CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT (CNA) GOVERNANCE COMMISSION REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

Local Empowerment for Government Inclusion and Transparency (LEGIT)

July 2018

This document was produced for the United States Agency for International Development. It was

prepared by Agency for Economic Development and Empowerment (AEDE) under contract to DAI

Global.

Page 2 of 26

CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

GOVERNANCE COMMISSION

REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

Local Empowerment for Government

Inclusion and Transparency (LEGIT)

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.

Page 3 of 26

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ÆDE Agency for Economic Development and Empowerment

APAT ÆDE Partners Assessment Toolkit

CNA Capacity Needs Assessment

CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement

DAI Development Alternatives, Inc.

FG Focus Group

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GC Governance Commission

GOL Government of Liberia

GRC Governance Reform Commission

HR Human Resource

KI Key Informant

KII Key Informant Interview

LEGIT Local Empowerment for Government Inclusion and

Transparency

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MFDP Ministry of Finance and Development Planning

NASSCORP National Social Security and Welfare Corporation

PIR Performance Improvement Roadmap

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

TNA Training Needs Assessment

Page 4 of 26

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5

Brief Profile of the Governance Commission .......................................................................................... 6

Scope of the Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 7

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Analysis of Performance ....................................................................................................................... 10

Legal Existence .................................................................................................................................... 10

Governance Structure ......................................................................................................................... 11

Financial Resources Management ...................................................................................................... 11

Human Resources ................................................................................................................................ 13

Strategic Leadership and Management .............................................................................................. 15

Internal Information System, Monitoring and Evaluation, Program Modification, Reporting Systems,

and Teamwork ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Communications Mechanisms to Stakeholders .................................................................................. 16

Adequate Resources and Equipment .................................................................................................. 18

Service Delivery to the Counties ......................................................................................................... 18

Capacity Gaps Identified ....................................................................................................................... 19

Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 20

Appendix A: Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 21

Annex B: Persons Interviewed .............................................................................................................. 24

Annex C: Works Cited ........................................................................................................................... 25

Annex D: Organizational Chart .............................................................................................................. 26

Page 5 of 26

Executive Summary The Agency for Economic Development and Empowerment (ÆDE) signed a contract with DAI

in February 2018. DAI is the implementer of the USAID-funded Local Empowerment for

Government Inclusion and Transparency (LEGIT) project. Under their contract, ÆDE

conducted a Capacity and Training Needs Assessment of the Governance Commission (GC).

This assignment included the assessments and developing a Performance Improvement

Roadmap (PIR). Reports were submitted separately. This submission constitutes the CNA

report on the Governance Commission.

ÆDE engaged a team of consultants for data collection from 26 February – 2 March 2018. The

team designed an assessment instrument, ÆDE Partners Assessment Toolkit (APAT), which

stipulated nine capacity areas of focus,

Legal Existence;

Governance Structures;

Financial Resource Management: Accountability, Operational Planning and

Budgeting;

Human Resource Management;

Strategic Leadership and Management;

Strategic Planning, Good Governance, Sustainability and Resource Mobilization;

Internal Information: Monitoring and Evaluation, Program Modification, Reporting

Systems and Teamwork;

Communication Mechanisms to Stakeholders;

Adequate Resources and Equipment, and

Service Delivery to the Counties.

The APAT was administered utilizing Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and Key Informant

Interviews (KII) to collect data.

The assessment outcomes were relatively positive for GC with relatively manageable capacity

gaps. The results show that all departments had high capacity ratings. The capacity issues

identified include several areas for growth and improvement.

GC does not make payments into the Social Security system as prescribed by the

Social Security Law;

GC lacks a remuneration policy;

There is no performance improvement plan for underperforming staff;

There is no mechanism in place for the President to annually assess the

performance of the GC Chairperson;

There is no system in place for gaining community contributions for development

projects;

Page 6 of 26

GC does not approach the private sector for cash or kind contributions for

development projects;

GC does not promote self-sufficiency among its local partners;

GC does not have adequate resources and equipment (vehicles, computers,

photocopiers) to accommodate staff needs;

The location of GC offices almost directly on the ocean causes equipment

corrosion;

GC has not demonstrated the political will to relinquish authority to the counties;

and

GC does not have any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in place.

In five of the nine domains, (Legal Existence, Governance Structure, Financial Management,

Human Resource, and Information Systems), the organization scored exceptionally high. This

is indicative of a governance system conducive to achieving the GC mission. It also indicates

adequate financial, human resource, information systems, and policies in place.

In the other four domains (strategic leadership and management, communications

mechanisms to stakeholders, adequate resources and equipment, and services to the

counties), the organization scored around 60%. These scores show that gaps exist in these

domains but are surmountable. There is a need to build GC capacity in these low-score areas

by developing systems and policies, acquiring adequate resources, and addressing equipment

shortages. It is noteworthy that GC values gender equality to the extent that there is a staff

member whose responsibilities primarily include addressing gender issues.

