western marriage certificates, driver’s licenses, business registrations, work permits, biometric identification cards, and land deeds.

Additionally, the County is also involved with scribe sales (parts of old cars and old machines/equipment from former concession areas in Nimba), coordinating other line ministries, implementation of Central Government policies, and maintenance or promoting of cultural values through awareness with young people and in leadership meeting (for example, Nimba has a unity slogan that is used in every occasion: ‘Ya go Nimba ya siea’ (meaning ‘once it comes from Nimba, it must be good’). The County monitors activities from planning through implementation stage. However, there is no operational plan for the County, likely because Nimba hasn’t receive County Social Development Funds (SDF) for the past two years.

Financial Resource Management Respondents partly agreed that the County capacity in financial management is developed, as seen by a score of 2.9. The County has bank accounts with the Liberia Bank for Development and Investment (LBDI). Signatories include the assistant superintendent for fiscal affairs (Category A), the Project Management Committee (PMC) treasurer, (Category B), and the County Treasurer (Category C). Withdrawal must have signatures from either A and B or A and C.

The County also has a financial team, including the assistant superintendent for fiscal affairs, budget officer, accountant, and bookkeeper. There are capacity gaps with the financial team. Only members of the PMC have basic financial skills and knowledge of financial software. Reports are limited to the finances of the SDF which are prepared by PMC. The fiscal affairs department does not have such skills which causes tension among finance staffers.

The County has a finance Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) created by the Public Procurement Concessions Committee (PPCC). According to respondents, the County was audited in 2014/2015, but the report was unavailable for review. The assessment team was only provided a 2007/2008 audit report. The financial team complained of a poor understanding of the integrated financial management system provided by the Ministry of Finance, therefore the system is not fully utilized.

Communication Mechanism with Stakeholders Respondents mostly agreed that the County capacity in communication to stakeholders is developed, with score of 3.2. According to respondents, the main channel for communication is email and phone. Communication flows from the president to the ministers, then the superintendent. They claimed that there are cordial working relationships between Central Government and county leadership, as well as between the County and other agencies, and between county leadership and citizens.

The County shares reports with other government agencies as well as with districts and commissioners. However, the County does not share best practices with other counties. For example, Nimba has strong record with SDF management, but these skills are not shared with others. It was reported that occasionally information from central office does not reach other administrators, a serious claim with potential to demotivate staff.

Adequate Resources and Equipment This domain scored the lowest at 1.7. This means respondents said they do not know whether there are adequate resources and equipment. According to respondents, the County has dedicated office space, yet it is inadequate to accommodate all staff and activities. Offices accommodate multiple key staff, and some have limited seating capacity. Additionally, almost all of the office equipment is outdated.

3.1.3 Findings from FGDs and KIIs with Nimba County Authority County Strengths and Successes According to respondents, the County’s greatest strength is resources and financing by ArcelorMittal operations in Nimba County. This enabled the county to receive US$1.5 million donated towards its SDF in FY2015/16. The county has the potential for development if the funds could be received annually. The County has more natural resources that could be managed for development. The Service Center has qualified staff with good reporting skills, and there is unity in the County

Capacity Needs  Funding for higher learning for staff;  Finance resource management and internal control system, including QuickBooks;  Redesign of county website;  SOPs for various tasks and departments;  Strategic and operational plans;  Adequate resources and equipment.  Internet service;  Office space for chiefs;  Car and motorbike transportation, particularly for the Service Center and chiefs; and

Challenges  A centralized government system;  Weak planning by Central Government;  Lack of prioritization by leaders in the uses of county development funds;  Inadequate funding which does not cover the population size or the large number of services to be delivered;  Lack of political will by Central Government to including operation budget for the county on an annual basis;  Lack of expertise for technical tasks;  Insufficient equipment;  No operational budget for the Service Center;  No vehicles to enhance movement  Most staff are seconded by the MIA and receive an MIA salary, which is inadequate; and

 Current leadership of the county has not negotiated with other service providers (NGOs, International donors) to help the County with capacity needs.

Opportunities There are cordial relationships with between Nimba, Central Government, and other agencies.

Relationships While the relationship with Central Government is administratively cordial, some respondents suggest that the financial relationship is weak. This is because of delays transferring SDFs.

Recommendations Relevant skills and knowledge needed for the county to bridge the different capacity gaps include those identified in financial management, development of operation plans, and effective planning. It is also necessary to provide the county with relevant resources and equipment for effective operation. Additionally, Central Government should be engaged to ensure that the full amount of SDF is transferred. SDFs should be matched or increased with population size. Civil society actors should help provide information needed by citizens, local activities and other stakeholders. Local authorities should implement policies properly in their various communities, geared at enhancing the lives of the local people. Government and local authorities could help with resources, finances, training, skills, and dissemination of information. Moreover, it is necessary to provide operational funding for the County, vehicles and motorbikes for movement, and increased salary for staff

3.1.4 Conclusion for Nimba County Authority While the County Authority of Nimba has some capacity, there are still issues. Major capacity issues include lack of adequate resources and equipment, weak human resource management, weak coordination oversight, weak internal information system, poor M&E and program modifications, and weak financial management system.

The major capacity needs for the County include the development of a website, office equipment, financial management systems, salary increases for staff, leadership training, improved communication and oversight, cars and motorbikes, and human resource management.

3.2 Bong County Authority

Bong County is headed by a superintendent, Esther Walker, who was recently appointed by President George Weah. Bong County has 13 Administrative districts, 14 chiefdoms and 43 clans.

3.2.1 Scoring results for Bong County Authority Table 3: Scoring results table for Bong County Authority

Domain Respondents Scores Total Avg Legal Existence 2.8 3.5 2 2.6 2.4 3 3.4 2.6 2 24.3 2.7 Governance Structure 3.4 3.8 2.4 2.5 3 4 4 3 2.8 28.9 3.2 Leadership Planning and 3.2 2.9 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.3 2.8 0.6 23.7 2.6 Decision Making Human Resource 2.4 2.2 1.6 2 2.6 3 1.6 2.2 1.5 19.1 2.1 Management Coordination and Oversight 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 2.4 3.7 2.5 2.5 3.3 28.6 3.1 Service Delivery 4 2.7 2.2 4 2.3 4 3 2.5 1.8 26.5 2.9 Financial Management and 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.7 3 3.1 1.2 3.4 1.9 27.2 3 Internal Control Communication Mechanism 3 3.6 3.6 3.4 2.8 3 4 3.4 3.4 30.2 3.3 to Stakeholders Adequate Resources and 2.7 3 3 3 2.8 2.8 1 2.3 3.3 23.7 2.6 Equipment

Table 3 shows the scoring results for Bong County Authority. Nine respondents participated in the assessment.

