Assessing the Management of Montserrado County Development Funds

University of Liberia
An Assessment of the Management and Use of Montserrado County Development Funds:
A Case Study of Electoral Districts No. 11, Montserrado County 2010—2015
Abraham W. Zuah
BBA
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Financial Management Training Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of
Master in Public Financial Management
August 2015

i
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this Thesis Work was the result of my own original ideas and there
is no part of it has been presented for another Degree in this University or elsewhere.
Candidate’s Name: Abraham W. Zuah
Candidate’s Signature: ________________ Date: ________________________
SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION
We hereby declare that this work was done under our hands in accordance with the rules
and regulations laid down as guides for thesis supervision in partial fulfillments as
requirements for Master of Arts Degree in Public Financial Management.
Supervisor’s Name: Asst. Prof. Francis N. Maweah
Supervisor’s Signature: ____________________ Date: ____________________
Director of MBA Program’s Name: _____________________________________
Director’s signature: _________________________ Date: ____________________
Vice President for Graduate Program: ________________________________________
Vice President’s signature: ________________________ Date: ____________________

ii
DEDICATION
To God be the Glory, and to my family, especially to my Dad Mr. Amos G. Zuah, Sr. and
my dear Mom, Mrs. Martha Q. Zuah. You are the pillars of my success. I would like to
also remember all of my siblings: Anthony, Aaron, Nenkabah, Arlington, David, Isaac,
Marthaline, Sarah, Mercy, Doris and Amos Jr. for their encouragements.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am first and full most grateful to the Almighty God for giving me life and the strength
to carry out such a challenging task. My profound gratitude also goes to my supervisor,
Professor Francis N. Maweah, Director of Regional Planning at the University of Liberia,
for his commitment and dedication to seeing the success of this work through to the end.
My sincere thanks and appreciation goes to the Government of Liberia and the World
Bank for affording me the opportunity to study Public Finance at Master level. Without
the scholarship, my dream of obtaining a master degree would not have been realized.
My sincere appreciation to Director Aagon F. Tingba, now Deputy Minister for
Administration at the Ministry of Education and Sylvia A. Squire, Acting Director of the
Financial Management Training Program (FMTP), who patiently but effectively managed
the program up to my graduation. Let me also recognize and extend gratitude to Madam
Sondah Geepea Wilson and Mr. Maccullay Wleh for all the moral and financial supports.
Mr. Gweh Gaye Tarwo, you extensively reviewed and edited this work. I salute you my
brother. Dr. Edwin B.R. Gbargaye also takes credit for introducing me to research
methods. The skills acquired were of great help to me prof. This acknowledgement is
incomplete without mentioning Atty Lafayette B. Gould, Sr. who served as a resource
person throughout the course of this research on a rather pro bono basis.

iv
ABSTRACT
Local development has become a component of mainstream thinking about increasing
productivity, creating jobs and wealth, building human capacity and improving incomes
at the grass root level. With these objectives, central and local governments in Liberia
have been planning, implementing and financing local development activities in their
various jurisdictions. One of the major sources of funds for local development activities
in the country is the County Development Fund (CDF). The study assessed the
management and use of the CDF in promoting local development in District No. 11. The
research employed qualitative research method and the explanatory research design. The
population of the study was 33,155 which consisted of 33,000 residents of Electoral
District No. 11 and 155 staff of Montserrado County Administration. The purposive
Sampling technique was used to select a sample size of 45 respondents and key
informants. The findings of the research showed that citizens were not involved with the
identification and implementation of CDF projects. The findings also revealed inadequate
budgetary allocation/appropriation, bureaucracies in releasing allotted fund, and lack of
effective monitoring and evaluation as the primary reasons why CDF projects failed or
were abandoned. In light of the findings, the study recommended that the government
increase the CDF to at least 2% of total annual national revenues and adopt a more
equitable allocation method that considers variables such as population, existing level of
development and poverty indices of counties. Other recommendations proffered by the
study were the reduction of bureaucracies associated with releasing allotted CDF funds
and the institution of well supported M&E teams at both county and district levels for the
smooth and effective implementation of CDF projects across the country.

v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 GENDER............................................................................................................... 31
TABLE 2 AGE RANGE ........................................................................................................ 32
TABLE 3: EDUCATIONAL STATUS....................................................................................... 33
TABLE 4: MARITAL STATUS AND GENDER ........................................................................ 34
TABLE 5: CITIZENS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CDF........................................................... 35
TABLE 6: IDENTIFICATION OF CDF PROJECTS IN COMMUNITIES ........................................ 36
TABLE 7: INFORMINGCITIZENS ABOUT CDF PROJECTS ..................................................... 37
TABLE 8: STAGES AT WHICH CITIZENS WERE INFORMED ................................................. 38
TABLE 9: METHODS OF PROJECTS IDENTIFICATION........................................................... 39
TABLE 10: QUALITY OF CDF PROJECTS ............................................................................. 40
TABLE 11: FINANCIAL REPORTS ON THE USAGE OF THE CDF.......................................... 41
TABLE 12: EXECUTINGFINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BANKINGSYSTEM ............ 42
TABLE 13: SELECTION OF PMT MEMBERS ......................................................................... 43
TABLE 14: CAUSES OF FAILURE AND ABANDONMENT OF CDF PROJECTS......................... 44
TABLE 15: METHOD OF PAYING CONTRACTORS................................................................ 45

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION i
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF TABLES v
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 4
1.0 Background to the Study 4
1.1 Statement of Problem 6
1.2 Purpose and Objective of the Study 6
1.3 Research Questions 7
1.4 Significance of the Study 7
1.5 Delimitation of the Study 7
1.6 Limitations of the Study 8
1.7 Definition of Key Terms 8
1.8 Organization of the Study 10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11
2.0 Introduction 11
2.1The Concept of Local Development 11
2.2 Approaches to Local Development 12
2.2.1 Direct Community Support 12

2
2.2.2 Support to Local Government 13
2.2.3 Area-Based Development 14
2.2.4 Decentralized Sector Approach 15
2.3 Financing Local Development: A Global Perspective 16
2.4 .0 Financing Local Development—Continental/Regional Perspective 16
2.4.1 Constituency Development Fund (CDF) of Kenya 16
2.4.1 Legal Framework 17
2.4.2 Other highlights 18
2.4.3 Procedures for CDF operation 18
2.4.4 Implementation and Oversight 20
2.4.2 The District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) of Ghana 21
2.4.3 Formula for the Disbursement of Funds. 21
2.5 Profile of Montserrado County 21
2.6.0 The Legal and Regulatory Framework of the CDF of Liberia 23
2.6.1 Banking Procedures of the CDF 23
2.6.2 Access to the CDF 24
2.6.3 Mandate of the County Council 24
2.6.4 Convening of the County Council 25
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 26
3.0 Introduction 26
3.1 Research Method 26

3
3.2 Research Design 26
3.3 Target Population of the Study 27
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques 27
3.5 Instruments of Data Collection 28
3.6 Data collection Procedures 28
3.7 Data Analysis Procedures 29
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION 30
4.0 Introduction 30
4.1 Presentation of Biographical Data 30
4.2 Presentation of Data Collected from Research Participants 35
4.3 Discussions of the Responses to the Research Questions 46
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50
5.0 Introduction 50
5.1 Summary of the Research 50
5.2 Conclusion 52
5.3 Recommendations 53
BIBLIOGRAPHY 54
APPENDIX A

4
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background to the Study
Over the last decades, central governments around the world are decentralizing fiscal,
Political and administrative responsibilities to lower-level government and private sectors
(Litvack, 1998). The extent to which decentralized development methods such as the
institution of CDFs have impacted development at the grass root level have varied
significantly across countries over the decades and as such research on the use and
management of devolved development funds remains popular and of interest to many
development practioners. The causes of wide variations in the impact of devolved funds
among different countries have been debated extensively from different perspectives by
different group of people in the society.
Broadly, Africa’s failure to achieve development has been characterized by escalating
poverty, unemployment and inequality within and across a majority of African states
(Mbabazi, 2005). The common explanation to this has been said to be the top-down
approach to development that was adopted by most African leaders under the guise of
national unity but in reality, a means of stifling “…opposing views and opposition
politics as power became concentrated in the hands of an increasingly detached elite
organized into single party, military or civilian-military diarchies of various kinds”. The
disenchantment with this centralized approach, following its dismal contribution to
development has since seen the call by donors for a people-centered approach
(decentralization and community driven development) to African development
(F.Nyamanjo, 2005).