Predicated upon the findings and responsiveness to this assessment, ÆDE recommends that

this assessment be repeated after a new administrative team has been put in place at GC.

Despite the level of cooperation and participation shown, there was an observed

apprehensiveness during interviews and a sense that ‘no one is really in charge.’

Brief Profile of the Governance Commission After the 2005 elections and seating of the 52 Liberian Legislature, the Governance Reform

Commission was transitioned into the Governance Commission (GC) in August 2007. GC was

given the responsibility to execute the following mandate areas,

Political and Legal Reforms;

Public Sector Reforms;

Civic Education, National Visioning, and Identity;

National Integrity System; and

Monitoring and Evaluation.

Page 7 of 26

GC’s mandate is to support the Government of Liberia in meeting its constitutional

responsibilities and to improve the performance and accountability of governing institutions

for the benefit of the Liberian people. GC is an independent, professional, nonpartisan

agency.

GC is responsible for providing advice on the architecture of governance and devising

appropriate policies and strategies to attain good governance in Liberia. GC champions the

need for effective public institutions and institutional arrangements that effectively and

efficiently deliver services to every Liberian at the national, county, and local levels.1

The role of GC has evolved over the decade and expanded into greater oversight, insight, and

foresight in addressing the growing complexity of government and the need for reform. GC’s

efforts are guided by ‘promoting good governance, by advising, designing, and formulating

appropriate policies and institutional arrangements and frameworks required for achieving

good governance, and promoting integrity at all levels of society and within every public and

private institution.’ 2

The Administrative structure of GC consists of five commissions each headed by a Chairperson

managing one of the below mandate areas,

Public Sector Reform;

Civic Engagement and National Visioning;

Legal and Political Reform and Decentralization;

Monitoring and Evaluation; and

National Integrity.

GC’s flagship program has been the implementation of a decentralized system of governance

in Liberia. As a driver of this process, it is necessary to assess GC’s capacity in order to ensure

that GC can competently advise and direct the decentralization process.

Scope of the Assessment The instrument used in conducting the assessment was the ÆDE Partners Assessment Toolkit

(APAT). The instrument is designed with value-neutral questions that focus on accepted or

standard organizational practices and systems which should place an organization on a

healthy, sustainable track. The instrument was used to measure nine areas of organizational

capacity.

The assessment does not attempt to judge performance quality. Instead, it assesses areas of

weaknesses in organizational capacity domains that can be easily changed through the

adoption of missing systems, policies, procedures or different management practices. The

1 GC Strategic Plan 2013-2016 2 GC Strategic Plan 2013-2016

Page 8 of 26

questions are closed-ended with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. All questions are weighed equally. The

aggregate score of all sections does not give a true picture as the score of individual sections.

A department may be strong in one domain yet require extensive improvement in another.

The use of this instrument provides a baseline in each of the nine domains of GC’s current

organizational capacity. From these findings, ÆDE will work with GC to develop a Capacity

Building Roadmap addressing each area of weakness, i.e., each system or practice that

received a ‘no’ answer on the instrument. The various domains assessed by APAT are in the

table below.

Organizational capacity domains assessed by APAT and their areas of focus

Code Capacity domain Organizational area of focus

1.0 Legal Existence

Evidence of legal administrative and functional

authority over the counties and standard operation

procedures

2.0 Governance Structure Presence of a governance structure that enables the

organization to perform its mandate

3.0

Financial Resource Management:

Accountability, Operational Planning,

Budgeting

Regular use of internal controls, specifically,

3.1.1 Cash receipts

3.1.2 Cash disbursements

3.1.3 Petty cash

3.1.4 Payroll

3.1.5 Grants

3.1.6 Fixed assets

4.0 Human Resources Presence of comprehensive personnel policies, rules

and regulations that are consistently applied

5.0

Strategic Leadership and Management:

Strategic planning, Good Governance,

Sustainability, and Resource

Mobilization

Presence of a strategic plan or organizational strategy

that charts the organization’s course in service of its

mission

6.0

Internal Information System, Monitoring

and Evaluation, Program Modifications,

Reporting Systems and Teamwork

Presence of free-flowing information systems

7.0 Communications Mechanisms to

Stakeholders

Presence of communications mechanism with

stakeholders, including civil-based organizations,

communities, local government, and donors

8.0 Adequate Resources and Equipment Evidence of adequate resources for efficient and

effective running of the organization

9.0 Service Delivery to the Counties

Evidence of formulating and steering the enactment of

county reform programs, providing oversight and

training, soliciting funding, and providing budgetary

support for the implementation of decentralization in

the counties

Page 9 of 26

Methodology Following the signing of the contract, an introductory meeting was convened to inform the

GC of the objective and scope of the assessment.

Awareness Raising. The team first visited the various departments to acquaint the

department heads and staff of the assessment’s objectives and methodology as well as allay

any fears or apprehensions.

Desk Review. The ÆDE team conducted a literature review of GC in collaboration with the

Focal Person, the GC Director of Human Resources, in order to obtain fundamental

information about the organization. During this review, ÆDE accessed documents needed to

provide the necessary insight to GC’s capacity including the Act that established the GC,

organizational structure, function, mission, HR, payroll, fiscal, and other operational

documentation.