Figure 2: Scoring Radar for Bong County Authority

3.2.2 Scoring Narrative for Bong County Authority

Legal Existence Knowledge of the legal history of Bong County Administration scored 2.7, indicating that respondents partly agreed about the legal existence of the County. Though respondents agreed the county was created by an Act, they claimed that copies of the Act are not available to staff. This makes most leaders and almost all citizens of the county not knowledgeable about legal provisions and history of the County. Respondents suggested the Act can be found in the National Archives. Information about the Act is not clearly known, even though some have partial knowledge.

While Bong’s districts exist on paper, there is little practical assistance to assess demarcations. In some cases, there are conflicts about the actual borders. The assessment revealed that even leaders in the County do not know the demarcation of the various districts. Citizens don not know the boundaries between the electoral and administrative districts. Sometimes the establishment of districts is based on the political interest of legislators. The boundaries of the county were only known by two respondents.

Governance Structure The governance structure for Bong County Administration scored 3.2; meaning that respondents mostly agreed capacity in this domain is developed. According to respondents, the County has functioning structures which include a superintendent, commissioners, paramount chiefs, clan chiefs, general town chiefs, town chiefs, county attorney, land commissioner, and others. Respondents could not confirm that the county leadership structures were established through consultation. They claim that leadership bodies are mostly set up through top-bottom approach.

Bong County office has five departments (administrative, financial, maintenance, security, and other support staff). Due to changing presidential administrations and new appointments, a layer of uncertainty was expressed by some respondents. The qualification of staff members is unknown as the HR files of presidential appointees are kept at the national level. County level appointments are often recommended by national level legislators in isolation of citizen's views. Functionally, Central Government appointees are accountable to the president and not to citizens.

Leadership, Planning and Decision Making Respondents partly agreed that County capacity in leadership, planning, and decision making was developed, scoring 2.6. According to respondents, the county has a strategic plan, otherwise known as the County Development Agenda (CDA), but it has not been updated since 2012. Two respondents were involved in the development of CDA. The CDA should be revised after each County Sitting as district priority projects are to be derived at district level and presented in the County Sitting for funding. After the County Sittings, a cash plan and a procurement plan are developed with explanatory notes for onward submission to the PPCC. Historically, district priority projects have become political pawns for legislators.

Five people from each district join the County Sitting. This includes a districts commissioner, a paramount chief, a district chairperson, a youth leader, and an elder, all representing their respective districts. The process is highly political. Respondents noted that the legislature or caucus interfere in almost all County Sitting decisions. In most cases, projects selected by the five-person district representatives are not prioritized, as legislators allot funds and select contractors based on their own criteria. County Sitting discussions are in English which hinders the participation of most participants who speak local languages.

At the county administration level, staff meetings, County Development Steering Committee meetings, and Ministries Agencies Commission meetings occur monthly. Often action points are developed and carried out from those meetings. Minutes are compiled and sometimes shared with stakeholders. Some decisions are taken without the consultation of citizens. Accordingly, respondents claimed that this has created perceptions that leadership (especially lawmakers) manipulates most of the decision-making process in their own interest, and this has brought public outcry in the selection and implementation of most of the projects in Bong County.

Human Resource Management Bong County’s HR capacity scored as 2.1, meaning respondents partly agreed it is developed. Respondents report no written personal policy except the Civil Society Agency (CSA) guidelines, which are followed. There are no staff development plans, and staff capacity building is not a priority. All employees have terms of reference (TOR), but there is no training plan for staff.

Bong County, according to respondents, has large number of volunteers: chiefs, clan chiefs, paramount chiefs, and others who are not on payroll. However, the office could not provide the assessment team a full list and total number of volunteers. Most staff serve as volunteers for many years before employment. The HR office and CSA oversee employment issues. There is no new staff orientation. Job responsibilities are not limited to job descriptions, yet job descriptions are clearly defined. Staff performance reviews rarely occur. Departments such as land commission and procurement have limited staff.

Coordination and Oversight, Internal Information System, Monitoring and Evaluation, Program Modifications Respondents mostly agreed that the County capacity for coordination, oversight, information systems, monitoring and evaluation, and program modifications is developed with a score of 3.2. According to respondents, all departments have assigned supervisors. Department heads and staff have cordial working relationship, but department programs and plans are not jointly reviewed. Individual departments develop and occasionally review their plans with the Monrovia head office. Senior staff meetings are organized but not necessarily for program review. In the past, department reports were prepared on a quarterly basis and consolidated into regular county reports, but this has not occurred for over 12 years.

Currently, departments report to their heads at the national level. Departments only report to the superintendent if requested. Reports are seldom shared between departments. Procurement and accounting reports are based on availability of funds and transactions.

Respondents are unaware if the superintendent makes reports to the citizens. The superintendent updates the citizens through the district commissioners on an emergency basis, but there is no regular reporting mechanism. In monthly staff meetings, staff shares their concerns and provide feedback.

At the county level, information regarding training opportunities is managed by the superintendent's office, and staff are sent to trainings based on interest. Sometimes, relatives of key officials are sent to trainings to represent staff.

Attendance sheets are used to monitor staff workplace attendance. Some attendance sheets are closely monitored by the administrative office while others are not.

There are no M&E systems in place except the workplace attendance log, and there is no county-level M&E department.

Service Delivery The score for service delivery for Bong County is 2.9. This indicates that respondents partly agreed that capacity in service delivery is developed. The County is currently providing a number of services through the Service Center. However, service delivery and county projects are not efficiently monitored.

Financial Resource Management Financial resource management scored at 3, indicating that respondents mostly agreed Bong County’s capacity in financial management developed. According to respondents, the County has bank accounts with LBDI and EcoBank with three signatories (A1, A2 and B). Either A along with B can withdraw from the account.

The county has a financial team headed by the assistant superintendent for fiscal affairs. The financial team is comprised of the assistant superintendent for fiscal affairs, accountants, and bookkeeper. Both soft and hard copies of County financial documents are maintained. The County operates in accordance with the PPCC rules and regulations.

The procurement department is headed by the director for procurement. The department has limited capacity, and most procurement is done by the senior management team. Respondents claimed that the County has been audited but could not establish actual date of the audit nor make copy of the reports available to the team. From the assessment team’s observation, audits might have been done with the county but not recently.

Communication Mechanisms with Stakeholders The score for Bong County in this category is 3.4, indicating that respondents mostly agreed the County capacity in this domain is developed. According to respondents, the County modes of communication include cellphones, citations, and letter delivery. Sometimes emails are sent using individual internet modems purchased from GSM companies. Respondents shared that relationships between Bong and Central Government are cordial. Reports are shared with other agencies in the county and occasionally through local radio stations. Best practices are not exchanged with other counties and agencies. Information dissemination to districts is irregular.

