ATTACHMENT_J.15_CSP_Results_Framework.pptx

CSP contributes towards the CDCS Goal under DO1:

Improved Capacity of the Public Sector in Providing Transparent, Quality Services across Lebanon DO1b: Number citizens benefiting from USG supported municipalities [PMP] DO1c: Number entities with enhanced abilities as result of USG support [PMP] IR 1.1: Development resources accessed by communities

a) Number of community assets involved in USG assisted activities

b) Number of community members who have participated in the CSP activity cycle IR 2.1: Essential services delivered or improved

a) Number of essential services provided, installed or upgraded

b) Number of people with access to adequate levels of essential services Community Support Program (CSP) Results Framework

IR 1.2: Capacity of local actors to mobilize resources developed

a) Number of activities implemented with participation from local stakeholders

b) Number of people with increased skills

c) Number of institutional adaptations made as a result of learning and training

IR 2.2: Economic opportunities increased

a) Number of jobs impacted as a result of USG assistance

b) Number of people with improved livelihoods IR 2.3: Community cohesion improved *Percentage of beneficiary community members who believe stability has improved RESULT 1: Ability of local actors to mobilize development resources demonstrated

* Percentage of community members who demonstrate increased ability to mobilize resources towards community needs RESULT 2: Community members benefit from local development through collaboration

a) Percentage of people satisfied with their access to essential services provided through USG assistance b\ Number of municipalities supported by the USG with improved public services as perceived by community opinion leaders

THEORY OF CHANGE

Tensions resulting from unmet basic needs and competition over local resources will be reduced or prevented by supporting community stakeholders to collaborate and mobilize resources to achieve priority needs.

CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS

- Syrian refugee crisis continues

- Project-assisted communities not de-stabilized by internal, neighboring or regional tensions

- Community stakeholders willing to accept USG support

- Stakeholders able to manage resources CSP PURPOSE: Priority Needs in Underserved and Vulnerable Communities Met [linkages w/DO1 IRs]

a) Percent increase in citizen satisfaction with public services in USG-assisted municipalities [PMP]

b) Number of citizens benefiting from increased economic opportunities in USG-supported local communities

c) Percentage of citizens who feel that their concerns are well represented by USG-assisted civil society organizations [PMP]

IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH - FULL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (such as USAID Local Systems/5Rs Framework):

Building community resilience, flexible programming, rolling assessment, context analysis, adaptive management, gender integration, vulnerable community members involved, sustainability, activity-linked capacity development

NOTES from 19may2017 meeting – will be in PAD narrative to explain results statements:

LDP Purpose – priority (what criteria? Determined by who? Any development need, what qualifies?) development needs; local communities (selected, specific, what selection criteria?); met needs additional thought also; need to address question of ‘fair’ access – that is, when conditions lend themselves to all community members to access to the development benefit, that this ‘fair’ access occurs – issue around when benefits go to some members vs. others being left out ie tensions ex. Of refugees vs Lebanese etc – however some cases do not lend themselves to full equity across all community members, and when this is the case, does this meet selection criteria??? Issue of unintended consequences or ‘do no harm’ and need for clear framework to guide selection (see local systems framework); need to clarify that development priorities can include both from zero AND improved/enhanced pre-existing development activities; highlight the use of sector menu PLUS sector-specific quality criteria as implementation requirement on case by case

Result 1 – local actors – emphasis on institutional actors - municipalities/other government, CSOs, private sector; mobilize – emphasis on independence from donors and others to lead, becoming self-motivating and independent providers of local community development; resources – beyond financial; proven – of all small community grants/activities under LDP, some sub-set will demonstrate this result successfully. Could also include evidence that local actors accessed resources such as the IMF, and other non-donor resources. Other possibilities would include making demands on other institutions for services (such as WE, Litani River Basin Authority…).

IR 1.1 – resources include capital, software, tools, land etc; accessed – donors, local contributions, etc (see underlined above) IR 2.1 – capacity – strategic planning, development approaches, fundraising, proposal writing, etc; also includes increased learning and knowledge of institutional rights, responsibilities, etc; see LGA

Result 2 – community members – emphasis on individual community members and their engagement in the development activities; working together can be formal or informal along spectrum

IR 2.1 – Essential services – [within the PDP, LGA sectoral approach, and quality criteria] whatever it takes!! add social/recreation to sectoral menu; improved if already existing OR delivered if not previously existing – more available, more efficient, better quality, etc. This should be in keeping with the PDP and LGA sectoral approach; within that approach we do whatever it takes. Making it otherwise risks becoming a wish list for local communities. The project must know the context for achieving sectoral ambitions, and be able to do whatever it takes. An example of this was for the Ablah wastewater treatment plant, which despite Municipal and Ministerial MoUs saying they would cover O&M did not. Eventually, the MOIM was embarrassed into covering the costs (I would include this as ‘whatever it takes.’

IR 2.2 – econ opp – wide reaching - jobs, livelihoods, trade, marketing, infrastructure, training, education, etc; can include remittance-related???

IR 2.3 – community knowledge – beyond knowledge? Rights, responsibilities, duties, resource management, etc. In keeping with service delivery citizens need knowledge of the administrative context they live in, and what might be available to them – what they legally can do, and how they can legally interact with higher levels of government making demands on them through municipal authorities. Some of the maze of regulations and authorities is covered in the LGA.