A CITIZEN REPORT CARD ON THE 19 LOCAL COUNCILS

PARTICIPATORY SERVICE DELIVERY ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF LOCAL COUNCILS IN THE HEALTH AND SANITATION, AGRICULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SECTORS IN SIERRA LEONE A CITIZEN REPORT CARD ON THE 19 LOCAL COUNCILS The National Accountability Group ` funded by Irish Aid (formerly) Development Cooperation of Ireland (DCI) DECEMBER 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION ONE 1. Introduction 1.1 What is the Citizen Report Card? 1.2 Why use a Citizen Report Card? 1.3 Outcomes of the Citizen Report Card 1.4 The Pilot Citizen Report Card on Local s in Sierra Leone 1.4.1 Assessment of the viability of the Citizen Report Card in Sierra Leone 1.5 How the Citizen Report Cards impacts on service improvement 1.6 Possible users of findings in the Citizen s Report Card 1.6 The Report Card as a monitoring tool 1.7 Institutionalizing the Citizen s Report Card within Public Services Agencies 1.8 The Survey Methodology and Approach 1.9 Scope and Coverage of the Pilot Citizen Report Card of the 19 Local s 1.1 Conduct of the survey 1.11 Comments SECTION TWO- THE LOCAL COUNCIL 2. A brief overview of the local councils 2.1 Wards 2.1.1 Amount of ward committee meetings held by councillors 2.1.2 Women s participation in ward committees 2.2 Declaration of Assets 2.3 The Percentage of people paying taxes in the various communities 2.4 Authorities responsible for the collection of taxes in the various councils 2.5 Conduct of council meeting 2.6 Whether council s meetings are well attended by members of their community 2.7 Reasons why members of the community do not attending council meetings 2.8 Development Plans 4 6 8 8 8 9 1 1 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 16 17 19 21 22 23 26 2

2.9 The relationship between the local councils and other stakeholder SECTION THREE- SECTOR FINDINGS 3. Sectors 3.1 Health and Sanitation 3.1.1 Primary Health Care 3.1.2 Health Education 3.1.3 Health Service Delivery 3.1.4 Births and Deaths 3.1.5 Drugs and Medical Supplies 3.1.6 Water Supply and Sanitation 3.2 Agriculture 3.3 Education SECTION FOUR-FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4. Significance of the Participatory Service Delivery Assessment 4.1 Findings and Observations 4.1.1 Local Activities 4.1.2 Health and Sanitation 4.1.3 Agriculture 4.1.4 Education 4.2 Recommendations 4.2.1 Local Activities 4.2.2 Health and Sanitation 4.2.3 Agriculture SECTION FIVE- CONCLUSION 27 29 29 29 29 3 32 37 38 42 51 55 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 63 63 63 65 3

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Percentage of people paying taxes in the various communities Table 2.2: Authorities responsible for the collection of taxes as perceived by councillors Table 2.3: Conduct of council meeting Table 2.4: Reasons for which community members do not attending council s meetings Table 2.5: Development Plan completion, community consultation and community input Table 2.6: Relationship between the local councils and other stakeholders Table 3.1: Time taken to reach a health facility Table 3.2: Types of health education and awareness messages received by members of the Community Table 3.3 Rating of health services Table 3.4: Problems with the delivery of health services Table 3.5: Births registration programmes transparency Table 3.6: Availability of drugs at health facilities Table 3.7: Improvements needed to facilitate the provisions of drugs and medical supplies Table 3.8: Sources of drinking water Table 3.9: Satisfaction of the quality water Table 3.1: Types of toilet facilities available in community Table 3.11: Satisfaction with toilet facilities Table 3.12: Responsibility for collecting garbage Table 3.13: Garbage collection rating Table 3.14: Types of agriculture practiced in the community Table 3.15: Agencies that support agriculture Table 3.16: Problem encountered with agriculture Table 3.17: Perception of the overall agricultural service provision Table 3.18: Presence of primary schools in communities Table 3.19: Provision of free teaching and learning materials to school children Table 3.: Payment of school fees for pupils in classes 1-6 Table 3.21: Payment of other charges for pupils in classes 1-6 Table 3.22: School charges that parents/guardians pay for pupils in classes 1-6 21 22 23 26 27 3 31 32 35 38 39 41 42 42 44 46 48 49 51 51 52 54 55 55 56 56 57 4