Adequate Resources and Equipment The score for this domain is 2.6 or respondents partly agreed that this capacity is developed. Respondents claimed that County Administration has limited office space and not all staff has offices. There are limited computers, printers, or stationery. Some staff members still use manual typewriters. However, vast land is available. County road maintenance equipment and the county bus are out of order.

3.2.3 Findings from FGDs and KIIs with Bong County Authority County Strengths and Successes Respondents said that the SDF from ArcelorMittal, China’s Union, BHP Billiton, and MNG Gold is a major factor behind increased financial success of the County. In addition, the willingness of staff to work is a major success factor. Respondents also claimed that some of the strengths are the availability of concession companies who lease land in Bong County and provision of services at the Service Center.

Capacity Needs  New financial and internal control systems;  New human resource management systems;  Development of personnel policy;  Development of an operational plan;  Development of procurement system and policies;  Development of a website;  Internet service;  Availability of electricity; and  Strong knowledge in conflict management and leadership.

Challenges  A centralized government system;  Continuous interference by legislators in development activities;  Lack of unity and the unwillingness of citizens and leaders to reconcile;  Rifts between the caucus and the county leadership ;

 Issues between citizens and county leadership in terms of selection of people in key political positions without citizens’ participation;  Anger over how delegates are sometimes selected for county sitting without citizen participation;  Limited equipment and logistics;  Large number of volunteers;  Limited salary which is not paid on time;  Limited equipment and office space for staff; and  Incomplete major projects in the county, including Bong County Technical College (BCTC) and street paving.

Opportunities The presence of LEGIT and other NGOs is an opportunity.

Recommendations  Increase the financial allocation by Central Government to Bong County;  Increase support for capacity development processes as identified under the county capacity needs above;  Involve county-level technicians, civil society organizations, the assistant superintendent for development, and the superintendent in the County Sitting;  Provide interpreters during the County Sitting to ensure that constituents speaking traditional languages can adequately represent their districts;  Provide additional copies of the Act that created the County so that staff and county officials can have easy access to it;  Develop a capacity building plan for the county;  Develop county-level department-specific policies and SOPs based on national documents and distribute copies to local government offices;  Support the demarcation of districts and raise awareness of these changes to avoid future conflict;  Place those who have served as volunteers for long periods on salary; and  Have County Sittings chaired by independent third parties to reduce manipulation of district plans.

3.2.4 Conclusion for Bong County Administration

Bong County administration has capacity issues on five of the nine domains assessed. Major issues include weak human resource management, limited equipment and office space, weak leadership, limited knowledge of the county’s legal history, and weak service delivery.

The major capacity needs for the County are conflict management, strong leadership, a County website, human resources systems, and financial management and procurement systems to ensure the completion of major projects.

3.3 Grand Gedeh County Authority

Grand Gedeh County has eight districts, 16 chiefdoms, and 32 clans. Kai Farley was appointed as the new superintendent by the Weah administration.

3.3.1 Scoring results for Grand Gedeh County Authority Table 4: Scoring results table for Grand Gedeh County Authority

Domain Respondents Scores Total Avg Legal Existence .8 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.3 1.6 2.2 2.4 20.3 2 Governance Structure 2.8 2.4 1.8 2.5 3.4 2 1.8 2 2.4 3 24.1 2.4 Leadership Planning and 2.8 2.1 1.8 2.2 3.1 3.4 3 3.2 3.3 1.2 26.1 2.6 Decision Making Human Resource 1.4 3 2 2 2.1 1 .8 1.3 1.2 1.2 16 1.6 Management Coordination and Oversight 2.4 2.5 2.8 1.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.5 24 2.4 Service Delivery 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.7 1.9 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.8 21.2 2.1 Financial Management and 2.5 3.5 2.5 2.2 2.8 3 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.9 27.3 2.7 Internal Control Communication Mechanism 1.4 1.2 2.4 2 2.1 1.7 2.5 1.9 2.1 3.2 20.5 2 with Stakeholders Adequate Resources and 1 .8 1.4 1 1 1.5 1 1.6 1.9 2.1 13.3 1.3 Equipment

Table 4 shows the scoring results for Grand Gedeh County Authority. There were 10 respondents in the assessment.

Figure 3: Scoring Radar for Grand Gedeh County Authority

3.3.2 Scoring Narrative for Grand Gedeh County Authority

Legal Establishment Respondents scored an average of 2 for this domain which indicates that respondents partly agreed that the capacity of county in this domain is developed. According to respondents, the county was established by an Act in August 1964, and the Act is available for reference. Copies were not made available to the assessment team.

Governance Structure The score for this domain was 2.4 or respondents partly agreed that this capacity is developed. Respondents claimed that governance structures include the superintendent, assistant superintendent for development, assistant superintendent for fiscal affairs and county inspector. Other functioning structures are traditional councils and paramount councils.

Leadership, Planning and Decision Making Respondents had an average score of 2.6 in this domain, suggesting that respondents partly agreed the County’s capacity is developed. County leadership follows Central Government prescribed structures which has implications for how County Administration works. Information does not flow from leaders to other level of the structure. Few people at the top have access to information in this centralized system.

The county does not have an operational plan. Even the County Development Agenda that was developed 2008-2012 is not used for development purposes. The County Sitting, which serves as the highest decision-making body in the County, is currently not operational. Delegates to the County Sitting are handpicked by the superintendent and district commissioners which reduces the intended design of representing Grand Gedeh constituents.

Due to road inaccessibility, county leadership does not visit other parts of the county to ascertain how different functions are conducted.

Human Resource Management Respondents had an average score of 1.6 for this domain. This indicates the respondents do not know about the development of HR management of the County. Though the County has a human resource manager, there are no staff recruitment and selection procedures. While there are MIA personnel policies at the national level, these resources are not available in Grand Gedeh. There are no written job descriptions and regular performance reviews do not occur. All human resource tasks are done at the national level, and implementation is carried out at the county level. Many officials and staff do not have clear term of references.

Coordination and Oversights, Internal information System, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Program Modifications Respondents ranked this domain at 2.4, meaning respondents partly agreed that the capacity is developed. According to respondents, all departments have assigned supervisors and working relationships between the County Administration and other county structures is cordial. However, county structures do not share reports with other stakeholders. The structures and County Administration do not meet regularly, though copies of some meeting minutes are available. Staff members learn of changes through meetings, and staff share their feedback with department heads. The County does not have M&E systems in place, though sometimes projects are monitored on an ad-hoc basis.

Service Delivery The score for service delivery is 2.1, showing that respondents partly agreed capacity in service delivery is developed. Though the County has a service center, and there are people responsible for implementation of activities, they do not have an implementation plan to guide the operations. The administrative management team, however, is fully involved with the daily operations of the county.