5
For more than one and the half century, decision-making on the allocation of national
resources in Liberia has mostly been centralized in Monrovia. The views and aspirations
of the vast majority of the citizenry of Liberia were not captured in the national
development processes except through their lawmakers, who mostly did not spend
vacations in their constituencies (Gbala, 1998). This amounted to marginalization, which
is counted as one of the causes of the Liberian civil war that lasted for a little over 14
years (Gbala, 1998). A recent attempt to decentralization in Liberia has been in the form
of devolution of development funds to counties with an aim of bringing fiscal decision
making down to the county and district levels with the hope of stimulating citizens’
participation in the identification, prioritization, design and implementation of their
preferred development projects. This is based on the assumptions that it will lead to
efficient allocation of resources. However, doubts have been raised as to whether the
CDF has met its stated objectives. The ongoing bickering (regarding the misapplication
of the CDF) between county officials and their constituents on the one hand, and the
emerging disagreement between the Legislative and Executive branches on the other
hand, further affirms this study. Project management committees (PMC) are constituted
at the discretion of the legislative caucuses or with a process heavily influenced by them,
a phenomenon that reflects the lack of local control over development management as
opposed to the intended devolution of decision making power to local people. The use
and management of the CDF by these actors have mostly been politicized, leading to
controversies among or between some of the major actors. The controversies surrounding
the county development funds seem to be undermining the intent of the funds in many
areas.

6
1.1 Statement of Problem
That CDF is an effective and efficient method or mechanism through which people-
centered development could filter to the grass root level is no longer debated (Randa,
1999). Liberia instituted its CDF program in 2007 with the intent of decentralizing
development at community level. Despite the good intention of the CDF Program, the
extent to which it has contributed to a people-centered community development remains
an issue of intense debate across the 15 political subdivisions of the country. For instance,
Project Management Committees are constituted at the will and pleasure of Legislative
Caucuses or a process heavily influenced by them, a phenomenon that reflects the lack of
local control over development management as opposed to the intended devolution of
decision making power to local people. This therefore calls for a systematic assessment
of the structure of the fund and how the fund has been put into use together with its
contribution to development in Liberia, hence the proposed study.
1.2 Purpose and Objective of the Study
The purpose of this study was to assess the management and use of Montserrado County
Development Fund for the period 2010 to 2015 with the overall objective of determining
the Problem associated with the management and use of the fund using Electoral District
No. 11 as a case. The Researcher assessed the problems associated with the CDF of
Montserrado and provided viable recommendations that will help its relevant
stakeholders improve the management and use of the fund to achieve its intended
development objectives.
The specific objectives of the study were:

7
1. To determine the level of citizens involvement in the identification and
implementation of CDF financed projects.
2. Identify the control mechanisms put in place to govern the management and
use of the CDF.
3. Identify the causes of failure and abandonment of projects financed by the
CDF.
1.3 Research Questions
1. What is the level of citizens’ involvement with the identification and
implementation of CDF financed projects?
2. What control mechanisms were put in place to govern the management
and use of the CDF?
3. What causes failure or abandonment of projects financed by the CDF?
1.4 Significance of the Study
This study seeks to uncover issues that undermine the success of the CDF and advance
viable recommendations that could be used by policy makers to improve the management
and use of the CDF. The findings and recommendations of study will lead to
improvement in the management and use of the CDF and how it can contribute to the
overall development of Liberia. It will also serve as reference material for future research
on this subject matter.
1.5 Delimitation of the Study
The study looked at the contribution of the County Development Fund of Montserrado
County to local development for the period 2010 to 2015, with special concentration on
Electoral District 11. The study was delimited to District No. 11 considering time factor,

8
financial constraint, and the obvious human impossibility (even with all the financial
resources) of conducting the study in the whole of Montserrado County within the
timeframe for the study. The study considered the various uses of the Fund, the
institutional and regulatory arrangements for financing development through the Fund
and the challenges faced in using the Fund to finance local development projects.
1.6 Limitations of the Study
The Liberian political and public financial environment is marred by secrecy and
insincerity on the part of many public officials. Corruption has been declared as rampant
and branded vampire in the public sector with many of them being untraceable due to the
lack of historical transactional document trail. The unavailability of relevant documents
and willing state actors posed challenges to the study. Another limitation of this study
was the heavy reliance on secondary sources of data. Additionally, Limited time,
financial resources and possible lack of cooperation from respondents posed some
challenges to the study. Finally, the fact that many of the actors during the time frame
covered by the study were replaced or came in to replace someone posed a constraint
because they may not have provided accurate information as required by the study.
1.7 Definition of Key Terms
County Development Fund (CDF) - a budgetary lump sum amount of US$3m evenly
distributed every fiscal year among Liberia’s 15 political subdivisions called counties. It
was established in 2007 through a public policy statement by President Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf and was overwhelmingly endorsed by the 52nd National Legislature.

9
Project Management Committee (PMC) - is a 3-member technical arm of the County
Council elected once every three years by the Council with the following specific
mandates or functions:
i. To identify and cost projects
ii. To oversee and coordinate implementation of all approved projects
iii. To ensure that transaction documents relating to the spending of the CDFs
are in conformity and compliance with the Public Procurement and
Concession Act and budget implementation
iv. To ensure that the CDFs are spent only on county development activities
Special County Council/Sitting- is an annual conference that brings citizens and major
stakeholders of a particular county together for the allocation of funds from the CDF for
community development in that county.
Project Monitoring Team (PMT) - is team appointed by citizens of a particular
community or an approved project area with the mandates of coordinating the planning of
all activities relating to project (s) for their area and processing documentation to relevant
and concerned entities. The PMT is specifically accountable to the citizens of the project
area.
District Development Council (DDC) comprises of community heads in a particular
electoral district. The primary function of the DDC is to identify and propose community
project (s).

10
District Development Fund (DDF) is an allotment for a given district from the CDF
based on the district development need as may be enshrined in the County Council
Resolution.
1.8 Organization of the Study
The study was divided into five chapters: The first chapter presented a background to the
study and an overview of the CDF. Review of related literature, basically theoretical, was
presented in chapter two. Chapter three provided the methodology, the target population
of the study, the research design and the sample and sampling techniques. The results
were presented and discussed in chapter four. The study closed with chapter five, which
presented the findings of the study and provide the conclusion and policy
recommendations based on the findings/results.

11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.0 Introduction
This chapter looks at a review of relevant data relating to local development financing
and management. Specifically, the chapter talks about the concept of local development
and its approaches. Again, the chapter takes a brief look at global perspectives in terms of
local development financing taking Liberia, Kenya and Ghana as case studies. Under
Liberia, the profile of Montserrado County is highlighted and the CDF is discussed into
details since it forms the fulcrum of the study. The chapter then draws lessons from these
studies for efficient local development financing in Liberia and Africa. The intent is to
give the reader a broader scope and meaning of the subject under study—the CDF of
Liberia.
2.1The Concept of Local Development
The concept of local development has different ways with similar meaning and
implications. Local Development is a bottom-up, integrative, strategically driven,
collaborative, interactive, multi-dimensional, reflective and asset-based process (Murray,
2000). It is also defined as the mobilization of underutilized resources in targeted
localities by local action, often in partnership with regional and central government
departments and agencies, business, trade unions and local community groups, which can
enhance the value of people and place (NIEC, 2000). Moreover, Cassanovo understands
local development as a process in which a local society, maintaining its identity and its
land, generates and strengthens its cultural, social and economic dynamics, and facilitates
the interconnection of each of these sub-systems thus achieving greater intervention and
control between them (Casanova, 2004). Put another way, local development is a method

12
which helps in improving quality of life, supporting or accelerating empowerment of the
local people, developing and/or preserving local assets, overcoming market failures,
strengthening cohesion, and defining and delivering grass-root developments projects.
(Jouen, 2010).
From the forgoing, local development can be defined as a means of achieving grass root
socio-economic, political and environmental development through the mobilization of
local resources, with the support of governmental and non-governmental agencies.
2.2 Approaches to Local Development
Approaches to local development are based on some basic principles promoted by
development paradigms such as sustainable human development, sustainable livelihoods
and local level early recovery. Approaches to local development can be divided into four
broad categories (UNDP, 2007) as described below:
2.2.1 Direct Community Support
This approach is also referred to as community-driven development and thus takes local
communities as local development entry points. This approach is mostly used when
traditional means of service delivery are not successful in responding to the needs of the
poor. Channeling resources to communities empower them to prioritize, decide and act to
support their communal interests. The World Bank is a key proponent of this approach.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has also supported a large number of
community-development projects, for example through its Local Initiative Facility for
Urban Environment or the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Program.