Identification of Focus Groups. In consultation with the Focal Person, ÆDE utilized the

foundational information obtained from the desk review to establish five focus groups

representing the organization’s five departments.

Identification of Key Informants. ÆDE worked in consultation with the Focal Person to

identify one key informants from each of the five departments and one from Administration

totaling six key informants.

Completion of Focus Group Discussions (FGD). Members of each focus group were invited to

join a respective FGD. Each FGD occurred for 90 minutes and was recorded with the consent

of participants. The ÆDE team aroused discussions with the FGD members who responded at

will. Whenever clarifications were necessary, follow-up questions were posed to seek

clarification and request documentary evidence were necessary. A total of four FGDs were

conducted.

Completion of Key Informant Interviews (KII). Key informants were informed of their

selection for KIIs and interviews scheduled. The interviews were recorded with the consent

of participants.

Preparation of Report. Following completion of FGDs and KIIs and collection of

questionnaires, data was collated and analyzed. To ensure validity, data obtained from FGDs

was matched against data obtained from KIIs and source documents to ensure corroboration.

Where variances were observed, such discrepancies were reconciled by seeking verification

from source documents, key informants, or follow up interviews. Upon ensuring that data

was valid, reliable and objective, the working draft of the report was prepared.

Page 10 of 26

The draft report was submitted to the key stakeholders at GC for validation. After receiving

feedback from GC on the report in the form of rebuttals, suggestions, and comments, we

incorporated their inputs report and prepared a draft for submission to LEGIT. LEGIT reviewed

the draft report and provided inputs that we also incorporated in a second draft report and

resubmitted it to them.

The report was then forwarded to GC for validation by LEGIT. After providing their feedback

to the report, GC returned it to LEGIT. LEGIT then returned the report bearing inputs from GC

to ÆDE. ÆDE then incorporated the inputs GC submitted to LEGIT into the report, prepared a

final draft, and submitted to LEGIT.

Analysis of Performance Method of Analysis. The APAT was analyzed by taking the total number of points obtained in

each of the nine domains and finding the percentage score. The aggregate score from all nine

areas constitutes the performance in the overall Assessment (See Annex A).

Legal Existence Under this domain, GC scored 67% (2 out of 3 points).

GC was established as an offshoot of the 2003 Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It was

initially called the Governance Reform Commission. A key reason for its formation was

agreement that good governance has been a significant challenge for Liberia.

Chapter 10, Article 89 titled ‘Autonomous Public Commission’ in the 1986 Liberian

Constitution empowers the Legislature to create necessary agencies for effective governance.

It is within this constitutional provision that the National Legislature repealed the

Constitutional Review Committee Act and enacted the Governance Commission Act approved

on 9 October 2007 establishing the Governance Commission as an autonomous public

commission. The mandate of the Commission as outlined in Section 3.2 as outlined in the

Governance Commission Act is to promote good governance by advising, designing, and

formulating appropriate policies and institutional arrangements and frameworks required for

achieving good governance, and promoting integrity at all levels of society and within every

public and private institution.

The Commission has no practice in place to ensure that all GC staff are familiar with its history.

Even though the Act and all documents are accessible to staff, posted on the GC website, and

available in the HR Department, there is no effort made to familiarize staff with its provisions.

It is essential that the GC staff are familiar with the Act and know its mandate, structure,

duties, and other provisions. Familiarity with the Act should be included in staff orientation.

The legal foundation of GC also supports decentralization. In Section 3.2.2 of the GC Act, the

GC is expected to identify and promote understanding and consensus on policies and

Page 11 of 26

programs aimed at strengthening democratic processes, interactions, and institutions that

promote an inclusive, participatory, and just system of governance and decentralization of

development. Despite GC not being an implementing organization, its mandate has a legal

foundation to influence other implementing organizations.

Governance Structure GC has an organizational chart as defined in the Governance Commission Act. This was

confirmed by verifying the current structure against the provisions of the Act. (See Annex D)

This section of the assessment examines the presence of a governance structure that enables

the organization to effectively perform its mandate. GC scored 100% (6 out of 6 points). The

GC adheres to its founding Act outlining five commissioners serving five-year terms. One

commissioner serves as Chairperson. Commissioners may be reappointed for one additional

five-year term. The President nominates, and with advice and consent of the Senate, appoints

and commissions members of the Commission, including its Chairperson and Vice

Chairperson, as stipulated by the GC Act.

According to the Act, the Chairperson is the head of the Commission and responsible for the

administrative operations of the Commission. They serve as the official spokesman for the

Commission, preside over all meetings of the Commission, and represent the Commission at

conferences. The day-to-day operations of the Commission is carried out by an Executive

Director who is nominated by the Commission and approved by the President.

