District planning and rural development (DIPRUD)

Although conducted 2 years behind schedule due to poor contractor performance (leading to a corresponding project extension), a Phase I socioeconomic study surveyed wants and needs of the District population, identified constraints to changes, and suggested ways to involve the community in the design and implementation of local development activities. This study lacked specific recommendations, but did lead to Phase II pilot activities including construction and/or provision of equipment for: (1) a community maternal/child health center; (2) a rural health clinic; (3) a blacksmith workshop and cooperative (terminated early); (4) a community center for adult education and skills training (10% completed); (5) an Adinkra dye-making and cloth printing industry; and (6) fishing, poultry producer, and cassava flour producer cooperatives. Activities leading to income generation or other economic benefits succeeded best in maintaining local participation, while activities not immediately beneficial did not receive sustained enthusiasm. Projects benefiting the general population (e.g., the community health center) had to be sustained by outside individuals or groups. The project achieved only marginal success because the District Council existed in name only, with little authority to implement self-initiated programs. An expected decentralized local government act which would have eliminated this constraint was never passed. Until such a law exists, a follow-on project is not recommended. In light of the overextension of staff and capabilities resulting from its assumption of much of the routine procurement and construction responsibility early in the project (due to the inexperience of the organizations participating in the subprojects), USAID/G recommends that Missions not try to implement projects other than as planned and not hesitate to terminate bad projects.