Table 3.23: Primary school age children not attending school Table 3.24: Reasons why primary school age children are not attending school Table 3.25: Rating of educational services Table 3.26: Major problems faced by primary schools 57 58 59 59 LIST OF CHARTS Charts 2.1: Reasons for not attending council s meetings Charts 3.1: Ratings of health facilities Charts 3.2: Problems with the delivery of health services Charts 3.3: Drugs regularly available in health facilities Charts 3.4 Degree of satisfaction with the quality of drinking water Charts 3.5 Toilet facilities available Charts 3.6 Degree of satisfaction with toilet facilities Charts 3.7: Ratings of garbage collection 24 33 36 43 45 47 49 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This citizen report card (CRC) is a participatory service delivery assessment of local council activities, health and sanitation, agriculture and education in Sierra Leone. The scope of this study covers all nineteen local councils in the twelve districts of Sierra Leone, and households in the corresponding local council districts. CRCs elicit feedback through sample surveys on aspects of service quality that users know best, and enable public agencies to identify their strengths and weaknesses in their work. Sample Characteristics The entire assessment was conducted in two stages with twenty-nine (29) monitors distributed into the nineteen (19) local councils working consecutively in the field. Each monitor assessed the activities of the local councils he/she is monitoring and thereafter conducted a service delivery assessment of households in their corresponding local council districts, covering three sectors; health and sanitation, agriculture and education. For the exercise, a total sample of one hundred and sixty (16) councillors was selected for the local council questionnaires, and for the service delivery assessment, a total sample of five hundred and twenty three (523) household questionnaires was selected. Local s The results of the survey revealed that 86.63% of councillors claimed to have five (5) or more women on their ward committees, which is in accordance with the 4 Local government Act which stipulates a minimum of five (5) women ward committee members in all local council wards. This is an improvement on the 4.4% for the same number of women on ward committees in the pilot survey. It was also established that ward committee meetings were not held as frequently as they should. Furthermore, 6.29% of councillors claimed not to have declared their assets up till the time that this survey was conducted, which is again in contravention of the 4 Local Government Act, which was a slight improvement in this from the 1.1% for the pilot survey. Moreover, local councils exhibited disparities with regards to the responsibility for the collection of taxes within their constituencies, revealing a lack of transparency and accountability within some of the local council districts. Community participation with regards local council activities and especially revenue collection, were found to be quite weak. Health and Sanitation The survey results indicated that 27.88% of households claimed the non-existence of health facilities within their communities, representing a marginal improvement from the 37.28% in the pilot study, and suggesting that the establishment of more health facilities within the country must be prioritised accordingly by all the local councils. 62.23% of households considered the delivery of existing health services to be fair, whilst 14.81% claimed health service delivery to be poor. Furthermore, results indicated that there is an inadequate supply of drugs and medical supplies within the country. 27.3% of households were not issued with receipts for payments made with regards the registration of births, representing an improvement from the 55.15% from the pilot study, but, again bringing into question the transparency and accountability of the birth registration programme within the country. 18.34% of households rely mainly on streams for their drinking water, which is untreated and poses a serious health risk. This is also an improvement from the corresponding 52.38% from the pilot study. In general 31.22% of households were dissatisfied with the quality of drinking water within their communities (a marginal improvement from the 36.26% in the pilot study). 49.8% of households were dissatisfied with the toilet facilities within their communities, representing a marginal improvement from the 53.66% in the pilot study. With 6

regards garbage collection, households were uncertain about those responsible for garbage collection within their communities, with 37.5% rating garbage collection within their communities as being poor (representing a marginal improvement from the 46.69% in the pilot study). Agriculture The lack of finances was cited as one of the major factors affecting agriculture within the country. 13.93% of households claimed this to be the case. Furthermore, 13.15% of households cited the lack of fertilizer as another major factor affecting agriculture in Sierra Leone. Government and local authorities need to provide more support to farmers in order to complement the efforts made by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Farmers Association/ Agricultural Business Units, which are the main contributors to agricultural support in the country, claiming 34.43% of all agricultural support (according to the households interviewed). It must also be noted that a substantial number of households declined to respond. 53.38% of households perceived the overall agricultural services in the country to be average, whilst 23.98% perceived them to be poor, representing no significant change from the instances in the pilot study. Education The section on education was included for the first time in the full survey, and was not part of the pilot survey. The results of the survey indicated that 7.31% of households claimed that there were no primary schools within their communities, suggesting that the establishment of primary schools in these localities would be a major boost to development within these communities. It was also established that 35% of households claimed that primary children within their communities were not provided with free learning materials, violating government guidelines. Moreover, 19.85% of total households claimed that parents and guardians within their communities are still paying school fees for pupils in classes 1 to 6 (primary school), violating government directives on free primary education. 72.5% of total households claimed that they pay other charges for primary school children within their communities. It was also highlighted that 91.92% of all households claimed that there are still school age children (primary) within their communities that are not attending school. 19.46% of all households interviewed claimed that the provision of educational services in their communities was dissatisfactory. The citizen report card is not an audit. It is intended to provide an impetus for improved monitoring of funds and resources, and the quality of service delivery by the central government and the local councils. 7