A quorum consists of any three commissioners including the Chairperson. According to

information obtained from the assessment, the tenure of three of the five commissioners has

expired. This has created a bottleneck for decision-making since the two commissioners

whose tenures have not expired do not constitute a quorum. According to interviews, it is

essential that appointment be made to end the current stalemate. A system must be put in

place to avoid the reoccurrence of this situation.

GC does not have any SOPs in place. Staff interviewed see the value of having SOPs. However,

they recounted numerous incidence where the Executive Director issued directives to

develop SOPs, with no results.

Financial Resources Management This capacity area denotes regular use of internal controls with cash receipts, cash

disbursements, petty cash, payroll, grants, and fixed assets. GC scored 97% (36 out of 37

points). The capacity gap lies in payroll. GC does not make Social Security payments according

to Social Security Law requirements. GC must ensure that staff are included in Social Security

by making legally required payments. A system should be put in place to ensure that Social

Security deductions are withheld from GC staff, matched, and remitted to the Liberia National

Page 12 of 26

Social Security and Welfare Corporation (NASSCORP). Staff expressed apprehension that

upon retirement, there will be no provision for their retirement benefits.

Cash Receipts. There is a system in place to ensure that cash is promptly recorded as received.

This was confirmed by observing the date on checks and the date they were recorded.

According to respondents, as soon a check is received, it is immediately recorded, even before

a receipt is issued to the payee.

Cash Disbursements. All cash disbursements are made through vouchers. The voucher carries

the originator of the payment, the reason for the payment, and the amount of the payment.

Vouchers are signed by the Comptroller and approved by the Chairperson prior to processing.

The process ensures that all payments are monitored and verified before even making the

check. According to finance staff, payments are made promptly. To ensure this, funds are

identified prior to making commitments for payment. When funds are not available,

commitments for payment do not occur.

Petty Cash. Petty cash is disbursed through a petty cash voucher system. The payee obtains

a pro forma invoice for items to be purchased, prepares a petty cash voucher indicating the

amount needed and the item to be purchased, attaches the invoice, and submits to their

supervisor. The Executive Director endorses the petty cash voucher and it is taken to the

finance officer for payment. The cash is disbursed, the recipient purchases the item and

returns the cash invoice to the finance officer. Petty cash is kept in a locked safe.

Payroll. Payroll is usually authorized by the Chairperson. According to HR, authorization is

sought from the Chairperson prior to processing the payroll. Payroll authorization is

predicated on the availability of the cash to cover the entire payroll. Despite this

authorization, the Chairperson or their designate must approve the payroll prior to executing

it. Payroll contains the names of all staff.

Workplace Attendance. Staff attendance is monitored in an attendance log. Staff record

when arriving at work and sign out when they leave. The attendance log is monitored by

security officers at the entry desk.

Grants. All grants are handled by the Grant Officer who promptly records all grants received

and is responsible for monitoring the grant portfolio through QuickBooks. Grant expenditures

are monitored and accounted for through a voucher and receipt system. Balances are noted

through routine bank reconciliations.

Fixed Assets. Fixed assets are registered and logged by the General Services Agency after

procurement. GC maintains an internal log of fixed assets and further codes assets by specific

area of assignment. The procurement section is responsible for maintaining the fixed assets

Page 13 of 26

registry. The maintenance section maintains fixed assets. Routine checks are carried out by

the maintenance staff and records of maintenance are logged. Requests for maintenance of

fixed assets is approved by the Executive Director through a voucher system.

Bank Account. GC maintains an account with the GT Bank. The account bears two signatories,

A and B signatories. Checks are valid only with an A and a B signature. Besides petty cash

payments, all other payments are made by check. Bank statements and processed checks

were available for confirmation.

Ledger. The GC uses a double-entry ledger bookkeeping system. The Director of Finance

inspects the ledger to ensure that it is updated periodically.

Financial Statement and Projections. The Finance Division produces a quarterly financial

statement showing GC’s financial position. This is referred to as a Statement of

Responsibilities. The statement is approved and submitted to the Ministry of Finance,

Development and Planning (MFDP). When necessary, a budget revision occurs.

Cash Disbursements Duties. Financial transactions are fully segregated along departmental

lines. The Finance Department processes the payments. Each department has a focal person

with authorized signatures which are honored by the Finance Department.

Budget Process. The Finance Department coordinates the internal budget process. Each area

prepares its budget and submits it to the Finance Department who compiles it for approval of

the Chairperson and subsequent forwarding to the MFDP. The budget includes an operation

budget and the program budget. The operation budget primarily includes recurring

expenditures while the program budget targets specific programs.

Spending Control. All expenditures must be made within the budget allocations. There is

periodic auditing to ensure that spending is kept within the appropriations. Expenditure

reports are prepared and submitted to the Chairperson quarterly. A standing policy is that all

spending be kept within the funds allocation. Whenever spending exceeds the allotment,

steps are taken to ensure cutbacks to reconcile the overdraft spending.

Procurement. GC has a procurement policy contained in a procurement manual. All

procurement must follow the procedures contained in the procurement policy.

Human Resources This domain assesses the presence of comprehensive personnel policies, rules, and

regulations that are consistently applied. GC scored 93% (25 out of 27).