13
The UNDP indicates that this approach can contribute to a more efficient allocation of
resources for local priorities; stronger beneficiary ownership; more transparent and cost-
effective management of resources; and strong social capital and networks. Some of the
shortcomings of this approach include the risk of undermining local government
capacities by focusing on the strengthening of parallel structures, as well as the risks of
„elite capture‟ and weak accountability because the poor may not have the capacities to
participate fully in the process and as a consequence may not benefit from them. Also,
the sustainability of infrastructure is often questionable due to a lack of linkages to local
government budgets to cover costs of maintenance and other recurrent expenditures
(World Bank, 2005).
2.2.2 Support to Local Government
The support to local government approach, which is promoted by United Nations Capital
Development Fund (UNCDF) and UNDP, takes sub-national (e.g. local or regional)
governments as its entry point. It is envisaged that strengthening the capacities of these
bodies to fulfill their mandate has the potential to influence the decentralization process
and to increase the willingness of local governments and deconcentrated sector agencies
to collaborate.
Support tends to be a combination of capacity development for local government and
civil society and community counterparts to formulate local development plans; full or
partial funding for investments in small-scale infrastructure and social services to enable
implementation and show the effectiveness of the approach; and monitoring of the
implementation of the plans to permit downward and upward accountability and the
learning of lessons to improve the planning and budgeting cycle the next time around.

14
Lessons learned during the process are fed back to the national level to support
decentralization and other public sector reforms. The UNCDF has applied this approach
in 20 least developed countries and has benefited between 20-25 million people through
its Local Development Programs. The key features of the approach include:
i. Ownership of funds. So-called “local development fund” resources are “owned”
by local governments and they make the allocation decisions;
ii. Procedures for planning the use of funds. The availability of local development
funds is an incentive for local governments to promote a more comprehensive and
participatory local government planning and budgeting process, which is funded
by a combination of ODA, fiscal transfers and local revenues.
iii. A hard budget constraint. Local development funds provide a fixed and known
amount to support the implementation of the local development plan. This hard
budget constraint is often missing in other donor programs - with the exception of
a few social investment programs – whose implicit soft budget constraints
discourage sound prioritization, efficiency and local resource mobilization;
iv. Integration with the local budget cycle and process. Local development plans help
to integrate the local development fund with local government budget cycles and
procedures, to ensure ownership and sustainability (UNCDF, 2006).
2.2.3 Area-Based Development
Area-based development is “targeting specific geographical areas in a country,
characterized by a particular complex development problem, through an integrated,
inclusive, participatory and flexible approach. In an area-based approach, “area” and
“problem” are linked in a sense that the problem to be addressed is area-specific and

15
therefore defines the project’s or program’s geographical area of intervention, which is
typically smaller than the country itself (UNDP, 2003).
To the UNDP, applying an area based development approach is only appropriate if a
problem can realistically and effectively be addressed at the level of the area. In this
respect, successful programs apply a bottom-up approach to development that feeds into
policy and institutional reform at the national level through a combination of horizontal
and vertical linkages, thereby linking micro-level issues with macro-level considerations.
2.2.4 Decentralized Sector Approach
This approach seeks to develop local-level organizations, whether governmental, non-
governmental or private, to deliver basic services that meet the needs of the poor. This
approach takes a sector as its entry point, rather than a social unit or a political entity.
This approach induces local development in several ways including the following:
i. On the supply side, it helps to define appropriate technical standards and
levels of service, establish criteria for their use, and promote appropriate
technologies and organizational systems for service delivery and
management.
ii. It also trains local professionals, public and private, to manage service
delivery and provide advisory services to local service delivery
organizations to improve the quality of local service provision.
iii. On the demand side, the approach tries to promote greater consumer
power through local-level accountability mechanisms, marketed service
delivery and local-level contracting of services.

16
A major setback of this approach is that it does not encourage better coordination and
coherence between different sectors and levels and hence does not always support an
integrated local development agenda.
2.3 Financing Local Development: A Global Perspective
The discussion on local development has been closely linked to local government as the
major institution with the responsibility of ensuring development at the local level. Thus
financing local development in this study is synonymous to local government financing.
In this regard, local development can be said to be financed from two main sources.
These include Internally Generated Fund (IGF) and Externally Generated Fund (EGF)
(Dirie, 2005).Under this global perspective of local development financing, the
researcher reviews the sources of financing for local development in selected countries.
Table 2.1 in Appendix D summarizes the sources of financing for local development
(local government financing) in the selected countries.
2.4 .0 Financing Local Development—Continental/Regional Perspective
2.4.1 Constituency Development Fund (CDF) of Kenya
Interest in Kenya’s Constituency Development Funds (CDFs) is especially great. A good
deal of independent research on the Kenyan CDF has been completed and the CDF has
served as a model of discretionary parliamentary spending in local and decentralized
development for many constituency funds that are emerging internationally. CDFs are
only one type of local, devolved or decentralized funding currently being utilized in
Kenya, but they are the ones that also build relationships between national representatives
in parliament and local development. The initial intent of the Constituency Development

17
Fund Act in 2003 was to fund projects with immediate social and economic impact in
order to uplift the lives of the people, to alleviate poverty and for purposes of
development, especially in the fight against poverty at the constituency level.
In fact, the CDF Act of 2003 specifically states, “the provisions of this Act
shall…ensure that a specific portion (2.5%) of the national annual budget is devoted to
the constituencies for purposes of development and in particular in the fight against
poverty at the constituency level.” The Act was further amended in October 2007,
increasing the CDF apportionment to 7.5% of total annual national revenue (Baskin,
2010).
2.4.1 Legal Framework
Established in 2003, the CDF Act (2003) of Kenya provides that, at least 2.5% of all
collected ordinary government revenue in every financial year be paid into the Fund. This
amount shall be disbursed under the direction of National Management Committee
(NMC) constituted as per Section 5 of the Act. 75% of the amount is disbursed equally
across all the 210 constituencies; while the remaining 25% is disbursed on the basis of
the poverty index (Section 19 of the CDF Act). At the constituency level, the CDF Act
specifies that up to a maximum of 3% of the total annual allocation may be used on office
running expenses, 5% shall be set aside for emergency, while not more than 10% shall be
allocated to the education bursary scheme annually. All unutilized funds shall remain in
the constituency account. The Act further provides for the formation procedure and the
operational structures to oversee the implementation of the fund. The Act also provides
for how the CDF projects shall be identified, the number and type of projects to be
funded (Baskin, 2010).

18
2.4.2 Other highlights
The Act establishes a reporting mechanism by which all disbursements made for
projects to every constituency shall be kept and updated and tabled (presented) by
the Minister to the floor of the Assembly.
Projects funded by a CDF must be community based development projects that
may include the acquisition of land and buildings. Funds are not allowed to
support political bodies and activities or religious bodies and activities.
District government plays an important role in the implementation of CDF
projects: “the departmental head of the relevant Ministry in each district shall
oversee projects under his docket and shall keep and maintain records of the
disbursements of funds and progress of the projects funded under this Act”.
(Baskin, 2010)
2.4.3 Procedures for CDF operation
CDF legislation identifies the framework and process by which projects shall be
identified, selected and carried out.
The followings are the processes of project selection and fund disbursement:
i. Project selection begins at the grassroots level with community groups
identifying potential projects, prioritizing them and presenting final
recommendations to the Constituency Development Fund Committee
(CDFC). The CDFC prioritizes the final list of projects, places them in a
2nd and 3rd schedule, and specifies the name of the constituency, year of
funding and an identification number for each project, (similar projects
may be lumped together). The 3rd schedule serves as a more detailed