Financial Management and Internal Control Respondents partly agreed that financial management and internal control is developed with score of 2.7. The county has an account at EcoBank. There are three signatories to this account: superintendent, financial officer, and PMC chairperson. There are no finance SOPs or policies. The county has a finance department with a financial team. All funds received are recorded manually. The three signatories perform check and withdrawal responsibilities. The accounting department does not have financial software.

Communication Mechanisms with Stakeholders Respondents scored this domain at 2, indicating that respondents partly agreed communication mechanisms to stakeholders are developed. Information is shared but mainly top-down. Modes of communication include conversations and phone calls. There are challenges with internet services making email irregular.

Adequate Resources and Equipment Respondents do not know about the availability of adequate resources and equipment as indicated in the score of 1.3. According to respondents, the county has a building but limited space to accommodate all staff. Electricity is available 24-hours, but office equipment such as computers, printers, scanners, and other supplies are insufficient for staff to function effectively.

3.3.3 Findings from FGDs and KIIs with Grand Gedeh County Authority

Strengths and Achievements  Utilization of SDFs for development projects include the purchase of equipment for road maintenance and building commissioners’ offices and clinics;  Large administration building with enough space to host important functions;  Excellent coordination with other agencies and ministries, especially during emergencies;  Use of traditional method to settle community conflicts has been effective;  Use of Palava Hut dispute resolution methodology to handle disputes with Ivory Coast border towns; and  Awareness of the budget law and SDFs, including having youth in Zwedru City present during the last County Sitting.

Capacity Needs  Creating an M&E system with assigned staff;  Creating a financial management and internal control system and SOPs and control with effective accountability;  Providing logistical support for smooth supervision;  Creating a human resource management system and HR department;  Logistical support for county and district commissioners.

Challenges  County administration lacks the funds to meet employee capacity development needs;  Changes with the staff turnover, especially in the wake of new changes in government appointments;  County-level struggles to navigate the internal politics and loyalties between the Executive Branch and the County Caucus;  Properly filing county public documents;  Coordinating the sale of public land;  Hindrance of many development plans by presidential transition process;  Lack the relevant skills and knowledge among government appointees;  Lack of standardized salaries for commissioners, chiefs, and others;  Too many retirement-aged employees and difficulty transitioning to newer, younger staff.

Opportunities  Short and long-term capacity building trainings and scholarships being offered by NGOs, Central Government, and donors for government employees;

 County natural resources, which, if managed properly, can help the county implement most of its development projects;  Investment in Grand Gedeh’s community college and scholarships to county officials who do not have post-high school qualifications or degrees; and  Collaboration with NGOs who serve as bridge to other development opportunities.

Relationships  County relationships with Central Government is top-down, with conflicting command structures;  Information dissemination between Central Government and the County Authority takes the form of directives from Central Government; and  Bureaucratic delays in releasing funding which results in delayed development initiatives.

Recommendations  MIA should develop clear TORs for local staff as many staff do not know their functions and there is an overlap of functions;  Improve salary scheme to encourage young professionals to join public service;  Develop a retirement or pension scheme;  Support the county to negotiate with Central Government to ensure that salaries for commissioners, chiefs and others are standardized in order to reduce demotivation;  Help move retirement aged employees into their next stage of life and recruit new staff; and  Create awareness of the Social Security policy to benefit of local staff.

3.3.4 Conclusion for Grand Gedeh County Authority The findings from the assessment show that Grand Gedeh County Authority has low capacity. The capacity level in all the domains is below three points which means they are either partly developed or weakly developed. Key capacity issues include lack of resources and equipment, weak human resource management, limited knowledge of legal history, weak service delivery, weak coordination and oversight, weak governance structure and limited knowledge of structures, weak leadership and decision making, and weak financial management and internal control mechanisms.

The major capacity needs for the County include development of financial management and internal control systems, setting up financial software such as QuickBooks, development of SOPs, developing support for district commissioners, setting up M&E systems, and the development of human resource management systems and policies.

3.4 Conclusion for County Authorities

The three counties assessed have similar capacity issues. Respondents have problems providing the County’s legal history. While some claimed that the Acts were available, the assessment team could not verify these claims. All three counties have problems with HR management, financial management, and service delivery as a result no strategic plans. This could be attributed, but not limited, to poor governance at both local and national levels.

While the counties have similar capacity issues, Grand Gedeh’s capacity fell below three points on all domains. Bong County had major capacity issues with five domains. Nimba County had major issues with four domains.

The assessment team believes that the capacity gaps with Grand Gedeh as compared to Nimba and Bong could be attributed to many different factors. For example, even though Nimba and Bong expressed some challenges in receiving the SDFs contributed by ArcelorMittal and other concessions, they still benefit and have chances to benefit more than Grand Gedeh. Due to these funds, various stakeholders have been involved in improving county systems to enhance allocation and utilization of funds. Grand Gedeh is also inaccessible during rainy season which runs six months of the year. This may contribute to poor service delivery and other capacity issues due to road inaccessibility.

3.5 Gompa City Corporation

3.5.1 Scoring results for Gompa City Corporation

Table 5: Scoring results table for Gompa City Corporation

Domain Respondents Scores Total Avg Legal Existence 4 3.2 3.6 3.2 3.6 3 2.5 2.4 3.3 2.2 31 3.1 Governance Structure 3 4 3.2 2 4 3.4 4 3.6 3 2.4 32.6 3.3 Leadership Planning and 2.9 2.3 3 4 3 2.5 2.8 3 3 1.9 28.4 2.8 Decision Making Human Resource 1.9 1.2 2 2.4 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.6 2.2 1.3 20.8 2 Management Coordination and Oversight 2.7 2 3.2 2.1 2.6 2.3 3.2 3.3 4 1.4 26.8 2.7 Service Delivery 2.5 0 2.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.7 0.3 17.4 1.7 Financial Management and 3.5 2.5 3.1 3.7 3.1 1 3.5 3.7 0.9 1.4 26.4 2.6 Internal Control Communication Mechanism 4 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 2.8 3 4 4 2.2 34.3 3.4 to Stakeholders Adequate Resources and 3 2 4 2.1 3 2 2 4 2.7 1.1 25.9 2.5 Equipment

Table 5 shows the scoring results for Gompa City Corporation. There were 10 respondents in the assessment with Gompa City.

Figure 4: Scoring Radar for Gompa City Corporation

3.5.2 Scoring Narrative for Gompa City Corporation Legal Existence The legal existence score for Gompa City is 3.1, indicating that respondents mostly agreed that the capacity is developed. According to respondents, an Act of Legislature established the City of Gompa in 1976. According to respondents, a copy of the act is available at the mayor’s office. The mayor was away during the assessment, so this claim could not be verified. During an interview, the mayor shared that the City Act was available, and he had given it to a LEGIT representative.

