| 4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
The focus of the Community Action Component was on building cohesion within ten (10) at-risk communities in Regions Four and Six, with the former five (5) being identified based on agreed criteria in the loan and the latter five (5) identified based on eligibility criteria presented in the operational regulations and guidelines.
This Component made provision for community violence prevention services which addressed crime and violence problems in these communities.
The preselected Communities were as follows:
2. Annandale/Lusignan/Good Hope
4. Rosehall Town/Williamsburg
5. Port Mourant
These were followed by:
7. Plaisance/Vryheid’s Lust
9. Angoy’s Avenue (including Smith’s Field, Vryman’s Ern and Mount Sinai
MoHA initially conducted a workshop for prospective communities. The Workshop included an overview of the Citizen Security Programme and Community Action Component; the criteria for community selection, and a presentation on the mobilization and planning requirements and assessment steps needed. Workshop participants had an opportunity to engage in a local violence analysis and planning work session facilitated by the PIU.
Each participating community was represented diverse teams of individuals who served as part of the CAC. Community Action Officer (CAO) candidates were also identified at this stage and were contracted by the PIU for each selected community. CAOs facilitated the project preparation activities related to the CAC, liaised with and served as the local focal point for their communities, and established formal and informal linkages with community- based associations and organizations.
The CAOs and CACs were trained to:
a) help each community articulate and prepare a proposal for a rapid impact projects (up to US$5000 per community); and
b) identify and prepare community violence prevention services proposals from the priority crime and violence problems identified in the needs assessment.
CAOs worked jointly with CACs, PIU and Community Action Specialists and experts to select priority projects.
Following are activities which were conducted during project implementation:
Meetings to sensitize and to distribute ‘Safe Neighbourhood Road Maps’ were held in all ten (10) communities by either the Project Coordinator or the CAS accompanied by the Community Action Assistant (CAA). Prior to the distribution of the Road Maps, the document was first forwarded to the CAC Advisory Board for consideration. Each community had its own specific Road Map which detailed the crime statistics and the indicators for peaceful coexistence in their respective communities. The crime statistics were compiled by the Crime and Social Observatory (CASO) and indicators for peaceful coexistence were achieved by conducting community assessments. Persons invited to the Meetings were the CAOs, the Community Action Councils, Religious Leaders, Private Sector Leaders, Head Teachers, School Teachers, and other Community Members and Leaders. The CAC Advisory Board members were also invited to attend these Meetings.
Newspaper articles were published in two (2) subsequent weeks in October 2012 on the Safe Neighbourhood meetings and the ongoing initiative.
A Community Fair was held on Sunday, August 5, 2012 at the National Stadium Tarmac, Providence, East Coast Demerara. Each community was successful in performing at least one item representing their culture, a social situation, or a sports club in the community.
A Youth Life Skills/Vocational Training Programme was held.
As part of the Rapid Impact Projects (RIPs), a number of Community Centres were refurbished/built and commissioned, including:
i) Sophia’s RIP Commissioning for Equipping of the Cummings Park Multi-Purpose Centre, Section E, and the Community Day Care and Community Centre, Section A; and
ii) Buxton/Friendship’s RIP Commissioning for the Basketball Court (Phase I) and the Fencing and Bridge around the Basketball Court (Phase II), and the Rehabilitation of Buxton Playfield Pavilion.
| 5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
The stakeholders involved in the design and/or implementation of the initiative were as follows:
- Ministry of Home Affairs
- Ministry of Labour/Board of Industrial Training
- Ministry of Human Services and Social Security
- Ministry of Education
- Ministry of Health
- Ministry of Culture, Youth, and Sport
- Citizen Security Programme, Ministry of Home Affairs
- Guyana Police Force
- Community Policing
- Inter-American Development Bank
- Regional Democratic Council – Region VI
- Mon Repos/La Reconnaissance Neighbourhood Democratic Council
- Port Mourant Neighbourhood Democratic Council
- Edinburgh/New Doe Park Neighbourhood Democratic Council
- St. Francis Community Developers, Rose Hall Town & Fyrish
- Plaisance-Goedverwagting-Sparendaam Community Development Associaton
- Ambassadors of Christ Church, Buxton
- Buxton Playfield Management Committee
- Glory Light Tabernacle, Plaisance
- Agricola Restoration Association
- Agricola United Prayer Rally
- Agricola Community Centre Management Committee
- Residents of each Community in which the project was implemented
- Guyana Responsible Parenthood Association
- Guyana Red Cross
- Child Link
- Help & Shelter
| 6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
The total cost of the Citizen Security Programme was estimated to be US$22 million of which the Bank financed US$19.8 million (90% of the total) while the GoG will provided US$ 2.2 million in counterpart financing. The Bank resources financed a combination of consultancy services, materials, equipment, training, infrastructure rehabilitation, financial expenses during execution and unallocated expenditure.
The Community Action Component comprised US$3.4 million out of the aforementioned total investment.
The component will finance for those communities selected technical assistance and equipment and minor rehabilitation in the following areas:
a) Mobilization of communities – Investment of US$620,000
Experts in resident engagement and mobilization were contracted to assist in: (i) development, and implementation of actions for engaging the community; (ii) conducting assessments; and (iii) monitoring project performance.