SECTION ONE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 What is the Citizen Report Card? The citizen report card (CRC) is a simple but powerful tool to provide public agencies with systematic feedback from users of public services. CRCs elicit feedback through sample surveys on aspects of service quality that users know best, and enable public agencies to identify strengths and weaknesses in their work. CRCs provide an empirical bottom-top assessment of the reach and benefit of pro-poor services. It serves to identify the key constraints that citizens (especially the poor and the undeserved) face in accessing public services, benchmark the quality and adequacy of these services as well as the effectiveness of the staff providing services. These insights help generate recommendations on sector policies, programmes strategy and management of service delivery, to address these constraints and improve service delivery. Citizen Report Cards entail a random sample survey of the users of different public services (utilities), and the aggregation of the users experiences as basis for rating the services. CRCs also help to convert individual problems facing the various programmes into common sectoral issues. It facilitates prioritization of reforms and corrective actions by drawing attention to the worst problems highlighted. CRCs also facilitate cross-fertilization of ideas and approaches by identifying good practices. Citizen Report Cards provide a benchmark on the quality of public services as experienced by the users of these services. Hence, they go beyond the specific problems that individual citizens may face, and place each issue in the perspective of other elements of service design and delivery, as well as a comparison with other services, so that a strategic set of actions can be initiated. Report Cards capture citizens feedback in simple and unambiguous terms by indicating their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. For example, the most basic but clear feedback that a citizen may give about the quality of drinking water supply in Pujehun is total dissatisfaction. To appreciate this feedback, we must relate it to the ratings given to other dimensions by the same person. For example, adequacy of water supply may be rated worse than quality. When we look at these two pieces of information, we can conclude that quality of water supply may be a cause of dissatisfaction, but the priority for corrective action may be on providing adequate water supply. Hence measures of citizens satisfaction across different dimensions of public services constitute the core of Report Card Studies. Citizen Report Cards do not stop with mere measures of satisfaction they go on to enquire into specific aspects of interaction between the service agency and the citizen, and seek to identify issues that emerge in connection with the same. In more simple terms, it suggests that dissatisfaction has causes, which may be related to the quantity of service enjoyed by the citizen (like reliability of water supply, or availability of drugs and medical supplies in government hospitals), the type of difficulty encountered while dealing with the agency to solve service problems (like complaints of water supply breakdown), and hidden costs in making use of the public service (special consultation fees to doctors in a government hospital or investments in filters to purify drinking water ). Therefore we can see that Report Card studies go onto different aspects of performance in interfacing with citizens, to provide indicators of problem areas in public services. 8

Report card studies are not merely a means of collecting feedback on existing situations from citizens. They are also a means of testing out different options that citizens wish to exercise, individually or collectively, to tackle current problems. For example, whether citizens were willing to pay more or be part of citizens bodies made responsible for managing public water sources. Hence, Report Cards are also means for exploring citizens alternatives for improvements in public services. An important aspect of report cards is the credibility they earned. The conclusions in a report card are not opinions of a few persons who think in a particular manner, nor the complaints of a few aggrieved citizens. The methodology involves those who are satisfied as well as the aggrieved- and present methodology makes use of advanced techniques of social science research, for selecting samples, designing questionnaires, conducting interviews, and interpreting results. As a result, the report cards provide reliable and comprehensive representation of citizens feedback. 1.2 Why use a Citizen Report Card? As a Diagnostic tool The Citizen Report Card can provide citizens and governments with qualitative and quantitative information about prevailing standards and gaps in service delivery. It also measures the level of public awareness about citizens right and responsibilities. Thus, the Citizen Report Card Is a powerful tool when the monitoring of services is very weak Provides a comparative picture about the quality of services and Compares feedback across locations/ demographic groups to identify segments where service provision is significantly weak. As an accountability tool The Citizen Report Card reveals areas where the institutions responsible for service provision have not achieved mandated or expected service standards. Findings can be used to identify and demand specific improvements in services. Officials can be stimulated to work towards addressing specific issues As a benchmarking tool The Citizen Report Card, if conducted periodically, can track changes in service quality overtime. Comparison of findings across Citizen Report Cards will reveal improvements or worsening in service delivery. Conduct Citizen Report Cards before and after introducing a new program/policy to measure its impact. To reveal hidden costs Citizen feedback can expose extra costs beyond mandated fees while using public services. The Citizen Report Card, thus Conveys information regarding the proportion of the population who pay bribes (either demanded or freely given) and the size of these payments and Estimates the amount of private resources spent to compensate for poor service provision. Citizen Report Cards are powerful tools when used as part of a local or regional plan to improve services. Institutions undertaking a program to improve services could use Citizen Report Cards to determine whether the changes taking place are necessary and to evaluate the impact of these changes. 9