The key functions of the city according to the act include imposition of a business tax of USD $1.50 dollar annually and carrying out city development programs. The city has nine zones and 28 communities. The geographic limits are Tonglywin (east), St. John River (west), a swamp after Gompa Methodist (north), and Gbopay Town (south). The City has not been able to obtain the required eight miles radius due to district boundary encroachments by Bain Garr District, the District in which Gompa City is located.

Governance Structure Respondents mostly agreed that the governance structure of the City is developed with a score of 3.3. Gompa has a nine-person City Council; two chairpersons, six members, and the mayor who serves as Council secretary. Council members are elected to six-year terms. According to respondents, members of the Council are aware of the City Act but do not have copies and are unfamiliar with the provisions.

Key functions of the City Council, according to respondents include,  Legislating city ordinances;  Planning development programs; and  Advising the mayor.

Leadership, Planning and Decision Making The score for this domain is 2.8 indicating that respondents partly agreed this capacity is developed. The senior city management is the City Council. Respondents shared that a draft city ordinance was developed in December 2017 but is still unsigned and unpublished. The assessment team was unable to access the draft. The mayor insisted the ordinance has been signed and published with a copy in Monrovia. The assessment team observed the situation as a capacity issue demonstrating leadership, coordination, and communication breakdowns.

Decision making on the Council occurs through majority vote. The Council attempts to involve citizens on issues affecting them. Gompa does not have a strategic plan. No development programs have guiding documentation.

Human Resource Management Human resource management scored 2, showing that respondents partly agreed that Gompa’s capacity in this domain is developed. According to respondents, human resources are a challenge for Gompa. There is no staff recruitment procedure and no personnel manual. The current workforce is 16 people; nine employees and seven volunteers. There are no job descriptions. Central Government provides TORs, but they were not available for review. There is no staff performance review system and no training plans.

Coordination and Oversight, Internal Information System, Monitoring and Evaluation, Program Modifications The score for this domain is 2.7, or respondents partly agreed that this capacity is developed. Gompa has three departments with supervisors; administration co-led by the mayor and an administrator, sanitation headed by the senior inspector, and the city police headed by a seconded position from the inspectorate division.

Respondents claimed a strong relationship between the City Council and the administrative team. The administrative team meets quarterly, and the City Council meets monthly. There is a regular meeting with the Council and departments held on a quarterly basis. Minutes were not available for any of these meetings. According to respondents, only the mayor has copies of all documents. There are mechanisms for staff to give feedback to the senior management team; and this is mainly done through meetings.

The city has no M&E systems, therefore no data to be used for program revision.

Service Delivery

Service delivery scored the lowest at 1.7, indicating that respondents do not know whether Gompa has capacity in service delivery. The main activities of the city include coordinating city affairs, inspecting communities to enforce city ordinance, and collecting garbage. The mayor ensures that these services are carried out.

The city does not have an operational plan. There are no plans to guide decisions around program implementation. According to respondents, there are no skills for developing plans. The absence of planning to guide development processes poses threat to potential successes.

Financial Management and Internal Control Respondents scored 2.6 in this domain, meaning they partly agreed that financial management capacity is developed. Gompa has bank accounts with LBDI. There are three signatories on the accounts; the mayor, the administrator, and the City Council chairperson. Any two withdraws must include the mayor.

There is no city financial team. The mayor serves as accountant and manages city finances. In financial transaction, the administrator writes vouchers to the mayor and the mayor signs for withdrawal. There are no finance SOPs.

Respondents also said that aside from an audit conducted on 2014 Ebola funds, the city has never been audited. There is no procurement procedure in place.

Communication Mechanism with Stakeholders The score for this domain was 3.4, indicating that respondents mostly agreed the City capacity in this domain is developed. Communication to the city occurs through the superintendent from Central Government and vice versa. Sometimes, Gompa is part of the County Steering Committee that includes all government agencies, chiefs, and elders. There are cordial relationships between Gompa and county authority and other government agencies. The city only shares reports with the superintendent. Respondents claimed to share information regularly with city dwellers and share best practices with other cities.

Adequate Resources and Equipment Respondents partly agreed that the capacity in this domain is developed with a score of 2.6. Gompa has a dedicated office space, though it is inadequate to accommodate all staff. The city office consists of three small rooms, a conference room, and two bathrooms. Gompa does not have adequate equipment to carry out its functions. Only wheelbarrows are available. Due to unfavorable office conditions, at the staff’s insistence, the assessment team was hosted at a different location.

3.5.3 Findings from FGDs and KIIs with Gompa City Corporation Strengths and Successes The greatest successes for Gompa are the city inspection, cleanliness, peace, ordinances, and taxation. Consistent peace has enabled the city to develop as well as meet some financial

26 obligations. The former mayor was involved into dispute settlements including issues around land and riots over the alleged killing of a motorcyclist. As a result, the city has experienced recent peace. The creation of city streets and replacing weak structures with buildings, as well as the lively and fast-moving nature of the city which citizens and leadership can take pride in, is one of the strengths of the City. There are also good public ordinances, and a map of Gompa City is now available.

Citizens adhere to city ordinances and taxes, and this has enhanced Gompa’s development. The assessment team observed that Gompa is developing faster compared to other cities assessed. This development may be attributed to citizen desire to improve their living standard through the establishing businesses and improving residential areas. The availability road building equipment has also been helpful.

Capacity Needs Immediate capacity needs include uniforms for city police, dump trucks, motorbikes, wheelbarrows, shovels, machetes, rakes, public trash collection containers, rain gear, and other dirt removing equipment. The city also needs improved communication systems, office space and office equipment, human resource management, and financial management systems.

Challenges The key challenge identified was no financial support from Central Government since the city’s creation. Others include:  Difficulties in removing garbage due to lack of equipment;  Lack of funds for staff or technical advisors to help guide city planning;  No direct budget support from county or national government; and  Local Government Act has not passed, a law which would empower cities to take more control over their future

Opportunities Opportunities are skillful manpower available and staff readiness to perform duties. Some employees are trained in various disciplines such as computer literacy and some are experienced administrators. The presence of LEGIT could enhance city capacity. There is cordial relationship between the city and Central Government and this could change political will in favor of the city. There is enough land for development, including eventually building recreational centers and a city hall. Finally, the presence of ArcelorMittal could provide financial support through land concessions.

Relationships There are good working relationships between Gompa and Central Government and other government agencies. However, respondents felt that resources generated by the City and reported to Central Government are not making any significant development impact on the lives of the citizens.