Page 14 of 26

Personnel Policies and Procedures. The organization has an employee handbook in place. The

handbook contains the following:

a. Staff Orientation Policy;

b. Terms of Employment;

c. Code of Conduct;

d. Disciplinary Policies;

e. Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedures;

f. Employee Termination Policy;

g. Safety and Security Procedures;

h. Performance Evaluation Policy;

i. Compensation Policy; and

j. Employee Benefits Policy.

All systems and policies listed within the Employee Handbook were provided during the

assessment process. During interviews with staff, it was confirmed that GC rigorously

enforces policy provisions contained in the Handbook. To ensure that every employee is

familiar with provisions of the Employee Handbook, each staff is required to sign for and

receive a copy.

Job Descriptions. A detailed job description is prepared for each position and signed by the

supervisor. The incumbent staff is required to read, sign, photocopy, and return the original

to their personnel file. Samples of signed job descriptions were viewed during the assessment

process.

Performance Appraisal and Improvement. As outlined in the Employee Handbook, at the

beginning of a performance year, each staff is required to meet with their supervisor to plot

their performance plan using the job description as the reference document. This document

is the basis upon which the staff will be evaluated at the end of the year. Supervisors should

ensure that all performance standards are specific, measurable, and achievable within time

constraints and flexible.

Performance Improvement Plan. There is no evidence of a performance improvement plan

in place at the GC. There is need to focus performance appraisal on performance

improvement instead of penalizing staff for sub-standard performance. HR is currently

formulating a performance improvement plan that embodies training, counseling, and

rewarding improvements in performance.

Remuneration Policy. GC has no remuneration policy in place. HR provided evidence of

ongoing work on the preparation of a policy.

Page 15 of 26

Personnel Management. The Human Resource Director is responsible for personnel

management in the GC. Among the duties, the HR Director coordinates a grievance

committee that addresses conflict resolution, staff growth, and development.

Strategic Leadership and Management This domain assesses the presence of a strategic plan or organizational strategy that charts

the organization’s course in service of its mission. GC scored 78% (14 out of 18). The gaps

identified are based on responses to the APAT, one in organizational governance and two in

resource leveraging.

Organizational Governance. The performance of the GC Executive Director as well as the

Commissioners should be assessed annually.

Promoting Self-sufficiency Among Its Local Partners. GC is more inclined to solicit funding for

funding its programs in the counties. GC is not a funding organization for the local partners

and does not promote self-sufficiency among them.

Internal Information System, Monitoring and Evaluation, Program Modification,

Reporting Systems, and Teamwork

This domain assesses Internal Information System, Monitoring and Evaluation, Program

Modifications, Reporting Systems and Teamwork. GC scored 100% (13 out of 13). This

indicates that there are free-flowing information systems, monitoring and evaluation,

program modifications, reporting, and effective teamwork systems in place at GC.

Internal Information System. The organization ensures that staff are kept fully informed of

all activities and programs. Regular monthly meetings are held where information is shared,

and staff are briefed on relevant situations. Additionally, meetings are held departmentally

where staff are apprised of progress and status of new programs. There is numerous evidence

of memo exchanges from commissioners to staff and vice versa.

Non-management staff are encouraged to give feedback on all matters including program

implementation, successes, and failures, as well as suggestions to management staff. As

confirmed by staff, sharing of opinions in the form of constructive feedback is a hallmark of

management at the GC.

Monitoring and Evaluation. All programs and projects are monitored beginning with the

planning stage to full implementation. The GC continuously collects baseline data to be used

in project evaluation and design. The organization develops indicators which it uses to

measure progress against success. In its evaluation process, the GC solicits the participation

of stakeholders including individuals, civil society, NGOs, and CBOs.

Page 16 of 26

Program Modification. It is common practice for GC to modify programs based upon M&E

findings. Evidence of this was exhibited during the assessment.

Reporting Systems. The GC prepares mandatory monthly reports, quarterly reports, and

annual reports, copies of which were reviewed during the assessment. Reports are prepared

for each senior staff meeting and disseminated to attendees.

Teamwork. According to staff interviewed, teamwork is paramount at GC. The functions of

the departments are crosscutting making teamwork essential. It is common for staff to join

the efforts of other departments as though it were part of their direct functional areas.

Teamwork is promoted and encouraged.

Communications Mechanisms to Stakeholders This capacity area assesses the presence of communications mechanism to stakeholders,

including CBOs and communities, local government, and donors. GC scored 82% (14 out of

17). In response to APAT, the capacity gaps identified are:

1. Lack of regular collaboration with other NGOs and CBOs in the same sector in

similar operational locations;

2. Lack of collaboration with other NGOs and CBOs across sectors in the same locale;

and

3. Lack of collaboration with the private sector in the same geographic locale.

GC should establish strategic communications networks with NGOs and CBOs as well as the

private sector in the same geographic locales. This could be facilitated through information

sharing, and by promoting mutual planning and operations.