1.3 Outcomes of the Citizen Report Cards The concept of citizen feedback surveys to assess the performance of public services is relatively new and fast gaining wide acceptance. The responses to Report Cards indicate impact at four levels: Stimulating Reforms Report Card studies clearly brought to light wide range of issues, both quantitative and qualitative that sends strong signals to public service providers. The use of a rating scale permitted the respondents to quantify the extent of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service of an agency, as well as different dimensions of its service. The inter-agency comparison that a report card permits makes possible quantification and rankings, which demand attention in a way that anecdotes do not. Activating Stakeholder Responsiveness Many agencies used the report card findings; as a diagnostic tool to trigger off further studies and internal reforms. These findings help senior leadership to monitor effectiveness of administration across wide areas, in a simple and direct manner, free of technical details. For administrators and planners, it provides insights into aspects of service delivery where greater care, supervision and investment may be required. Raising Public Awareness The report card findings; are always placed in public domain and disseminated widely through the media. Needless to say, specific findings and the novelty of the method used, make it useful and attractive for the media. Since issues of poor public service come up from time to time, then media as well as researchers link it to report card findings, and use the valid and reliable base for raising issues and proposing change. Mobilization of State- Public Partnership Seminars and meetings are an integral part of disseminating Report Card findings, and involve both government officials and representatives of civil society organizations and NGOs. Report Cards gave this critical segment a handy tool to focus on issues of concern and stimulated them to move from anecdotal and subjective issues to facts and figures while requesting public service agencies for specific improvements in priority areas. It also provided these groups with an opportunity to understand the constraint under which service providers function, and explore options for community initiatives for problem solving. In short, the insights derived from CRCs can shed light on the degree to which pro-poor services are reaching the target groups, the extent of gaps in service delivery, and the factors that contribute to any misdirection of resource and services. They help identify issues that constrain the poor from accessing and using the services, like availability, ease of access, quality, reliability and costs. CRCs also help to identify possible ways to improve service delivery by actively seeking suggestions from citizens. Finally, CRC findings help test from the citizens point of view some of the policy conclusions reached in other analytical studies. 1.4 The Citizen Report Card on Local s in Sierra Leone This Citizen Report Card on the 19 Local s in Sierra Leone was an attempt to explore international best practices in public service delivery reform. In this survey, the sector focus was 1

limited to three critical public services (Health and Sanitation, Agriculture and Education) and a separate questionnaire meant for councillors so that they too can give an accurate assessment of their various councils. Though explanatory in nature, this exercise does not only build awareness and capacity of stakeholders, but also offers diagnostic pointers to the concerned government agencies to improve the quality of the service. The project is part of the National Accountability Group (NAG) program on Accountability in Local Government Initiative. It is a way of assessing the various councils considering the amount of resources that has been or will be devolved to them. It is no secret that even though other factors are important in their own respect, and feed into the performance of the councils, service delivery has emerged as the most important indicator. Thus service delivery can be used as a concrete measure of the extent of Local s willingness and ability to effect positive change and development in their communities. With community participation, the s can be responsive to the needs of their constituents and not pursuant of unnecessary projects. This component of the project was implemented in collaboration with Mr. Sonnia-Magba Bu- Buakei Jabbi of the Mathematics Department of Fourah Bay College and Statistics Sierra Leone, and was funded by Irish Aid (formerly called Development Co-operation of Ireland (DCI)). 1.4.1 Assessment of the viability of the Citizen Report Card in Sierra Leone Experience from the Citizen Report Card suggests that the methodology is feasible and effective when the following conditions are in place: Capacity within the community to articulate on collective problems and issues, without fear of retribution Willingness of local government to discuss issues with their various communities, and examine suggestions that fall within their scope of action Interest in the Central Government to use the information generated through the Citizen Report Card for performance management and planning Capacity of local institutions to implement the survey and independent credible institutions to guide the advocacy and follow up actions with communities and government. 1.5 How the Citizen Report Cards impact on Service Improvement WEAK PROCESSES REFORM POOR SERVICE DEMAND REPORT IMPROVEMENT CARDS DISSATISFACTION MOBILISE Findings from the Citizen Report Card can be used to create a comparison across agencies or across geographical locations. This comparison serves as a substitute for the marketplace-pushing poor performers to improve and providing good providers extra support. Findings from a Citizen 11

Report Card carried out at intervals can reveal information regarding changes in service delivery during the period. A C T IV IT IE S T O IM P R O V E S E R V IC E S -A W A R E N E S S A D V O C A C Y P U B L IC A W A R E N E S S O F S E R V IC E R E L A TE D P R O B L E M S D IS S E M IN A T IO N R E F O R M C R C 1.6 Possible Users of findings in the Citizen s Report Card Service Providers- To redesign service delivery processes and respond to the unique needs of various segments of the society. Higher level authorities for bench marking and monitoring the use of public and reallocated resources. Civil Society Organisations for advocacy to strengthen the voice of citizens and increase government responsiveness. Donors- To shape their evaluation process and prioritize capacity building and other forms of support. 1.7 The Report Card as a monitoring tool The National Accountability Group report card on the 19 local councils and sector findings (Health and Sanitation, and Agriculture) is designed to assist Civil Society Organisations to monitor local government performance and its accountability. This report card shows how these councils have performed over time in terms of the dimensions of service that are of concern to the citizens. Findings from this report card will help Civil Society Organisations to mount advocacy campaigns and dialogue with the authorities to improve their quality of governance. When the quality of governance deteriorates, the only alternative left for the Civil Society is to express its voice. Public participation of this kind is a basic function of citizens in a democratic society. It is not enough to be active during elections. What happens between elections is equally important. In this context what we have done can be regarded as the first step towards getting the authorities to listen to citizens voice both, to assess their own performance and shortcomings, and to take remedial action. It is gratifying that a growing number of agency leaders all over the world see report cards as aid to their own efforts to improve public accountability. Sierra Leone like most other countries where nearly 8% of the public expenditure is meant to deliver goods and services to the people, the importance of the report card as a monitoring and advocacy tool cannot be over-emphasized. 12