Recommendations  Improve Central Government and stakeholder support;  Include Gompa City Corporation in the national budget;  Provide volunteers and city police a monthly stipend;  Legally establish a city police department for the city;  Create systems for financial and human resource management;  Provide equipment to help clean the city;  Improve office space;  Provide funding to relocate the cemetery from the city center; and  Provide supplies and training materials to the city polices.

3.5.4 Conclusion for Gompa City Corporation

Only three of the nine domains assessed with Gompa City Corporation are mostly developed according to the findings. Major capacity issues with Gompa City include weak service delivery, human resource management, limited office space and office equipment, weak financial management, coordination and oversight, internal information system, and weak leadership and decision making.

The major capacity needs for Gompa are office space and equipment, dirt-moving equipment, human resource management systems, strong leadership and decision making, vehicles and motorbikes, strong resource mobilization, and operational plan development.

3.6 Gbarnga City Corporation

3.6.1 Scoring results for Gbarnga City Corporation Table 6: Scoring results table for Gbarnga City Corporation

Domain Respondents Scores Total Avg Legal Existence 0.8 3.3 3.3 2.3 1 0.8 1.3 2 1.8 1.7 18.3 1.8 Governance Structure 0.8 2 2.6 2.4 1 1.8 2.2 1 3.2 2.4 19.4 1.9 Leadership Planning and Decision 1 2.3 2.9 2.3 0.7 1.1 1.3 0.6 2.2 1.1 15.4 1.5 Making Human Resource Management 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.8 0 0.3 0 0.8 0 5.1 0.5 Coordination and Oversight 0 0.6 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.7 0 0.7 0.2 6.2 0.6 Service Delivery 0 1 4 3.3 0 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.3 12.2 1.2 Financial Management and Internal 0.2 2.9 3.6 2.8 0.8 1.1 2.1 1.1 3.1 1.3 19 1.9 Control Communication Mechanism to 0 1.1 2.5 2.8 0.5 0 1 0.7 1.3 0.1 10 1 Stakeholders Adequate Resources and 0 2.5 3 1.5 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.5 8.2 0.8 Equipment

Table 6 shows the scoring results for Gbarnga City Corporation. There were 10 respondents in the Gbarnga City assessment.

Figure 5: Scoring Radar for Gbarnga City Corporation

3.6.2 Scoring Narrative for Gbarnga City Corporation Legal Existence Knowledge of the Gbarnga’s legal history scored only 1.8, indicating that respondents do not know about the capacity of legal existence of the City. It was agreed that an Act of Legislature established the city, but most have not seen copy of the act. Even though copy of the act is available, it is not easily accessible to staff and the key functions are unknown to them. The City has a draft ordinance and charter, which was shared by the City Council.

Staff and residents of the various communities and zones in the city limits do not know the city and zone boundaries. The eight-square mile radius as prescribed by the act is unclear to all. In the past, the former city comptroller verbally provided information about the city limits. The accuracy of his claims was verified by the group Humanitarian Open Street Map. The City boundaries are unclear to people including some staff involved in the assessment. The City has 19 zones. Gbarnga did not have a mayor at the time of the assessment due to the presidential transition. During the transition, the administrative assistant runs day-to-day activities.

Governance Structure Respondents also responded they do not know about developed capacity in governance structure given as 1.9. According to respondents, the City has a Council, but they do not know whether it’s functional. They claimed that the Council is not working in line with staff. Some said that the City Council only met once, and that the mayor appoints members. Staff do not know all of the Council members, the roles and responsibilities or the term lengths and limits of Council members. Respondents did not have access to city ordinances. Gbarnga

29 has no organogram, and all staff report to the mayor. The mayor would frequently refer staff to the administrative assistant.

Leadership, Planning and Decision Making This domain scored 1.5, indicating respondents do not know if capacity of the City in this domain is developed. According to respondents, the corporation has a city ordinance. The last update mentioned was in 2006, and the assessment team is not aware if the ordinance has been updated since. Respondents suggested copies were available with the former mayor.

The institution does not hold meeting at any levels. According to one respondent, since his employment in 2006, there have been no planning meetings. The corporation does not have a strategic plan. Decision making is not collective. Both staff and citizens are reluctant to share their views. There is no regular meeting for citizen or zonal representatives to discuss issues. Most of the meetings at the corporation are held privately.

Sometimes work is politicized, and staff members on opposing sides are negatively affected. Previously, staff were not free to exercise their political rights. The Gbarnga City Corporation had experienced a series of leadership change over the years. During the leadership of one of the mayors, the employees and the volunteers couldn’t discuss issues against the candidate of the mayor. In a case where an employee or volunteer is not willing to support the candidacy of the Mayor’s candidate, the employee’s or volunteer’s work was threatened. Staff members do not have access to civil service guidelines.

Human Resource Management The score for this domain was 0.5, meaning that respondents did not believe there was existing capacity of the City in HR management. There is no HR policy and recruitment is based on recommendations from senior leadership. The mayor submits candidates to the superintendent for employment by CSA. Many staff members claim they have served as volunteers for many years and are still not on payroll.

Almost all staff are paid at the same level. There is no personnel policy except the CSA personnel manual. Only sections of the CSA manual are available according to the administrative assistant and copies are not available to staff.

Gbarnga City has 18 employees and 38 volunteers. There are few technical staff. The staff expressed divided views regarding which group takes their job more seriously, employees or volunteers. Some employees felt they are already in the system and can invest less in their work. Others felt that employees carried the larger burden as most volunteers preferred to be seen as helpers. Staff morale is low. No action is taken for staff who report to work late. There are no job descriptions, performance reviews, or plans for staff capacity building. Staff are selected for training based on interest. Sometimes individuals who attend trainings are not staff of the institution.

Coordination and Oversight, Internal Information System, Monitoring and Evaluation, Program Modifications The score for this domain was 0.6, indicating respondents see no capacity in this domain. According to respondents, Gbarnga has four departments; administration, inspectorate, police and sanitation. It was suggested that the relationship between the City and the City Council was negative as evidenced by the perceived lack of a functioning Council. There are no mechanisms for staff to give feedback to leadership. The City has no M&E system except the staff workplace attendance log which is not regularly monitored. Communication is cordial between departments but not with administration. There is no mechanism for aggrieved staff to give feedback. The principle mode of communication is verbal and sometimes through citation. Staff are not aware of formal reporting channels. The institution does not have internet service or a website. Staff members cannot perform report writing so reporting is performed verbally. All these deficiencies combined could lead to major conflict.

Service Delivery Gbarnga scored 1.2 on service delivery, also indicating do not know about existing capacity in this domain. One of the City’s strengths is sanitation, street cleaning, and garbage collection. The City does not have a written operational plan to guide activities. Other functions include enforcing the city ordinances.