19
snapshot of the project list than the one appearing in the 2nd schedule. The
3rd schedule also provides a status report that is crucial when assessing
disbursement rates and amounts. The local community works in
consultation with the CDFC, which provides guidelines for applying for
funding and assistance in assessing project costs and particulars.
ii. The CDFC submits the finalized list of projects to the District Project
Committee (DPC) which should meet annually to ensure that there is no
duplication of projects.
iii. The CDFC then submits the list of projects to the Constituency
Development Fund Board along with the 2nd and 3rd schedule and any
other pertinent information, which includes minutes from the community
level project selection committee.
iv. The Constituency Development Fund Board compiles a complete list of all
proposed projects from the 210 constituencies, and then makes final
recommendations from this list. Any disputes over potential projects are
referred to the Constituency Fund Committee, which makes a final
determination over disputed projects.
v. Lastly, the Electoral Commission of Kenya provides the Constituency
Development Fund Board with constituency codes through which all
projects can be identified. The Board then disburses money to constituent
accounts. Ministers approve disbursements from the constituency bank
accounts to specific projects. Each disbursement is recorded in minutes
and is subject to the approval of three signatories. (Baskin, 2010)

20
2.4.4 Implementation and Oversight
Although the researcher has not found a comprehensive list of projects that have been
implemented via the CDF funding mechanisms, Kenyan institutes have completed
empirical assessments of CDF projects in: dispensaries and health centers, secondary
schools, road projects, primary schools, water projects, rural electrification, agricultural
projects, stadiums, cattle dips, livestock re-stocking, social halls, environment
conservation and others. The projects fall into four broad sectors: education (32%),
health (26%), water (19%), physical infrastructure (8%), and agriculture, security, social
services and wildlife (15%).
It remains to develop the reporting and oversight mechanisms in Kenya’s CDF program
more fully. Although the CDF Act mandates that the Controller and Attorney General
shall audit the accounts of the board in full, there are many reports among civil society
organizations that such formal oversight has not been assiduously practiced. Reporting
from the Institute of Economic Analysis and the Kenya Institute for Public Policy
Research and Analysis joins that of MUHURI (Muslims for Human Rights) to provide an
external check on the development of CDFs. This research has shown that: some
ministries work more effectively than others with CDFs, there are difficulties in
coordinating CDF projects with other constituency initiatives, community participation in
project development could be stronger, gender imbalances in committee representation
could be corrected, and management of projects could be improved. (Baskin, 2010)

21
2.4.2 The District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) of Ghana
The DACF was established by an Act of Parliament, District Assemblies‟ Common Fund
Act, 1993 (Act 455). Prior to this, it was enshrined in the 1992 Constitution of the
Republic of Ghana, Article 252 which indicated that not less than 5 percent of the
nation’s revenue should be paid to District Assemblies (Das) to embark on development
activities at the grassroots level (GOG, 1992). This percentage has however increased to
7.5 percent of the Revenue of Ghana. Currently, the DACF constitute the largest share of
district revenue. In 2008 for instance, the DACF constituted 43 percent of total revenue
accruing to Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) in Ghana
(NDPC, 2009). The total releases of funds from the DACF to all districts since its
establishment in 1994 amounted to GH¢ 1,024,755,220.00 in 2009 (DACF, 2010).
2.4.3 Formula for the Disbursement of Funds.
Since the inception of the DACF, five factors have been considered in the calculation of
the districts‟ shares. These are described as “Need”, “Responsiveness”, “Service
Pressure” and “Equality” Factors. In 2003, a “Poverty” factor was included but
discontinued thereafter (Banful, 2007). The Rationale behind these factors and their
corresponding share of the Fund (2008 and 2009) are indicated in the Appendix 5.
2.5 Profile of Montserrado County
Montserrado County is the oldest county in the country, almost as old as the Republic of
Liberia itself. In 1821 the American Colonization Society led a group of formerly
enslaved African-Americans to settle on Providence Island along the Mesurrado River in
the heart of what is now Monrovia, the nation’s capital. The County was the first of the
three to sign the Declaration of Independence on July 26, 1847. Most Montserrado

22
County townships and cities are named after these early settlers or the states or
plantations they came from, including Brewerville, Royesville, Careysburg, Harrisburg,
Virginia, Caldwell, and Garnersville. The County originally had three administrative
territories, namely: Gibi, Marshall and Bomi. Gibi and Marshall later formed what is now
called Margibi County, while Bomi became a County of its own. With a Population of
one million, one hundred forty four thousand, eight hundred six (1,144,806), Montserrado
County today includes 21 townships, 7 cities, 1 borough, 2 chiefdoms, 2 statutory
districts (National Population Census, 2008), and 17 electoral districts (NEC, 2011). In
1949, President Tubman appointed the first County Inspector to administer the affairs of
the County. In 1973, the first Montserrado County Superintendent was appointed by
President Tolbert. An Assistant Superintendent for Development was appointed in 1976
to reflect the need for a special focus on development of the County. In 1948 the Mein
Clan in Todee District received Pentecostal missionaries, who opened a school for the
Clan. The education sector received a boost in the mid-1970s through the construction of
many elementary schools. The University of Liberia established a campus at Fendall in
Louisiana in 1976. A high school was constructed in Bentol City in 1978. Several health
clinics and hospitals were also built, mostly in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Much of this
infrastructure was subsequently destroyed. Before the long civil conflict, Montserrado
County was one of the most successful regions in West Africa. To name but a few of the
developments, the Bong Mining Company built a railroad through Todee District in the
mid-1960’s, the large LCC rubber farm was planted in 1963, and vast palm oil farms
were established in 1973 and 1978. In 1979 a clothing factory was built in Bentol City,
while the Hotel Africa and Unity Conference Center were constructed in Virginia. The

23
County suffered immensely in the nation’s long civil conflict, being the largest prize in
the struggle for power that involved as many as 18 armed fighting forces at various times.
The waves of attacks occasioned widespread human rights abuses, massive loss of life
and property, and the devastation of essential public infrastructure. Since the end of the
conflict, the people of Montserrado County have worked in earnest to rebuild their homes
and businesses, and the Government and international partners have undertaken to
reconstruct the schools, roads and clinics, particularly in Greater Monrovia (MIA, 2008-
2012).
2.6.0 The Legal and Regulatory Framework of the CDF of Liberia
Though the CDF was initiated through public policy action, it has since gained its legal
authority and reliance through the act accompanying every fiscal year’s (FY) budget. The
following excerpts were drawn from the 2013/14 FY Budget Law:
2.6.1 Banking Procedures of the CDF
As was mentioned earlier in the background of the study, two hundred thousand United
States Dollars is allocated to each of Liberia’s 15 counties since the coming into force of
the CDF. In the spirit of sound financial management and control tailored on the basis of
good practice, the account of the CDF is subject to all banking regulations, financial
audits and applicable laws of the Republic of Liberia. In this respect, each county is to
maintain a county development fund account (CDFA) with two signatories. The County
Assistant Superintendent for Financial and Fiscal Affairs is the first principal authorizer
(in his or her stead, county superintendent) and the Project Management Committee
(PMC) Chairperson elected by the County Council is second principal authorizer (in his
or her stead, PMC treasurer) who is also elected by the County Council. All withdrawals

24
from a county’s account is valid only with the authorization of the first and second
principal authorizers or in their stead, any two signatories as may be determined by
guidelines to be agreed by the Legislature and the Executive Branches of Government
provided that a withdrawal authorized by a principal and a stead in the same category
shall not be valid or legal (MOF, 2013/14)
2.6.2 Access to the CDF
The County Council Resolution is the only mean through which access to the CDF is
determined. The Minister of Internal Affairs is authorized to request allotments against
the amount appropriated in the budget as County/Social Development Fund (C/SDF) for
each county based on the Resolution from the County Council, taking into consideration
the time of year that is most conducive for execution of rural development activities in
Liberia. Upon the issuance of allotments, the Internal Affairs Minister can then raise the
necessary vouchers and deposit the funds into the existing CDFA. The Minister of
Internal Affairs must also ensure that each county request the entire amount appropriated
as C/SDF in the budget and deposit into the CDFA within six months of the fiscal year to
prevent any portion of said appropriation lapsing at the end of the FY (MOF, 2013/14)
2.6.3 Mandate of the County Council
The County Council is unarguably the highest decision making body as far as the
management and us of the CDF is concern. In this regard, the County Council is cloth
with the following mandates:
i. To determine the most equitable and effective method of allocation or
application of CDF which will induce rapid and sustainable development

25
in the physical condition on ground and in the lives of the general
population of the county or any of its segment.
ii. To decide on, and target, specific areas and types of programs and projects
on which the development funds are to be spent.
iii. To elect a 3-member project Management Committee (PMC), once every
three years, comprising: a chairperson, a Treasurer, and a Comptroller.
iv. Review and assess level of progress on on-going development projects in
the county, with the objective of taking decisions and /or measures that
will rectify any delays in disbursement or abuse in application of allocated
development funds.
Details of the mandates of the County Council are presented annually in Section 9h of the
National Budget (MOF, 2013/14)
2.6.4 Convening of the County Council
The Superintendent of each county is mandated by law to convene a County Council
every FY. Details on the convening procedures and the selection method of participants
or delegates of the Council are presented annually in Section 9k of the National Budget
(MOF, 2013/14). The Liberian CDF is to some extent unique because it is allocated to
counties as compared to other countries in Africa, (e.g.: Kenya, Ghana, Malawi,
Tanzania, Sudan, and Uganda) that allocate theirs directly to electoral constituencies that
are directly controlled politically by members of the parliament. (Baskin, 2010).