1.8 Institutionalizing the Citizen s Report Card within Public Service Agencies Knowledge with the Citizen Report Cards offers a number of lessons for service providers and local governments. While part of these lessons relate to how these institutions can respond to citizen initiatives such as Citizens Report Cards, other lessons are on how a number of useful initiatives could come from the authorities even when the demand from communities has not gathered strength. Civil Society through the Citizen Report Card gives service delivery agencies a much needed insight into the throb of the people they serve. Given the complexities in service provision, this feedback provides important value in terms of information that can be used for identifying areas where effectiveness can be improved and measures that can lead to greater cost-efficiency. The information also provides input variations in efficiency across geographical units, so that more attention can be paid to areas where problems seem to be deeper and more frequent. 1.9 The Survey Methodology and Approach Citizen Report Card as a basis for monitoring and assessing public services is a relatively new phenomenon. It has been around in the developed world particularly in the business sector. In developing countries government hardly adopt the approach, the initiative is mostly undertaken by Civil Society Organisations. NAG intends to use this report card not only to create public awareness on the activities of the councils, but also to monitor service delivery under the councils and promote Transparency and Accountability. 1.1 Scope and Coverage of the Citizen Report Card of the 19 Local s The citizen report card on the activities of the 19 local councils and service delivery involved a sample survey of councillors in the 19 local councils and households in the 12 districts and the western area(urban and rural) of the country. NAG s monitors who are stationed in all the councils administered the questionnaires. Two set of questionnaires were produced; one was meant for councillors who were requested to give a clear picture of their council and the other was for residents in the various districts whom the services are provided for. A total sample of one hundred and sixty (16) councillors was selected for the local council questionnaires, and for the service delivery assessment, a total sample of five hundred and twenty three (523) household questionnaires was selected. Three sectors were identified for this survey-health and Sanitation, Agriculture and Education. These sectors were identified based on their strategic importance in providing service to the people and due to the slow pace of the devolution process, where-in some of the other sectors were still unable to implement any aspect of their devolution plan. 1.11 Conduct of the Survey The survey was conducted from the 4 th week of March 6 and ended the 3 rd week in April 6. National Accountability Group was responsible for the entire field operations. The 29 monitors were supervised by a Program Assistant. Data was collected through personal interviews. The completed questionnaires were checked in the field by the monitors, and then screened by the program assistant and consultants for clarity and completeness. 13

Each completed questionnaire was coded and entered into a database using the software package Epi Info and then exported into the statistical package Minitab and Microsoft Excel for further analysis 1.12 Comments The survey stirs up extremely positive response from councillors as well as households. Because the questions were straightforward and simple to comprehend, the respondents were more willing to cooperate. The monitors too had an altogether new experience. The survey has enabled us to deduce some findings which would be very important for the decentralisation process in the country and the service delivery as a whole. 14

SECTION TWO THE LOCAL COUNCIL 2. A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE LOCAL COUNCILS A local council is the main arm of the local government in Sierra Leone. How many local councils are there in Sierra Leone? There are 19 local councils in Sierra Leone. Out of the 19 local councils in the country, 2 are in the Western Area and 17 in the provinces. The 2 councils in the Western Area are; 1. The Freetown City 2. The Western Area Rural. Out of the 17 councils in the provinces, 12 are district councils which are located in the administrative districts of Sierra Leone. They are: 1. Bo 2. Bonthe 3. Moyamba 4. Pujehun 5. Bombali 6. Port Loko 7. Kambia 8. Tonkolili 9. Koinadugu 1. Kenema 11. Kailahun 12. Kono Of the remaining 5, 3 councils are located in the provincial Head Quarter towns. These are; 1. Bo City (Southern Province) 2. Makeni City (Northern Province) 3. Kenema City (Eastern Province) The remaining two are; 1. Bonthe City (Southern Province) 2. Sembehun City (Eastern Province) ** The former Town s have been changed to City s. 2.1 WARDS 15