Financial Management and Internal Control The score for financial management was 1.9, indicating respondents do not know that City has capacity in this domain. According to respondents, Gbarnga has a financial team who cannot provide qualifications or job descriptions. Money collected from the field is reported to the institution but there is no clear expenditure procedure. Senior management receive cash from the finance office without making requisitions or providing supporting documentation after expenditures.

The only financial document available at the institution is the finance ledger. The institution has not been audited. In cases where audits are done, the process is manipulated. The finance department is not using a computerized system or QuickBooks and does not have knowledge of these systems. The institution has two accounts with LBDI and EcoBank with three signatories on the accounts. There are no SOPs. There is no procurement department, and the mayor performs most procurements.

Communication Mechanism with Stakeholders Gbarnga’s score for communication mechanism to stakeholders is 1. This means that respondents do not know that there is capacity in this domain. The relationship between Gbarnga and County Administration is negative because of poor communication. For example, Gbarnga was not part of decisions regarding street paving in the City by the County. Information is only given to city residents during emergencies.

Adequate Resources and Equipment The score for this domain was 0.8 which indicates that respondents do not believe there is capacity in this domain. Though the City has a large facility, there is limited office space. The city does not have equipment such as computers, wheelbarrows, brooms, vehicles and other tools that would allow them to effectively carry out functions.

3.6.3 Findings from FGDs and KIIs with Gbarnga City Corporation Strengths and Successes Findings from the assessment show that the greatest strength of the City lies in the sanitation and the inspectorate departments. These two departments ensure the City is clean and city taxes are collected. Other strengths include naming of streets, in collaboration with Vice President Howard Taylor, city tax collection, and maintenance of streets.

Capacity Needs Gbarnga’s immediate capacity needs are equipment: motorbikes, dump trucks, wheelbarrows, shovels, and machetes. Other needs include placing volunteers on payroll, expanding the office to accommodate more staff, equipping the city police, increasing leadership capacity, creating financial management systems and policies, drafting a capacity building plan, developing procurement system and policies, creating an organogram, training staff in conflict management, developing an operational plan, creating a human resource management system and policies; development of an operational plan, capacity building plan, and M&E system.

Key Challenges  Limited equipment for daily functions;  Constant changes of city mayors thereby reducing efficiency;  Limited office space;  Improper finance management;  No budgetary allotment to the City from the County or Central Government;  Limited trained staff for technical work;  Lack of resources and inability to include volunteers on payroll;  City Council does not meet regularly and members have not been appointed; and  Mismanagement of finances.

Opportunities  Many staff are dedicated to their work despite numerous challenges;  Willingness of the administrative assistant to sacrifice significantly for the institution’s success;  The presence of LEGIT could enhance Gbarnga's capacity;  The large corporation property; and  The presence of concession companies in the County which could provide access to needed income

Relationships The relationship between the City and Central Government is negative. This is because the superintendent’s office does not involve Gbarnga in most decision-making processes. Gbarnga feels largely ignored by other governmental actors. There is no funding for Gbarnga from the national budget.

Recommendations  Include Gbarnga in the national budget;  Include City police and other volunteers in payroll;  Support the city with better equipment for daily functions;  Reduce constant changes of city mayors;  Improve office space for staff and operation;  Provide training in financial management;  Build Gbarnga capacity to manage waste, set up financial management systems, human resource management systems and procurement;  Provide needed equipment;  Build additional structures to include offices for City Council and a conference hall; and  Provide electricity for the corporation.

3.6.4 Conclusion for Gbarnga City Corporation Gbarnga City has low capacity in all domains. The major capacity needs are human resource management, financial management, an operational plan, M&E, and dirt moving equipment.

3.7 Zwedru City Corporation

3.7.1 Scoring results for Zwedru City Corporation Table 7: Scoring results table for Zwedru City Corporation

Domain Respondents Scores Total Av Legal Existence 0.3 2.3 2.1 1.1 2 1 2.5 1.8 3 16.1 1.7 Governance Structure 1 2 1.5 2.6 1.8 1.3 2.1 2 3 17.3 1.9 Leadership Planning and 1 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.8 12.4 1.3 Decision Making Human Resource 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.3 1.6 1 0.3 0 1.9 7.8 0.8 Management Coordination and Oversight 1 0.8 1.3 0.5 1.6 1.2 1 0.5 2 9.9 1.1 Service Delivery 1.7 1.5 1 1.2 2.5 1 0.7 0.7 1.2 11.5 1.2 Financial Management and 2 1.1 0.8 0.5 1.9 2 2.4 0.9 2.7 14.3 1.5 Internal Control Communication Mechanism 1 2.5 0.3 0.8 3 2.6 1.5 0.6 2.6 14.9 1.6 to Stakeholders Adequate Resources and 1 3.5 3 0 2.5 2.5 3.1 4 4 23.6 2.6 Equipment

Table 7 shows the scoring results for Zwedru City Corporation. There were nine respondents in the assessment.

Figure 6: Scoring Radar for Zwedru City Corporation

3.7.2 Scoring Narrative for Zwedru City Corporation Legal Existence Zwedru scored 1.7 on legal history of the city, indicating that respondents do not know if the City has capacity in this domain. Of the nine respondents, six were members of the City Council which is the City’s highest decision-making body. Yet, they could not provide information on the City Corporation Act and have not seen it. They claimed the city was created on 14 May 1972 by President William Tolbert, Jr.

Respondents suggest that due to the suspension of municipal elections, subsequently appointed mayors have not invested time in researching the city’s legal history or kept key documents belonging to the Corporation. As a result, no member of the Corporation has seen a copy of the City’s formation documents. Other City assets such as land and buildings have few proper legal documentation demonstrating the City’s ownership.

Governance Structure The average score for this domain was 1.9. This indicates that respondents do not know if the City capacity in this domain is developed. Participants are aware of a City Council and its roles and responsibilities. The City Council is comprised of nine zonal heads representing the nine city zones for four-year terms. Selection as a zone head grants automatic inclusion as a City Council member. This selection process has direct implication to citizen responsiveness to leadership and vice versa.

Leadership Planning and Decision Making In this domain, the average score was 1.3, indicating respondents do not know if capacity in this domain is developed. They agreed that Zwedru has a management team comprised of department heads. Planning meetings are rarely held. Meetings minutes are occasionally available as the management team does not have a secretary.

Respondents agreed that the city has an ordinance written in 1972. Some members remember that the ordinance was reviewed once even though they could not establish the exact of review, but the final copy was never brought back or implemented. Respondents report they have not seen a strategic plan.

Decisions on the management of city assets is weak. For example, a protected city square and park were leased to a Total gas station. The public and staff outrage was so significant that the case went to court.