26
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This Chapter presented the methodology for the collection of data: including the research
method, designs, target population, sample size and sampling techniques. The chapter
also outlined the instruments of data collection and fully disclosed the data collection and
analysis procedures.
3.1 Research Method
This research was conducted using a qualitative method with single case study focused
on the Electoral District No. 11 of Montserrado County. This method was used in order
to effectively examine the use and management of Montserrado County Development
Fund and its accompanying impact on the residents of Electoral District No. 11 from
2010 to 2015. The study further employed an inductive interview approach because of its
flexibility in discussing not only the impact of the CDF on the residents of Electoral
District No. 11, but also the effectiveness of the current management structure of the
fund. The information that was collected through questionnaires and interviews were the
main sources of primary data and served as original pieces of evidence to address the
research questions. These procedures of questioning and interview have been
successfully demonstrated in similar research conducted through the use of qualitative
method in a single case study.
3.2 Research Design
Research design is a plan that describes how, when and where data are to be collected
and analyzed (Parahoo, 1997). In this research project, the researcher used descriptive
research design in order to determine the selected factors’ influence on the successful use

27
and management of the CDF in Electoral District 11. Descriptive research is designated
to provide a picture of a situation as it naturally happens, justify current practice and
make judgment (Groove, 2001). In this study, the researcher gave a picture of the
influence of citizens’ participation in the use and management of Montserrado’s CDF;
with specific concentration on District 11. Finally, a descriptive or an explanatory design
is appropriate for qualitative single case study as it was used to gather data from general
perceptions, understandings and reconstruction of participants’ memories (Charles,
1994).
3.3 Target Population of the Study
The target population of the study site was 33,155 persons (which comprises of 33,000
residents of Electoral District No. 11 (NEC, 2011) and 155 employees of Montserrado
County Administration). Population is the total number of units from which data can be
Collected such as individuals, artifacts, events or organizations (Parahoo, 1997). The
residents/citizens of Electoral District No. 11 and the staff of County Administration
were selected because the two groups are directly involved with the management and use
of the fund.
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques
The sample size of the research was 45 persons; including 36 residents (community
chairpersons) of Electoral District No. 11 and 9 staff of Montserrado County
Administration. The purposive sampling technique was employed to select the sample
size because these people are expected to have advance knowledge and information about
the topic under assessment. Some of them were selected because of their positions in
administering the CDF; specifically within Electoral District No. 11 in Montserrado

28
County. Purposive sampling is a method of sampling where the researcher deliberately or
subjectively chooses who to include in the study based on their ability to provide
necessary data (Patton, 1990). Base on this, it was appropriate for the researcher to use
purposive sampling technique to select the sample size in this research. The main
weakness of Purposeful Sampling is its lack of generalizability through
representativeness. However, this weakness is of less concern for researchers who focus
on how things should be or could be rather than how things are (Pawson, 2006).
3.5 Instruments of Data Collection
The sources of data for this study were primary and secondary sources. Self-developed
questionnaires and interviews were used to gather primary data, while archival document
analysis and the internet formed the basis for collecting secondary data. A self-developed
instrument can enhance an easy access to gathering the needed data for a study (Baker,
2008). Baker also asserted that in the use of a self-developed instrument, a researcher can
gather information for a study in a simple and faster way. He further emphasized that
with these two instruments, data can be collected from a range of respondents across a
defined population of a study.
3.6 Data collection Procedures
The questionnaires were personally taken to the respondents. The researcher held special
session with the respondents to explain the purpose and procedures for the research. The
researcher explained to the participants that all participants are free to take part or not to
take part in the interview process. Each participant was asked to introduce him or herself
including the researcher. Every respondent was asked the same questions, but not

29
necessarily in the same order. The respondents were informed that they were welcome to
withdraw from the process at any stage without it being counted against them.
3.7 Data Analysis Procedures
Data analysis means to organize, provide structure and elicit meaning (Hungler, 1997).
The data that were collected for this proposed study were recorded, coded and
constructed (grouped) into tables based on the biographical data of the research
participants. The biographical information such as the gender, age range, educational
level and marital status formed the basis for the categorization of the data and subsequent
analysis. The analyzed data were categorized into tables base on different measures of
central tendency such means, medians, etc. and percentages for interpretation and
presentation in Chapter 4.

30
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Introduction
Chapter four focuses on the analytical interpretation of the biographical data presented by
the research participants, such as their genders, age range, educational level and marital
status among others. This chapter also makes analysis and presentation of the responses
obtained from the participants who were earlier grouped into four tables. The data
obtained were coded, grouped into tables, analyzed and presented under each table. The
results of data collected and analyzed from the study were discussed in this chapter. The
chapter summarized the information gathered from the study in semantic and logical
manners. These procedures were designed to collect data, categorize, analyze, and
interpret the data as well as discuss the findings that were significant.
The following sections below constituted the presentation and analysis of data collected
from questionnaires. The data were grouped in the tables to determine the frequencies or
totals, find percentages and other related statistical analysis of their responses.
4.1 Presentation of Biographical Data
This section of the thesis presents biographical or personal information of the research
participants. These analyzed data of the personal information of each participant were
used to show relationship between the responses obtained from the answers to the
research questionnaires and the biographical information formulated about each
participant. The biographical data gathered were summarized into four tables. These
procedures are designed to present the data and draw parallel between the biographical
information and the responses to the questionnaires as found in the texts below:

31
Table 1 Participants Grouped by Gender
Respondents by Gender Frequency (Total) Percentage
MALE 35 78
FEMALE 10 22
Total 45 100
Source: Researcher Field Data, 2015
Table 1 shows the composition of the 45 participants according to their gender. It is
indicated from the table that majority of the participants, 35 out of 45, which constitutes
78 percent of the total respondents were male. On the other hand, 22 percent of the
people interviewed were female which constituted 10 persons. While the researcher was
concerned about gender balance, many of the research participants were male as it is
customary in Liberia that community leadership are dominated by male as oppose to their
female counterparts. As can be recalled from Chapter Three (Sample Size and Sampling
Techniques), more than half of the research participants were community chairpersons.
The figure above highlights the gender differences that participated in the response of the
questions, totaling 100%.

32
Table 2 Respondents Grouped by Age Range
Age Range Frequency Percentage
Below 18years 0 0
18-35 years 10 22
36-65 30 67
Above 65 years of age 5 11
Total 45 100
Source: Researcher’s Field Data, 2015
The data in table two (2) above show that out of 45 respondents, five (5) were between
the age range of 18-35 years. This figure constitutes 11% of the total participants. This
age range is considered the youthful age range and this group comprised of the second
highest number of participants in this thesis. The middle age range from 36 to 65 years
of age constituted the first highest group of people interviewed in the study. The above
table shows that none of the participants interviewed were below the age 18 years; as this
group of people are not considered capable in the professional research circle to provide
tangible responses to questionnaires. The age range, above 65 years of age was the least
of the people interviewed. Only five respondents were interviewed in this age range,
constituting 11%.

33
Table 3: Participants Grouped by Educational Status
Educational Status Frequency Percentage
Up to High School 25 56
Under graduate 15 33
Graduate 3 7
Post Graduate 2 4
Total 45 100
Sources: Researcher Field Data, 2015
Table 3 categorizes the 45 research participants according to their educational status or
level which was used to associate the participants’ responses to the questionnaires in later
tables in this chapter. The table shows that more than half of the participants were high
school graduate and below. Fifteen (15) of the respondents had undergraduate degrees
and this category of the respondents constitutes 33%, the second highest group in this
category. Interestingly, there were participants for every category of this biographical
information. The next in line on the above table is the graduate category with 3
participants, constituting 7%. The final group in this category on the table is the post
graduate, with 2 participants amounting to 4 %. As indicated, the highest number of
participants was the number of those in the “up to high school” category. Though
majority of the respondents were in this category, the least participants could read and
write. This means that all of the respondents read and understood the questionnaires
which may have contributed to the accuracy of the findings. Furthermore, the overall
percentage of the respondents’ frequency was summed up to one hundred (100) percents.