A ward is the smallest arm of the local government in Sierra Leone. There are 39 wards in Sierra Leone. A ward committee consists of every lor elected from that ward and that ward committee meetings should be open to the public. Composition of a Ward Committee A Ward Committee consists of Every lor elected from that ward The Paramount Chief of the Chiefdom, if the locality has a system of chieftaincy and No more than ten other persons, at least five of them women, residing in that ward and elected by the ward residents in a public meeting 2.1.1 Amount of ward committee meetings held by councillors 16.67% of the councillors in the Bo claimed that they have held up to 7 ward committee meetings; also another 16.67% claimed they have held 8 meetings, whilst 16.67% of the councillors claimed they have held 9 meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held 1 meetings and a further 33.33% claimed they have held more than 11 meetings. 16.67% of the councillors in Bo City claimed they have held 5 ward committee meetings, whilst 83.33% claimed to have held 6 meetings. 16.67% of the councillors in the Bombali claimed that they have held 1 ward committee meeting; also another 33.33% of the councillors claimed they have held 4 meetings, 16.67% of the councillors claimed they have held 6 meetings, whilst 16.67% claimed to have held more than 11 meetings. 16.67% of the councillors declined to respond. 33.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Bonthe claimed that they have held 4 ward committee meetings, 33.33% of the councillors claimed they have held 5 ward committee meetings, 16.67% of the councillors claimed that they held 6 ward committee meetings, whilst 16.67% claimed to have held 1 ward committee meetings. 33.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Bonthe City claimed that they have held up to 9 ward committee meetings; whilst 66.67% claimed that they have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 33.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Freetown City claimed that they have held 3 ward committee meetings; also another 16.67% claimed that they have held 1 ward committee meetings, whilst 5% claimed that they have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 1% of the councillors interviewed in the Kailahun claimed to have held 3 ward committee meetings, another 3% claimed to have held 1 ward committee meetings, and 6% claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 25% of the councillors interviewed in the Kambia claimed to have held 3 ward committee meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held 4 ward committee meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held 5 ward committee meetings, 8.33% claimed to have held 6 ward committee meetings, 8.33% claimed to have held 8 meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 8.33% declined to respond. 33.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Kenema claimed to have held 9 ward committee meetings, whilst 66.67% claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 16.67% of the councillors in the Kenema City claimed to have held 3 ward committee meetings, 5% of the councillors claimed they have held 4 ward committee meetings, whilst 33.33% of the councillors claimed to have held 5 ward committee meetings. 16

16.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Koidu New Sembehun City claimed to have held 4 ward committee meetings, 16.67% claimed they have held 6 ward committee meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held 8 ward committee meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held 9 ward committee meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held 1 ward committee meetings, whilst 16.67% claimed to have held 11 ward committee meetings. 8.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Koinadugu claimed to have held 5 ward committee meeting, 25% claimed to have held 6 ward committee meetings, 33.3% claimed to have held 8 ward committee meetings, 8.33% claimed to have held 1 meetings, whilst 16.67% claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 8.33% declined to respond. 1 % of the councillors interviewed in the Kono claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. % of the councillors interviewed in the Makeni City claimed to have held 5 ward committee meetings, % claimed to have held 6 ward committee meetings, % claimed to have held 8 ward committee meetings, whilst % of the councillors claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 8.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Moyamba claimed to have held 4 ward committee meetings, 41.67% claimed to have held 5 ward committee meetings, 25% claimed to have held 6 ward committee meetings, 8.33% claimed to have held 8 ward committee meetings, whilst 8.33% claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 8.33% declined to respond. 16.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Port Loko claimed to have held 1 ward committee meeting, 25% claimed to have held 2 meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held 3 ward committee meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held 4 ward committee meetings, 16.67% claimed to have held 6 ward committee meetings, whilst 8.33% claimed to have held 1 ward committee meetings. 8.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Pujehun claimed to have held 3 ward committee meetings, 25% claimed to have held 4 ward committee meetings, 25% claimed to held 6 ward committee meetings, 8.33% claimed to have held 7 ward committee meetings, 8.33% claimed to have held 8 meetings, 8.33% claimed to have held 9 meetings, 8.33 % claimed to have held 1 meetings, whilst 8.33% claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. % of the councillors interviewed in the Tonkolili claimed to have held 6 ward committee meetings, 1% claimed to have held 7 ward committee meetings, % claimed to have held 8 ward committee meetings, 1% claimed to have held 9 meetings, whilst % claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 7.14% of the councillors interviewed in the Western Area Rural claimed to have held 1 ward committee meeting, 42.86% claimed to have held 3 ward committee meetings, another 14.29% claimed to have held 4 ward committee meetings, 7.14% claimed to have held 5 ward committee meetings, whilst 14.29% claimed to have held 6 ward committee meetings. 14.29% declined to respond. 2.52% of all the councillors interviewed claimed to have held one ward committee meeting, 1.89% of the councillors claimed to have held 2 ward committee meetings, another 1.6% claimed to have held 3 ward committee meetings, 11.32% claimed to have held 4 ward committee meetings, 9.43% claimed to have held 5 ward committee meetings, 15.72% claimed to have held 6 ward committee meetings, 1.89% claimed to have held 7 ward committee meetings, 7.55% claimed to have held 8 ward committee meetings, 5.3% claimed to have held 9 ward committee meetings, 6.29% claimed to have held 1 ward committee meetings, and 24.53% claimed to have held more than 11 ward committee meetings. 3.77% of the councillors declined to respond. 17