Communications to Stakeholders. This capacity area assesses the presence of

communications mechanisms to stakeholders including CBOs, communities, donors, and

government at the national and county levels. Without such regular communications, it is

impossible to implement the various reform programs that GC has undertaken in the counties

and to solicit the level of funding required from donors. This communication comes in the

form of proposals, reports, information bulletins, and funding requests.

Networking and Coalitions with Strategic Alliances. This capacity area assesses the presence

of communications mechanisms to stakeholders including CBOs, communities, local

government, and donors. GC works with networks in order to enhance its work. Memos,

reports of meeting with partners, and interviews with staff verified the presence of

networking.

Page 17 of 26

Strategic Alliance with GOL. This area assesses the presence of demonstrated effective

management action to modify program strategies based on monitoring and evaluation

findings. GC works with its national line ministries to incorporate their strategies into its work

as appropriate. GC scored 100% (4 out of 4) on the APAT which indicates that GC includes

local level line ministries in its planning, evaluation, and monitoring activities. This was

confirmed in two separate interviews with the former Commissioner for Political and Legal

Reform and Decentralization, Mr. Yarsuo Weh-Dorliae and Mr. Steve Manley, Executive

Director of GC. The annual work plan, strategic plan, and letters inviting local level line

ministries to planning meetings confirm this. Monitoring reports conducted at County Service

Centers confirm the inclusion of local government in planning, monitoring and evaluation

activities. Commissioner Weh-Dorliae confirmed that including local level line ministries and

county-level NGOs and CBOs in monitoring, evaluation and planning activities is important to

GC.3

Collaborative Planning with NGOs and Like-minded Organizations. This area assesses the

evidence of collaborating with other NGOs and like-minded organizations both within and

outside the governance sector in the same geographical areas of operation. Interviews with

GC staff and records of collaborative meetings with CBOs and NGOs provided proof of such

collaborations.

Relationship Leveraging. This capacity area assesses relationship-building with donors. GC

continues to build such relations as evidenced from program reports describing such

relationships and verified from staff interviews. GC seeks international government and

international NGOs to contribute towards its ongoing reform programs, as shown in

documents.

GC maintains open lines of communication with stakeholders through its active website,

newsletters, and brochures. During the program development process, GC conducts

awareness-raising throughout the counties. One of the GC mandate areas is civic

engagement.

3 In the focus group discussion, GC staff frequently reported that they do not interact with local level line

ministries in the counties. However, after comments from LEGIT, two verification KIIs were conducted 2

April 2018 with former Commissioner Yarsuo Weh-Dorliae and Mr. Steve Manley. Both KIIs confirmed that

GC includes local level line ministries in its planning, monitoring and evaluation activities. Likewise, the

interviews confirmed that GC includes appropriate GOL technical staff in the implementation of its

activities and provided letters to the effect as evidence. GC hopes to have strategic alliances with local level

line ministries in the counties once these entities are formed. After receiving the comments from LEGIT,

the report was clarified to say that “local level line ministries” in APAT referred to county branches of sector

ministries instead of autonomous local level county ministries as provided in the Local Government Bill.

With that clarification, staff reverted their response to ‘yes’ that GC includes local level line ministries in its

planning, monitoring and evaluation activities as well as inclusion of appropriate GOL technical staff in its

project implementation.

Page 18 of 26

Advocacy Leveraging. This area assesses the demonstrated will of GC to advocate on behalf

of its constituents on issues affecting them. GC actively participants in these activities. Most

recently, GC advocated for passage of the Local Government Act, the establishment of the

County Service Centers and other reforms. GC also advocates for funding for various

constituency projects.

Adequate Resources and Equipment This domain assesses the availability of adequate resources for running an efficient and

effective organization. GC scored 75% (3 out of 4). The gap identified was inadequate

equipment to accommodate staff needs. There is a shortage of computers and photocopiers.

The current location of GC one block from the ocean results in rapid equipment corrosion and

a high turnover of equipment. Vehicles corrode quickly due to the heavy sea breeze.

Service Delivery to the Counties The presence of a system for formulating and steering county reform programs, providing

oversight and training, fundraising, and providing financial support for the implementation of

decentralization in the counties was assessed. A score of 88% (7 out of 8) was achieved. The

gap in this domain lies in the unwillingness of GC to relinquish political and administrative

authority to the counties. GC’s commitment to decentralization should not be focused from

a central point in Monrovia. The vision a county governance commission should be part of

GC’s decentralization dream. The views on this were twofold. The FGDs viewed this as an

unwillingness of GC to relinquish authority to the counties because the saw GC promoting

decentralization while the organization itself remained operational from Monrovia. On the

other hand, the KIs viewed this as the counties lacking the legal authority and financial

foundation to steer their own reform programs. In conclusion, it was resolved that like other

political and administrative activities that are deconcentrated to the counties, GC functions

be likewise be relinquished to counties with acceptable legal limits. This way, when the legal

framework is provided, the counties will hit the reform platform prepared.