34
Table 4: Respondents Categorized by Marital Status and Gender
Option Male Female Frequency Percentage
Single 5 1 6 13
Married 25 8 33 73
Divorced/Separated 3 0 3 7
Widow/widower 2 1 3 7
Total 35 10 45 100
Source: Researchers Field Data, 2015
Table 4 groups the research participants according to their marital status as well as their
gender. The married people accounted for the highest number of participants with
seventy-three (73) percent consisting of twenty-five (25) male and eight (8) female,
totaling thirty-three (33) respondents. The single participants were the second highest
number of respondents in the thesis. They constituted thirteen (13) percent of the total
participants. The single participants comprised of a total of six persons which consisted
of five (5) single male and one (1) single female. There were some of the participants
who were married before but were either divorced or separated from their partners. This
group consisted of three (3) persons, all of whom were male. In other words, none of the
female participants were either divorced or separated. The three (3) participants in this
category constituted 7%. Finally and unfortunately too, there were respondents who were
married but lost their partners. This group of participates made up about 7% of the total
of the 45 participants and consisted of 2 men (widowers) and 1 woman, a widow. The
frequencies of the various categories mentioned in this narrative cumulated into the total
of 45 participants which is exactly 100% of the total respondents.

35
4.2 Presentation of Data Collected from Research Participants
This section presents the data that were collected from the research participants. Unlike
the first section, this section is based on the responses to the research questions that were
posed to the respondents. The responses were grouped into eleven (11) tables in addition
to the first four tables that make-up the total of fifteen tables in this research.
Table 5: Responses to” how strongly do you agree that many ordinary citizens know
about the CDF”?
Option Below
18yrs.
18-35yrs. 36-
65yrs.
Above
65yrs
Frequency Percentage
Strongly
agree
0 0 0 0 0 0
Agree 0 1 1 0 2 4
Disagree 0 2 10 1 13 29
Strongly
disagree
0 7 19 4 30 67
Total 0 10 30 5 45 100
Table 5 reveals that 67% of the research participants strongly disagreed that many
ordinary citizens know about the CDF. This view represented thirty persons comprising
of 7 persons in the age range of 18-35 years, 19 persons in the age range of 36-65 years
and 4 persons in the age range of Above 65 years. The next group of respondents is
those who disagreed that many ordinary citizens know about the CDF. This group
constituted 29% of the research participants. The participants in this group were further
broken down to include 2 persons aging between 18-35 years, 10 persons between the
ages of 36-65 years and 1 person above 65years of age, totaling 13 persons. The table

36
also showed that only 2 of the 45 participants agreed that many ordinary citizens know
about the CDF. This group constituted just 4% and is broken down to include 1 person in
the age range of 18-35 years and 1 person between the ages of 36-65 years.
Table 6: The responses to the question how strongly do you agree that projects were
financed by the CDF in your community/location?
Strongly agreed 10 3 13 29
Agreed 15 5 20 44
Disagreed 5 2 7 16
Strongly disagreed 5 0 5 11
Total 35 10 45 100
Table six contains the responses of the research participants to the question how strongly
do you agree that projects have been financed by the CDF in your community/location.
The breakdown in the Table conveys that 44% of the respondents agreed that at least a
CDF financed project could be found in their communities or locations. The participant
who expressed this view consisted of 15 males and 5 females which summed up to 20
persons. The second highest responses came from respondents who strongly agreed that
CDF financed projects were in their communities. There were 13 respondents with this
view. They consisted of 10 males and 3 females. This group of respondents accounted for
29% of the research participants. Five (5) of the participants, all males strongly disagreed
that projects were financed by CDF in their communities. This group constituted 11% of
the total research participants. There were 7 persons, 5 males and 2 females, constituting
16% of the total research respondents who disagreed that projects were financed by CDF

37
in their communities. The different categories as displayed by the table summed up to 45
participants which is 100%.
Table 7: The responses to the question how strongly do you agree that you were
informed about the projects?
Strongly agreed 10 3 13 29
Agreed 15 5 20 44
Disagreed 5 2 7 16
Strongly disagreed 5 0 5 11
Total 35 10 45 100
Table 7 shows the data that represented the responses of participants to the question how
strongly do you agree that you were informed about the projects financed by the CDF in
your community. Twenty nine (29%) percent of the participants strongly agreed that they
were informed about projects financed by the CDF in their communities. This group
comprised of 10 males and 3 females which summed up to a total of 13 persons. Majority
of the respondents agreed that they were informed about the projects financed by CDF in
their communities. This group that made up 44% of the total respondents consisted of 15
males and 5 females. The least responses to this question came from those who strongly
disagree that they were informed about projects financed by the CDF in their
communities. Five respondents, all males that constituted 7% of the total research
participants made up this group. Seven (7) of the respondents disagreed that they were
informed about the projects financed by CDF in their communities. This group of
respondents constituted 16% of the research participants with 5 males and 2 females.

38
Table 8: The responses to the question at what stage of the projects were you
informed about the projects?
Before Implementation 1 0 1 2
During Implementation 10 3 13 29
After Implementation 14 7 21 47
None of the Stages 10 0 10 22
Total 35 10 45 100
Table 8 above outlines the responses of participants to the question the stage at which
they were informed about the projects financed by the CDF in their communities. Only
one (1) of the respondents who was a male indicated being informed before the
implementation stage of projects. This constituted just 2% of the research participants.
The highest number of responses came from participants who indicated that they were
informed after implementation of projects. There were a total of 21 respondents that
consisted of 14 males and 7 females in this category. This group constituted 47% of the
total research participants. Those participants who indicated that they were informed
during project (s) implementation were the second highest. They were 13 in number and
comprised of 10 males and 3 females. They constituted 29% of the research participants.
Ten (10) of the participants, all males, indicated being informed at none of the stages of
project implementation.

39
Table 9: The responses to the question how were the projects identified?
PMC 10 3 13 29
Suggested by your law maker 19 2 21 47
Community Identify 1 0 1 2
No Project Identified 5 5 10 22
Total 35 10 45 100
Table 9 contained the responses of the participants to the manner in which projects were
identified in their communities. Twenty nine (29) percent of the respondents lamented
that the projects were identified by the county authority through the PMC. The
composition of this group was 10 males and 3 females which summed up to 13
participants. The highest number of responses emanated from participants who
acquiesced that the projects were suggested by their law maker. About 21 in number,
these participants made up 47% of the total respondents. They comprised of 19 males and
2 females. Out of the 45 participants, only 1 male indicated that the projects were
identified by the community people. This group accounted for only 2% of the research
participants. Ten of the participants that consisted of equal number of males and females
indicated that no projects were identified in their communities.

40
Table 10: Responses to” how satisfied are you with the quality of the projects?
Option Single Married Divorced/
Separated
Widow/
Widower
Frequency Percent
Very Satisfied 1 2 0 0 3 7
Satisfied 1 5 0 0 6 13
unsatisfied 2 11 2 1 16 36
Very Unsatisfied 2 15 1 2 20 44
Total 6 33 3 3 45 100
The responses of participants as to whether the projects were of quality are contained in
Table Ten above. As indicated in the table, 7% of the respondents were very satisfied
with the quality of the CDF projects. A total of 3 participants that consisted of 1 single
respondent and 2 married respondents made up this group. Six (6) of the participants
were satisfied with the quality of the projects. The participants with this view consisted of
1 single respondent and 5 married respondents and accounted for 13% of the research
participants. Neither of the Divorce/separated category nor the Widow/widower category
were very satisfied or satisfied with the quality of the projects. The highest number of
responses came from those participants who were very unsatisfied with the quality of the
CDF projects. They accounted for 44% of the research participants. They are further
broken down in the table to include 2 single persons, 15 married persons, 1
divorced/separated person and 2 widows/widowers. The second largest group of
respondents was those who were unsatisfied with the quality of the projects. Two (2) of
the respondents in this group were single while 11 were married. Also, 2 were either