2.1.2 Women participation in ward committees The Local Government Act 4 is the only legal document to date in Sierra Leone that has a quota share for women. lors were interviewed to solicit responses in order to determine whether they have abided by the Act. 16.67% of councillors interviewed in the Bo claimed to have 4 women ward committee members, whilst 83.33% claimed to have 5 women ward committee members. All the councillors interviewed in Bo City claimed to have included 5 women in their ward committees. All the councillors interviewed in the Bombali claimed to have included 5 women ward committee members. All the councillors interviewed in Bonthe claimed to have included 5 women in their ward committees. 16.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Bonthe City claimed to have included 4 women ward committee members, whilst 83.33% claimed to have included 5 women ward committee members. All the councillors interviewed in the Freetown City claimed to have 5 women ward committee members. 1% of the councillors interviewed in the Kailahun claimed to have 3 women ward committee members, 1% claimed to have 4 women ward committee members, whilst 7% claimed to have 5 women ward committee members. 1% declined to respond. 8.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Kambia claimed to have 1 woman in their ward committees, 8.33% claimed to have 2 women ward committee members, 16.67% claimed to have 3 women ward committee members, 8.33% claimed to have 4 women ward committee members, whilst 5% claimed to have 5 women ward committee members. 8.33% declined to respond. All the councillors interviewed in the Kenema claimed to have 5 women in their ward committees. All the councillors interviewed in the Kenema City claimed to have 5 women in their ward committees. All the councillors interviewed in the Koidu New Sembehum City claimed to have 5 women in their ward committees. 16.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Koinadugu claimed to have 4 women ward committees member, and 75% claimed to have included 5 women in their ward committees. 8.33% declined to respond. All the councillors interviewed in the Kono claimed to have 5 women in their ward committees. All the councillors interviewed in the Makeni City claimed to have 5 women in their ward committees. 91.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Moyamba claimed to have included 5 women in their ward committees. 8.33% declined to respond. 33.33% the councillors interviewed in the Port Loko claimed to have 3 women in their ward committees, 8.33% claimed to have 4 women ward committee members, whilst 58.33% claimed to have 5 women in their ward committees. 91.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Pujehun claimed to have 5 women in their ward committees, whilst 8.33% claimed to have 6 women ward committee members. 18

All the councillors interviewed in the Tonkolili claimed to have 5 women in their ward committees. 7.69% of the councillors interviewed in the Western Area Rural claimed to have 4 women in their ward committees, whilst 92.31% claimed to have included 4 women ward committee members..64% of all the councillors interviewed claimed to have included 1 woman in their ward committee, another.64% claimed to have included 2 women in their ward committee, 4.46% claimed to have included 3 women in their ward committee, 5.1% of all the councillors interviewed claimed to have included 4 women in their ward committee, 85.99% of all the councillors interviewed claimed that they have included 5 women in their ward committee,.64% of all the councillors interviewed claimed to have included 6 women in their ward committee. 2.53% declined to respond. 2.2 Declaration of Assets According to Part XV of the Local Government Act every councillor, appointed or assigned member of staff of each local council shall, not later than 3 days after assuming or leaving office, make a declaration of assets. lors interviewed were asked whether they have abided to the Act. All the councillors interviewed in Bo claimed to have declared their assets. All the councillors interviewed in the Bo City claimed to have declared their assets 66.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Bombali claimed to have declared their assets, whilst 33.33% stated that they have not declared their assets. All the councillors interviewed in the Bonthe claimed to have declared their personal assets. All the councillors interviewed in the Bonthe City claimed to have declared their assets. 5% of the councillors interviewed in the Freetown City claimed to have declared their assets, whilst 5% stated that they have not declared their assets. 9% of the councillors interviewed in the Kailahun claimed to have declared their assets, whilst 1% stated that they have not declared their assets. All the councillors interviewed in the Kambia claimed to have declared their assets. All the councillors interviewed in the Kenema claimed to have declared their assets. 66.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Kenema City claimed to have declared their assets, whilst 33.33% stated that they have not declared their assets. All the councillors interviewed in the Koidu New Sembehun City claimed to have declared their assets. All the councillors interviewed in the Koinadugu claimed to have declared their assets. All the councillors interviewed in the Kono claimed to have declared their assets. All the councillors interviewed in the Makeni City claimed to have declared their assets. 83.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Moyamba claimed to have declared their assets, whilst 8.33% stated that they have not declared their assets. 8.33% declined to respond. All the councillors interviewed in the Port Loko claimed to have declared their assets. 19