Formulating Reform Programs for Counties. GC administers a robust program for building

county capacity for decentralization. This was confirmed by records of training programs,

surveys, workshops, and county capacity development roadmaps. It is the opinion of GC staff

that only if the counties possess the capacity necessary to handle decentralization can

decentralization be successful. GC has the capacity to drive the decentralization agenda.

Oversight and Monitoring of County Administration. GC provides oversight and monitoring

to the counties on their development agendas, advocating for administrative and political

reforms to promote good and participatory governance. With the advent of the County

Service Centers, GC has continued to monitor this process and advocate on behalf of the

counties to central government.

Page 19 of 26

Budget Support and Solicitation of Development and Operating Funds. GC does not provide

budgetary support to the counties. However, GC solicits funding from various sources for

decentralization programs.

Capacity Gaps Identified Capacity

dimension Capacity domain Capacity gap

Financial

Resources

Management

Payroll GC does not make Social Security payments as

legally required.

Human

Resources

Personnel GC has no remuneration policy in place.

Performance

Appraisal and

improvement

There are no performance improvement plans in

place for underperforming staff.

Strategic

Leadership

Organizational

Governance

There is no mechanism for the President to assess

the performance of the Executive Director annually.

Resources

Leveraging

GC has no system in place for gaining community

contributions to its development projects.

GC does not approach the private sector for cash or

kind contributions to development projects.

Promoting Self-

sufficiency

GC does not promote self-sufficiency among its

local partners.

Adequate

Premises and

Equipment

Equipment

GC does not have adequate vehicles, computers,

and photo copiers, among others, to accommodate

staff activities. Additionally, the office location on

the ocean contributes to corrosion.

Service

Delivery to

the Counties

Possessing the Will

for

Decentralization

GC does not demonstrate the will for its political

and administrative authority roles to be

relinquished to the counties.

Governance

Structure

Standard

Operating

Procedures

GC does not have any SOPs in place.

Page 20 of 26

Conclusion and Recommendations With an aggregate APAT score of 90%, GC has a strong capacity footing. GC has policies,

procedures in place, and adheres to standard operating practices with regards to financial

management, human resource management, strategic planning and management,

communications, M&E, governance and legal structure, and internal information systems. We

recommend that GC undertakes urgent measures to bridge the existing capacity gaps.

Page 21 of 26

Annex A: Summary of Findings

ÆDE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Domain Capacity Areas GC

Score Maximum

Score %

1.0 Legal Existence 1.1 Evidence of legal and functional jurisdiction in the counties

2 3

Subtotal on Legal Existence 2 3 67%

2.0 Governance Structure

2.1 Presence of a Governance Structure enabling the organization to perform its mandate

6 6

Subtotal of Governance Structure 6 6 100%

3.0 Financial Resources Management

3.1 Regular use of cash receipts 17 18

3.2 Presence of a bank account 3 3

3.3 Presence of a system balancing expenses and revenues

2 2

3.4 Evidence of financial statements and projections

4 4

3.5 Presence of cash disbursement duties 1 1

3.6 Presence of a budget process reflecting program and operational priorities

2 2

3.7 Presence of internal controls on spending

1 1

3.8 Presence of internal controls on procurement

2 2

3.9 Separation of procurement and financial duties

1 1

3.10 Organizational head approvals 2 2

Subtotal Financial Management 35 36 97%

4.0 Human Resource 4.1 Presence of comprehensive personnel policies

13 14

4.2 Presence of detailed, accurate, up-to-date, and signed job descriptions

3 3

4.3 Presence of a system for regular staff performance and skills assessment

3 4

4.4 Presence of an equitable system for staff promotion based on merit

1 1

4.5 Presence of a system for conflict resolution

1 1

4.6 Demonstration of supervisory practices that encourages staff participation, learning, growth, and development

3 3

4.7 Presence of a manager who oversees personnel management

1 1

Subtotal Human Resource Management 25 27 93%

5.0 Strategic Leadership and Management

5.1 Presence of a strategic plan or organizational strategy that charts the organization’s course in service of its mission

4 4

Page 22 of 26

5.2 Presence of an active governance structure that contributes to policy setting, strategic direction setting, executive director performance management, fiscal responsibility, and external relationship building

6 7

5.3 Presence of a system for regular staff performance and skills assessment

1 3

5.4 Presence of an organizational practice of promoting self-sufficiency among community partners

1 2

5.5 Presence of a diverse fundraising strategy to ensure financial solvency and sustainability (in support of the implementation of the strategic plan and existing programs)

1 1

5.6 Presence of a management plan for analyzing and planning for staffing needs in relation to strategic direction

1 1

Subtotal Strategic Leadership and Management

14 18 78%

6.0 Information Systems

6.1 Presence of free-flowing information systems

2 2

6.2 Presence of monitoring and evaluation systems

5 5

6.3 Demonstrated action to modify Information systems program strategies based on M&E findings

2 2

6.4 Presence of reporting systems 3 3

6.5 Presence or practice of teamwork 1 1

Subtotal Information Systems 13 13 100%

7.0 Communications Mechanisms to Stakeholders

7.1 Presence of communications mechanisms with stakeholders including CBOs, communities, local government and donors

4 4

7.2 Presence of strategic alliances with CBOs, communities, local government, and donors

1 1

7.3 Demonstrated management action to modify communications program strategies based on M&E findings

5 5

7.4 Evidence of collaborative planning and operations with other NGOs and like-minded organizations in the same operational area