41
divorced or separated from their partners while 1 was a widow or widower. This
breakdown amounted to 20 respondents that accounted for 36% of research participants.
Table 11: Responses to” how strongly do agree that district authority make periodic
financial reports to county authority on the usage of the CDF?
Option Up to
High
School
Under
graduate
Graduate Post
Graduate
Strongly
agree
8 4 0 1 13 29
Agree 10 2 1 0 13 29
Disagree 3 3 2 1 9 20
Strongly
disagree
4 6 0 10 22
Total
25 15 3 2 45 100
Contained in Table Eleven above are the views of the research participants on the
question of district authority making periodic financial reports to county authority.
Twenty nine (29) percent of the participants strongly agree that district authority made
periodic financial reports to the county authority. This view represented 13 of the
respondents, 4 of which were in the category “up to High School”. Four (4) under
graduates and 1 post graduate completed the 13 respondents in this group. Seven (7) of
the respondents agreed that district authority made periodic financial reports to county
authority on the usage of the CDF. This group of participants consisted of 4 respondents
in the up to high school category, 2 respondents in the under graduate category and 1
respondent in the post graduate category. Participants in this group accounted for 16% of

42
the research participants. Still with Table Eleven, 22% of the research participants
strongly disagreed that district authorities filed periodic financial reports with the county
authority. The composition of the 22% included 4 respondents in the up to high school
graduate category and 6 in the under graduate category.
Table 12: Responses to” how strongly do agree that financial transactions (receipts
and disbursements) involving the management and use of the CDF are executed
through the banking system?
Option Up to High
School
Under
graduate
Graduate Post
Graduate
Strongly
agree
8 10 3 2 23 51
Agree 5 1 0 0 6 13
Disagree 9 3 0 0 12 27
Strongly
disagree
3 1 0 0 4 9
Total 25 15 3 2 45 100
According to Table Twelve above, 51% of the total research participants strongly agreed
that financial transactions that involved the management and use of the CDF were
executed through the banking system. The 51% is further broken down in the Table to
include 8 up to high school respondents, 10 under graduate respondents, 3 graduate
respondents and 2 post graduate respondents. The table also shows that 6 of the
respondents agreed that financial transactions that involved the management and use of
the CDF were executed through the banking system. This group of participants consisted
of 5 high school graduates and 1 under graduate respondent. This group accounted for
13% of the research participants. Nine (9) percent of the research participants strongly

43
disagreed that financial transactions that involved the management and use of the CDF
were executed through the banking system. This group of participants consisted of 4 post
graduate respondents, 3 high school graduates, and an under graduate respondent.
Participants who disagreed that financial transactions that involved the management and
use of the CDF were executed through banking system made up the second highest group
respondents as indicated in the table. Twelve (12) in numbers, this group constituted 27%
of the research participants. The 27% included 9 high school graduates and 3 under
graduates.
Table 13: The responses to the question how strongly do you agree that project
Management Committee Members are selected by the citizens of the project area?
Strongly Agree 1 0 1 2
Agree 1 1 2 4
Disagree 8 3 11 24
Strongly Disagree 25 6 31 69
Total 35 10 45 100
According to Table Thirteen (13) above, 69% of the research participants strongly
disagreed that PMT members were selected by citizens of the project area. Respondents
in this group consisted of 25 males and 6 females which amounted to 31 respondents.
Next in line were respondents who disagreed that PMT members were selected by
citizens of the project area. This group constituted 24% of the research participants.
Respondents in this group consisted of 8 males and 3 females. Only 6% of the research

44
participants strongly agreed or agreed that PMT members were selected by citizens of the
project area.
Table 14: Responses to the question what causes the failure or abandonment of CDF
earmarked projects?
Option Up to High
School
Under
graduate
Graduate Post
Graduate
Bureaucra
cies in
releasing
allotted
fund
10 4 0 0 14 31
Inadequate
Budgetary
Appropriat
ion
8 6 3 2 19 42
Lack of
capacity
on the part
of
contractor
1 1 0 0 2 4
Lack of a
robust M
&E Team
6 4 0 0 11 24
Total 25 15 3 2 45 100
Table fourteen displays the data that represented the views of the participants about the
causes of the failure or abandonment of CDF earmarked projects in their communities.
Out of the 45 participants, 19 indicated that inadequate budgetary
allocation/appropriation was the primary reasons for the failure or abandonment of CDF
earmarked projects. Participants of this view consisted of 8 respondents from the high

45
school category, 6 respondents from the under graduate category, 3 respondents in the
gradate category and 2 in the post graduate. This group of respondents was 19 in total and
accounted for 42% of the research participants. The second populous views about the
failure or abandonment of CDF earmarked projects were expressed by respondents who
cited bureaucracies in releasing allotted funds. This group accounted for 31% of the
research participants and included 10 respondents who were in the high school graduate
category and 4 respondents in the under graduate category. There were a total of 14
participants who held this view. None of the participants in the graduate and post
graduate categories selected this option.
Respondents who blamed the problem on the lack of robust M&E teams accounted for
24% of the research participants. Participants who expressed this view consisted of 7 high
school graduates and 4 college graduates. According to the table, 2 of the respondents
blamed the problem on the lack of capacity on the part of contractors. This group
accounted for 4% of the research participants. One high school graduate and one college
graduate made up the total of 2 respondents who expressed this view.
Table 15: The responses to the question how strongly do you agree that contractors
are paid in installments, using the percentage of completion method?
Strongly Agree 12 3 15 33
Agree 21 5 26 58
Disagree 2 2 4 9
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0
Total 35 10 45 100

46
Table Fifteen (15) contains the views of respondents on the method of releasing fund to
contractors. According to the table, 58% of the research participants agreed that
contractors are paid in installments, through the percentage of completion method.
Respondents of this view consisted of 21 males and 5 females which summed up to 25
persons. The second highest number of responses came from participants who strongly
agreed that the percentage of completion method were used. Twelve (12) of the
respondents who expressed this view were males while 3 were females. Participants with
this view totaled 15 persons and constituted 33% of the research participants. Four (4) of
the respondents that constituted 9% of the research participants disagreed that contractors
were paid by installments, using the percentage of completion method. Equal number of
males and females made up respondents who expressed this view. None of the research
participants, male or female, strongly disagree that contractors were paid by installments,
using the percentage of completion method.
4.3 Discussions of the Responses to the Research Questions
Table Five (5) shows that 96% of the ordinary citizens do not know about the CDF. Only
4% knew about the CDF. This implied a total lack of knowledge about the CDF among
ordinary Liberian citizens.
Table six (6) indicates that 73% of the research participants agreed that at least a project
has been financed by the CDF in their communities. This percentage was the summation
of 29% of respondents that strongly agreed and 44% that agreed. Even though 29% of the
research participants were not aware of any CDF financed projects in their communities,
majority of the communities in District No. 11 have experienced at least a CDF financed
project as revealed by Table Six.

47
Table Seven reveals that 73% of the research participants were informed about the CDF
projects in their communities. This group comprised of participants who strongly agreed
or agreed. According to the table, only 29% of the research participants were not
informed at all. This group consisted of those who strongly disagreed or disagreed. It can
then be deduced that majority of the research participants were informed about CDF
projects in their communities.
Even though Table Seven reveals that majority of the research participants were informed
about the projects financed by the CDF in their communities, 78% of them were not
informed before project implementation as illustrated by Table Eight. Of this group, 29%
was informed during implementation while 47% was informed after implementation.
Only 2% of the participants were informed before project implementation; while 22%
was not involved with any of the stages. This is a clear indication that citizens are not
involved with the implementation of their community development projects. This was in
contravention of Section 9 of the 2013/14 Budget Law.
Table Nine (9) shows that 76% of the respondents were not involved in the selection of
community projects, as 47% indicated that the projects were suggested by their law
maker, while 29% revealed that the projects were identified by the County
Administration through the Project Management Committee (PMC). Twenty two (22%)
of the participants indicated that no projects were identified in their communities. This
implied that citizens are not in control of the identification, prioritization and design of
their preferred development projects.
From Table (10) Ten, 80% of the research participants said that the CDF projects were of
low quality. Those with this view consisted of 20 respondents who were very unsatisfied

48
and 16 respondents who were unsatisfied. Only 20% of the participants were satisfied
with the quality of the projects. This is an obvious indication that the CDF projects are
poorly implemented and as such do not meet the needs of the communities’ people.
District authority made periodic financial reports to the County’s authority on the usage
of the CDF as revealed by 58% of the research participants as contained in Table Eleven.
Twenty nine (29%) of participants who held this view strongly agreed while 29% agreed.
Forty two (42%) of the research participants however indicated that district authority did
not make periodic financial reports to the county authority. Twenty two (22%) percent
and 20% of this group strongly disagreed and disagreed respectively.
On the question of CDF related financial transactions being executed through the banking
system, 64% of the research participants agreed as indicated by Table Twelve. Fifty one
(51%) percent of respondents with this view strongly agreed while 13% agreed. Only
36% of the respondents disagreed that CDF related financial transactions were executed
through the banking system. Nine (9%) percent of this group strongly disagreed and 27%
disagreed. This means that CDF related financial transactions are largely executed
through the banking system.
Project Management Committee (PMT) members were not selected by citizens of the
project areas as indicated by 93% of the research participants as contained in Table
Thirteen. According to the Table, 69% of the research participants strongly disagreed
while 24% disagreed. Only 6% of the respondents revealed that PMT members are
selected by citizens of the project areas. This was in sharp contravention of Section 9 of
the 2013/14 FY Budget Law.