83.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Pujehun claimed to have declared their assets. 16.67% declined to respond. All the councillors interviewed in the Tonkolili claimed to have declared their assets. 92.86% of the councillors interviewed in the Western Area Rural claimed to have declared their assets, whilst 7.14% stated that they have not declared their assets. 91.82% of all the councillors interviewed reported that they have declared their assets, whilst 6.29% of all councillors interviewed reported that they have not declared their assets. 1.89% of the councillors declined to respond. 2.3 The percentage of people paying taxes in the various communities People pay taxes to fund development initiative in their communities. These initiatives do not only include infrastructure, e.g. water wells, but also the operational costs needed to maintain infrastructure and provide services, e.g. employ nurses to work in a health post. All figures in percentages Almost all Half Less than Half Very few Don t Know Bo 66.67-33.33 - - Bo City 66.67 16.67 16.67 - - Bombali - 33.33 33.33 33.3 - Bonthe 66.67 16.67 16.67 - - Bonthe City 33.33 5 16.67 - - Freetown City 5-33.33-16.67 Kailahun 6 1 1 - Kambia 54.55 9.9 9.9 18.18 9.9 Kenema 16.67-66.67 16.67 - Kenema City - 83.33 16.67 - - Koidu New Sembehun City 66.67 16.67-16.67 - Koinadugu 33.33 33.33 16.67-16.67 Kono 83.33-16.67 - - Makeni City 16.67 16.67 16.67 5 - Moyamba 66.67 33.33 - - - Port Loko 33.33 16.67 16.67 33.33 - Pujehun 83.33 16.67 - - - Tonkolili 3 5 1 1 - Western Area Rural - - 28.57 7.14 64.29 Total 43. 21.38 16.98 1.6 8.18 Table 2.1: Percentage of people paying taxes in the various communities 2.4 Authorities responsible for the collection of taxes in the various councils Revenue collection varies widely between the Local s. This has, to a large extent been responsible for the disputes that have been taking place in some of the councils; between the traditional authorities and the councillors from their various localities. It was against this backdrop that councillors were asked whose responsibility it was for the collection of taxes in there area. All figures in percentages

Local Paramount Chief Section Chief Treasury Clerk Village Headmen Others Don t Know Bo - - - 1 - - - Bo City - 1 - - - - - Bombali - - 33.33 66.67 - - - Bonthe - - - 1 - - - Bonthe City - - 1 - - - - Freetown City 83.33 - - - - 16.67 - Kailahun - - 3 5 - - Kambia - - 54.55 18.18 18.18-9.9 Kenema - 16.67-83.33 - - - Kenema City - 16.67 5 33.33 - - - Koidu New Sembehun 16.67 16.67-5 - 16.67 - City Koinadugu 8.33 25 16.67 5 - - - Kono 16.67-16.67 5-16.67 - Makeni City 33.33 33.33-16.67 16.67 - - Moyamba - 8.33 8.33 83.33 - - - Port Loko 41.67-16.67 25 16.67 - - Pujehun - 16.67 8.33 66.67-8.33 - Tonkolili 1 - - 5 - - Western Area Rural - - - 23.8 7.69-69.23 Total 1.13 1.76 17.9 44.94 8.23 2.53 6.33 Table 2.2: Authorities responsible for the collection of taxes as perceived by councillors 1.13% of all the councillors interviewed reported that their Local is responsible for the collection of taxes in their area, 1.76% reported that Paramount Chiefs are responsible for the collection of taxes in their area, 17.9% reported that Section Chiefs are responsible for the collection of taxes, 44.94% of the total councillors interviewed reported that the Treasury Clerks are responsible for the collection of taxes in their area, 8.23% of the total councillors interviewed reported that Village Headmen are responsible for the collection of taxes in their areas. 2.53% of the total councillors interviewed claimed that other people, different from those mentioned, were responsible for the collection of taxes in their area. 6.33% claimed that they did not know those who were responsible for the collection of taxes in their areas. 2.5 Conduct of council meeting The Local Government Act 4 mandated local councils to hold ordinary meetings at least once a month and notices of the time and place of such meetings should be made public at least one week before each meeting and that such meetings should be open to the public. lors were asked whether council s meetings were open to the public. All figures in percentages Yes No Bo 1 - Bo City 1 - Bombali 1 - Bonthe 1 - Bonthe City 1-21

Freetown City 1 - Kailahun 1 - Kambia 91.67 * - Kenema 1 - Kenema City 1 - Koidu New Sembehun City 1 - Koinadugu 1 - Kono 1 - Makeni City 66.67 33.33 Moyamba 1 - Port Loko 1 - Pujehun 1 - Tonkolili 1 - Western Area Rural 1 - Total 98.13 1.25 Table 2.3: conduct of council meeting (* 8.33% of councillors from Kambia declined to respond) 98.13% of all the councillors interviewed reported that council s meetings are open to the public, whilst 1.25% of the councillors interviewed reported that council s meetings are not open to the public..63% of councillors interviewed declined to respond. 2.6 Whether council s meetings are well attended by members of the community? 16.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Bo claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community, whilst 83.33% stated that council s meetings are not well attended by members of their community. All the councillors interviewed in the Bo City claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community. All the councillors interviewed in the Bombali claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community. All the councillors interviewed in the Bonthe claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community. 16.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Bonthe City claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community, whilst 83.33% stated that council s meetings are not well attended by members of their community. 5% of the councillors interviewed in the Freetown City claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community, whilst, another 5% stated that council s meetings are not well attended by members of their community. % of the councillors interviewed in the Kailahun claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community, whilst 6% stated that council s meetings are not well attended by members of their community. 58.33% of the councillors interviewed in the Kambia claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community, whilst 41.67% stated that council s meetings are not well attended by members of their community. 16.67% of the councillors interviewed in the Kenema claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community, whilst 83.33% stated that council s meetings are not well attended by members of their community. All the councillors interviewed in the Kenema City claimed that council s meetings are well attended by members of their community. 22