1 3

7.5 Evidence of building relationships with donors

2 2

7.6 Evidence of collaboration with the private sector in the same geographic locale

0 1

Page 23 of 26

7.7 Demonstrated willingness to advocate on behalf of constituents on issues affecting them

1 1

Subtotal Communications Mechanisms to Stakeholders

14 17 82%

8.0 Adequate Resources and Equipment

8.1 Presence of adequate resources for efficiently and effectively running of the organization

3 3

8.2 Evidence of inadequate equipment to undertake its functions

0 1

Subtotal Adequate Resources and Equipment

3 4 60%

9.0 Service Delivery to the Counties

9.1 Evidence of formulating and steering county reform

2 2

9.2 Evidence of building county capacity for decentralization

2 2

9.3 Evidence of oversight and monitoring of county activities

1 1

9.4 Evidence of budget support and fundraising on behalf of counties

1 2

9.5 Evidence of the will for decentralization

0 1

Subtotal Service to the Counties 6 8 75%

TOTAL SCORE 120 133 90%

Page 24 of 26

Annex B: Persons Interviewed Interview Subjects

Respondent Department Gender

M F

Key Informants

Stephen S. Manley Administration M

George W. Cooke Civic Engagement M

Henrique B. Wilson Decentralization M

Othello Gongar National Integrity M

Dusty Wolokollie Public Sector Reform M

Focus Group I

Gedeh M. Doteh Civic Engaging and Visioning F

Tenneh Suah Civic Engaging and Visioning F

Matthew B. Kollie Civic Engaging and Visioning M

McNeil Wilson Civic Engaging and Visioning M

Lewis Marwolo Civic Engaging and Visioning M

Rameses Porte Civic Engaging and Visioning M

Focus Group II

Edwin Tarr Political and Legal Reform and Decentralization M

Diana Moore Political and Legal Reform and Decentralization F

Actebouson Nyema Political and Legal Reform and Decentralization M

Bonor M. Varmah Political and Legal Reform and Decentralization M

Mona Moore Political and Legal Reform and Decentralization F

Netugba Wesseh Political and Legal Reform and Decentralization M

Focus Group III

Monroe N. Outland Public Sector Reform M

Danroy Dixon Public Sector Reform M

Bill O. Togba Public Sector Reform M

Alexander Mulbah Public Sector Reform M

Hawah Howard-Willis Public Sector Reform F

FOCUS GROUP IV

Miama M. Roberts Administration F

Catherine H. Karmo Administration F

Esther Metzger Administration F

Sekou K. Kamara Administration M

Mohammed S. Konneh Administration M

Varney Kromah Administration M

Bernice Weah Administration F

Varney Kemokai Administration M

Edith Deline Administration F

Miama M. Roberts Administration F

Both M F

Total number of staff interviewed 34 22 12

Gender percentage of staff interviewed 65% 35%

Total number of staff 60 43 17

Percentage of total staff interviewed 57% 37% 20%

Page 25 of 26

Annex C: Works Cited 1. Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), 2003

2. An Act of the Legislature to Establish the Governance Commission, 2007

3. Audit Report, 2007/2008

4. Civil Service Standard Orders

5. Constitution of the Republic of Liberia, 1986

6. Draft Integrated Transition Plan

7. GC Commissioners and Staff Directory, 2016

8. Governance Commission. Employee Handbook, April 24, 2014

9. Governance Commission. Strategic Plan, 2013-2016

10. Governance Commission. Human Capacity Building Needs Analysis, 2015

11. Government of Liberia. Draft Local Government Act, 2015

12. National budget Extract, FY2017/2018

13. Personnel files

14. Public Financial Management Act, 2009

15. Public Procurement and Concession Act, 2010

Page 26 of 26

Annex D: Organizational Chart

Office of the Chairman

Commissioner Public Sector Reform

Program Manager

Policy Analyst I & II

Research Assistant

Administrative Assistant

Commissioner Civil Engagement and

National Visioning

Program Manager

Policy Analyst I & 2

Research Assistant

Administrative Assistant

Executive Director/Administrat

ion

Human Resources

Finance

Grant Portfolio Director

Procurement

Communications/IT

Operations Director

Maintenance/Logistics

Chauffeurs

Janitors

Commissioner Decentralization

Program Manager

Policy Analyst I & II

Research Assistant

Administrative Assistant

Commissioner Monitoring &

Evaluation

Program Manager

Policy Analyst I & II

Research Assistant

Administrative Assistant

Commissioner National Integrity

Program Manager

Policy Analyst I & II

Research Assistant

Administrative Assistant

Executive Assistant Internal Audit

Program Assistant