These experts also trained local voluntary workers to develop Community
Promoters for Citizen Co-existence and to address the shortfall of trained
professionals. Training was also provided on core competencies in violence and crime prevention, community organizing, basic crisis intervention, resident engagement, advocacy, fundraising and evaluation, and how to build local infrastructures of expertise for collective violence prevention activities.
b) Community Violence Prevention Services – Investment of US$2.7 million
The investment financed a menu of prevention activities in the selected communities of Regions IV and VI that addressed crime and violence problems identified in the community assessments such as: (i) factors leading to child abuse, dating violence and delinquency and violent offending and intimate partner violence; (ii) situational crime prevention (such as the creation of safe community spaces, community gardens, exterior lighting, among others.); and (iii) improvement of formal services provided by various sectors (such as health, education, human services, youth and sports and local government, private sector and police). Activities funded targeted individual, relationship, community and societal level contexts.
c) Strengthening community based multi-service centers – Investment of US$ 150,000
These centers were hubs to house community activities within existing, or underused or unused facilities. They were being used to house materials and to serve as a meeting space and coordination site for community and other participants. The Centers were staffed by community residents in partnerships with Ministry of Local Government, hired on a stipend basis. Loan resources also financed computer equipment and a crime and violence prevention library.
| 7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
Five concrete outputs that contributed to the success of the initiative could be seen as follows:
(i) Community Action Councils (CA Councils) were established and functioning in all ten (10) communities for the duration of the project and Community Action Officers (CAOs) were contracted and functioning in all ten (10) communities for the duration of the project;
(ii)The Youth Life Skills/Vocational Training Programme graduated 1,377 youths out of the target of 1,400 youths, which was 98.3% achievement of the target and the Violence Prevention Consultancies (Child Abuse Prevention, Domestic/Intimate Partner Violence Prevention, Youth Violence Prevention, and Personal Development) were functioning in all ten (10) communities until the project end and achieved the socio-cognitive goals that were initiated;
(iii)All thirty (30) Rapid Impact Projects (three per community) were identified and twenty-eight (28) were completed by the project end date and two (2) Multi-Purpose Centres were constructed and were operational;
(iv)Community Engagement Activities were accomplished in nine (9) communities. All of the communities, within their respective Regions, participated in exhibition booths set up at the Berbice Trade & Fair Expo 2011, GuyExpo 2011, Youth Impress Expo 2011, National Road Safety Conference 2011, and Ethnic Relations Commission CultureFest 2011; and
(v)The Media Campaign was ongoing and the Citizen Security Programme (CSP) Guyana Facebook Page has continually been gaining popularity.
| 8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
The Ministry of Home Affairs’ Policy and Research Unit was in charge of monitoring the performance and progress of the programme implementation. Programme monitoring was based on the implementation of annual operating plans.
The monitoring of the program evaluated the extent of the implementation of the agreed chronogram of activities, as well as contractual conditions and indicators included in the Logical Framework.
The monitoring and supervision system entailed the following:
(i) collect and systematize information regarding the progress implementation of activities and availability of funds;
(ii)maintain up to date information regarding the implementation of the Programme’s activities; and
(iii)systematize the information emanating from the different evaluations of programme’s activities.
The Policy and Research Unit received specialized training to take on the responsibility for conducting impact evaluation during the project. Loan resources financed technical assistance for the final design and implementation of the evaluations.
A project launch workshop was held to re-familiarize all parties engaged in program execution with their responsibilities, the program’s goals, the implementation plan, execution procedures and evaluation framework.
During programme implementation, the Project Implementation Unit presented to the IDB semi-annual progress reports summarizing the execution and financial highlights of the period.
A mid-term evaluation review was undertaken after the Crime Observatory was operating for one year; MoHA developed its strategic plan; GPF elaborated a new organizational structure and revised its manual for internal and external accountability; and community assessments were completed.
A mid-term review mission discussed with MoHA the results from the implementation of each component and reviewed the plan of the activities for the surveys that would be conducted in the second part of the project.
A final evaluation comprised of impact evaluations as well as process evaluations. It was financed with project funds and took place after 95% of loan resources were disbursed. The evaluation assessed the implementation of the project and documented outcomes in participating agencies and communities.
In the final assessment the Project Implementation Unit collected, stored and retained all necessary information, indicators and parameters, the mid-term review, and final evaluation, to inform the Bank.
The Project Implementation Unit was responsible for the external financial audit presented to the Bank annual audited financial statements of the programme. The audit costs were financed through the loan.
| 9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
Community Action Councils
During the course of implementation, there was evidence of internal conflict within the CA Councils. The CAS counseled members of the CA Council on how to resolve their conflicts on their own. If a conflict could not be resolved internally, the CAS made request if outside assistance was required. In one such case, the Project Coordinator and the Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission, at the time, met with the CA Council and assisted in the resolution process.
Youth Life Skills/Vocational Training Programme
After the completion of the first batch of the training programme, there was a recorded ten percent (10%) of drop outs. To alleviate this, the CAS responded with a five-step process for youth intake. This process took approximately two (2) months from the first step (interest of the youth) to the fifth step (signing of the Memorandum of Understanding).
The CA Councils informed the youths and parents/guardians of the time frame. During this time both the applicants and the parents/guardians had enough time to contemplate and discuss their commitment to the programme.
There was one situation where the credentials of one Trainer were outstanding. She was a teacher for nearly fifteen years and owned a salon, however, it was learned during the course of training that she lacked the capacity to train ‘at-risk’ youths. After a number of meetings, it was deemed the trainer would need to be replaced. Another Trainer was identified and the Trainees were able to transition well to the new Trainer and training site.
This incident highlighted the need for further screening of Trainers before they were accepted as Trainers in the programme.