Human Resource Management Human resource management was given the lowest score at 0.8 by participants indicating that respondents believed the capacity in this domain is not developed. There are no HR staff and no procedure for recruitment. Often staff have overlapping functions because there are no job descriptions. There are no training plans in place. When training opportunities arise, attendees are selected based on connections. Coordination and Oversight, Internal Information System, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Program Modifications The average score for this domain was 1.1, indicating that respondents do not know if capacity in this domain is developed. Respondents explained that meetings are called only when there are problems. Meeting minutes are not available. Where staff members have grievances, they speak to their department heads. There are no communication channels or M&E system in place.

Service Delivery The average score for service delivery was 1.2 which means respondents do not know if capacity in this domain is developed. Zwedru does not have an operational plan. Sanitation and cleaning is left to private individuals who do not report to the City Council or mayor. The City Council has not developed a service plan to inform constituents and staff.

Financial Management and Internal Control Respondents scored an average of 1.5 which means respondents said they do not know if capacity in this domain is developed The Corporation has an account with EcoBank. The account is not meant for tax collection, service fees, or facility rental fees. It was opened to receive government subsidies to City Council. The account has three signatories and any two may sign; mayor, assistant, and finance officer. A financial management system does not exist and there are no SOPs or procurement policies.

Communication Mechanism with Stakeholders The average score for this domain was 1.6, indicating that respondents do not know the City capacity in this domain. The Corporation does not have established policies or practices either internally or externally.

Adequate Resources and Equipment Participants averaged a score of 2.9, indicating that they partly agreed the City capacity in this domain is developed. Zwedru has a large building which accommodates all staff including the City Council. The corporation built another facility for offices as well. Electricity is available 24 hours a day in Zwedru. However, computers, printers, scanners, trucks for garbage collection, and other equipment are not available.

3.7.3 Findings from FGDs and KIIs with Zwedru City Corporation

Successes and Strengths The strengths and successes of Zwedru City lie in the willingness of citizens to work with the City Corporation to improve the city. Some other successes include:  A properly planned and mapped city with nine zones and nine council members;  A city hall with a theater and a ballroom;  48 acres of land available for cemetery usage;  A recreational center in a prominent location for income generation;  All major streets are paved and passable;  Recent construction underway for a public playground;  Clean city;  Assets which generate income through rental fees; and  Adequate taxes and fees collection processes from businesses.

Capacity Needs  Collection and processing of garbage;  Strong leadership and decision making;  Human resource management and TORs for staff; and  Financial management and internal control systems.

Challenges  Too many volunteers not on payroll;  Limited funding to implement projects;  Unqualified staff;  Lack of office materials;  Difficulties with garbage collection; and  Lack of funding from Central Government.

Opportunities  Many potential sources for fundraising;  Committed staff; and  Availability of partners in the county, such as LEGIT; and  Available public land for development.

Relationships There are cordial relationships with other partners such as LEGIT and County Authorities. Recommendations Zwedru should be included in the national budget.

3.7.4 Conclusion for Zwedru City Corporation

The findings show that Zwedru City Corporation has very low capacity in all the domains assessed. Except for adequate resources and equipment, all other domains scored below two points. This means that the City has weakly developed or no capacity in the other domains assessed. Major capacity needs for the city include effective waste management, human resource management, financial management systems, and the development of SOPs.

3.8 Conclusion for City Corporations

Like the counties, all city corporations assessed have similar capacity gaps. The cities have more capacity gaps across the nine domains assessed when compared with counties. Only Gompa City Corporation has three domains that are mostly developed: legal existence, governance structure, and communication mechanisms with stakeholders. Zwedru City Corporation has only one domain, adequate resources and equipment but still struggles on this domain. All domains for Gbarnga City Corporation scored below two points. This means that Gbarnga City has the least capacity as compared to Zwedru and Gompa.

Capacity issues with Gbarnga City Corporation can be partly explained by the fact that mayors in recent years have not been appointed based on relevant qualification and experiences. Additionally, in 2017, there were two mayor turnovers with a gap in between. This affected staff composition and morale and made it difficult to build on achievements and overcome challenges. In Gompa, mayors remained in power for six years before changes were made. Past Gompa mayors had professional experience which contributed to improved leadership and service delivery. The Zwedru City mayor had similar experience compared with the Gompa mayor, bringing a professional background in service provision.

IV. Conclusion

The objective of the assessment was to identify the capacity needs of County Authorities in Bong, Nimba, and Grand Gedeh, and of the City Corporations in Gbarnga, Gompa, and Zwedru. This was done for the purpose of identifying training needs and developing performance improvement roadmaps for the institutions. This objective was achieved based on the results of this report. This report establishes that all institutions have serious capacity needs. These capacity needs cut across almost all counties and cities assessed.

All institutions struggle with weak human resource management, weak financial management and internal control systems, limited office space and equipment, limited logistics and materials for effective operations, few strategic documents and operational plans, and weak governance processes that stall the institution’s operations. Additionally, senior management teams and staff of institutions are not properly informed about the legal history and governance structures of their respective organizations due to the absence of legal documents and organograms at their offices.

While the assessment established that there are cordial relationships between Central Government and most institutions assessed, there are existing opportunities both externally and internally that the institutions could use to enhance their capacity. The overarching challenge for these organizations is the limited resource base for financing their capacity development. Other issues raised include concerns about the inference of legislators in decisions concerning county projects, specifically in Bong County.

V. Recommendations

Based on the findings, the below recommended are made, 1. Outsource institutional capacity building to set up systems and develop policies for human resources, financial management, internal controls, and SOPs; 2. Outsource development of institutional strategic plans, city plans and operation plans; 3. Provide necessary logistics including office space, moving equipment, transportation, computers, and others for effective operations; 4. Establish an archive database for the storage and retrieval of current and historical records; 5. Find resources to increase or establish compensation and allowances for staff at all institutions; and 6. Support institutions to address influences hindering their abilities to provide effective service delivery.

Sources

A. Nimba County Authority 1. Public Financial Management Act, 2009 2. National budget extract-FY 2017/2018 3. Civil Service Standard Orders chapter 4- section 1:4:2:4 4. Public Procurement and Concession Act (n.d)

B. Bong County Authority 5. TOR for Local government administration (n.d)

C. Grand Gedeh County Office 6. County Service Report, September 2018 7. Meeting minutes, County Security Council, July 28, 2017

D. Gbarnga City Corporation 8. An Act to create the City of Gbarnga, County of Bong and to grant it a chapter; approved May 24, 1972; published by Authority Government Printing Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, October 2, 1972

Appendix: Photo gallery

County Assessment, Sanniquellie Gompa City Corporation Assessment

County Assessment, Gbarnga Gbarnga City Corporation Assessment

County Assessment, Zwedru