49
As contained in Table Fourteen, CDF earmarked projects largely failed or were
abandoned due to inadequate budgetary allotment/appropriation. According to the Table,
42% of the research participants pointed to this as a major problem that hindered the
successful implementation of CDF earmarked projects. The second most critical factor
that was responsible for the failure or abandonment of CDF earmarked project was huge
bureaucracies in releasing allotted funds. It was pointed out as the second most critical
reason and accounted for 31% of the research participants. Even though inadequate
budgetary allotment/appropriation and bureaucracies in releasing allotted funds were the
major causes of projects failure and abandonment, a significant number of the
respondents identified the lack of robust M&E teams as another factor. Twenty four
(24%) percent of the research participants held this view. Only 4% of the participants
pointed to lack of capacity on the part of contractors as one of the causes of projects
failure and abandonment.
Contractors were paid in installment using the percentage of completion method as
revealed by 91% of the research participants in Table Fifteen. This meant that contractors
received payment only for the percentage of a project completed at any given time.

50
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This study was done to assess the management and use of Montserrado County
Development Fund using Electoral District No. 11 as case study. This chapter
summarizes the thesis and provides the conclusion and recommendations. The chapter
also suggests areas for further research.
5.1 Summary of the Research
The CDF program was introduced by the Sirleaf’s led Government in 2007 with the
primary aim of decentralizing development at community levels. The research problem
was that, despite the good intent of this program, the extent to which it contributed to a
people-centered community development was vague.
The purpose of the study was to assess the management and use of Montserrado County
Development Fund with specific concentration on Electoral District No. 11. The thesis
assessed the management and use of Montserrado County Development Fund and its
accompanying impact on the communities and citizens of Electoral District No. 11 from
2010 to 2015.
The research was significant because it unraveled issues that undermined the good intent
of the CDF. Most significantly, the research findings and its accompanying
recommendations will inform policy makers’ decisions aimed at improving the
management and use of the CDF. The result of the research could be useful for future
researchers. The research employed qualitative research method and the explanatory
design. The research also used questionnaires to collect primary data while secondary
data were gathered from unstructured interview, CDF offices and the internet. The

51
population of the study was 33,155 which consisted of 33,000 residents of Electoral
District No. 11 as per NEC 2011 electoral update and 155 employees of Montserrado
County Administration. The sample size of the study was 45 respondents. The purposive
sampling method was used to derive the sample size. The researcher collected the
research data by administering self-developed questionnaires to the research participants.
The data were then coded, recorded and grouped into tables for analysis.
The research revealed that there is an amazingly low level of knowledge about the CDF
amongst many ordinary citizens. Majority of the research participants indicated that
citizens are not involved with the identification and implementation of their preferred
development projects as community projects are largely identified by their law maker and
the County Administration through the PMC. Majority of the research participants also
indicated that the projects were poorly done thereby not meeting or serving the needs of
the community people. There was an overwhelming consensus that PMT members are
not selected by the citizens of the project areas, but rather imposed on them by the county
administration or the law maker.
There were reasonably good control mechanisms in place for the management and use of
the CDF. According to 64% of the research participants, financial transactions (receipts
and disbursements) involving the management and use of the CDF were executed
through the banking system and 91% agreed that contractors were paid in installment
using the percentage of completion method. More than half of the research participants
also pointed out that the district authority made periodic financial reports to the
concerned county authorities.

52
On the causes of projects failure and abandonment, 42% of the respondents cited
inadequate budgetary allocation/appropriation while 31% pointed to bureaucracies in
releasing allotted funds. Twenty four (24%) of the research participants pointed to the
lack of robust M&E teams as another reason behind the failure and abandonment of CDF
projects.
5.2 Conclusion
The main focus of the study was to assess the management and use of Montserrado
County Development Fund with specific objectives of determining citizens’ involvement
in the identification and implementation of projects, identify control mechanisms in place
to govern the management and use of the CDF and to identify the causes of failure and
abandonment of CDF projects.
Based on the analyses and findings contained in the fifteen tables and summarized
above, the researcher concluded that the level of citizens’ involvement in the
identification and implementation of CDF projects in their communities was extremely
low. The findings also suggested that there were reasonably good control mechanisms in
place to govern the management and use of the CDF. The most pronounced causes of the
failure and abandonment of CDF projects were inadequate budgetary
allocation/appropriation, huge bureaucracies in releasing allotted funds and the lack of
robust M&E teams as revealed by the research findings. It was discovered from the
findings also that CDF projects were of poor quality.
Having assessed the management and use of the CDF of Montserrado from 2010 to 2015,
it will be very important for future research to incorporate other development funds such
the Social Development Fund (SDF) that are provided by concession companies for use

53
by the communities and people within their concession areas and the newly established
Legislative Support Project (LSP) Fund since these funds intend to achieve similar
objectives as the CDF.
5.3 Recommendations
Based on the research findings above, it is imperative to provide lasting measures so as to
achieve the very purpose of the fund. Some recommendations in this direction include:
1. The government of Liberia should increase the CDF envelop to at least 2% of
total national annual revenues and allocate the CDF on the basis of population,
existing level of development and poverty index
2. The government should promote strict adherence to the laws and regulations
governing the management and use of the CDF.
3. The government through its appropriate agencies carries out massive public
awareness about the CDF and also considers publishing in local news outlets and
vantage points in communities all CDF related projects to include costs, locations
and duration.
4. The government should reduce the bureaucracies associated with disbursements
of allotted funds to CDF operatives so as fast strike development at the grass root
levels.
5. The government, should institute well supported M&E teams at both county and
district levels to ensure the efficient and successful implementation of CDF
projects.

54
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baskin,D. M. (2010). Constituency Development Funds(CDFs) as Tool for Decentralized
Development. 56th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference (p. 4). Nairobi:
State University of New York/Center for International Development.
Bratton, M., & Nicholas, V. (1994). Neopatriomonial regimesand Political Transitions in
Africa. World Politics 46(4), 453-489.
Casanova, F. (2004). Local development, Productive networks and training: alternative
approaches to training and work for young people. Montevideo: Cinterfor.
Charles, C. (1994). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods of Analysis Talk, Text and
Interaction (Second Edition). London, Great Britain : Sage.
Curry, J. (1984). Approach to Research Sampling. Washingtom D.C: Sage
Dirie, L. (2005). Municipal Finance: Innovative Resourcing for Municipal Infrastructure
and Service Provision. Coventry, United Kingdom: Commonwealth Local
Government Forum.
District Assembly Common Fund (2010). Situational Expenditure Report. Tema, Ghana:
Ghana Publishing Corporation.
Fatton, R. J. (1986). Clientelism and Patronage in Senegal. African Studies Review 29(4),
61-78.
Gbala, B. M. (1998). Decentralization of Political and Administrative Powers in Liberia.
Monrovia, Liberia: Ministry of Internal Affairs.

55
Government of Ghana (1992). The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. Tema,
Ghana: Ghana Publishing Corporation.
Groove, B. (2001). The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique and Utilization.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: W.B. Saunders.
Hungler, D. P. (1997). Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal, and
Utilization. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott Company.
Jouen.(2010). Cohesion Policy Support for Local Development: Best Practice and Future
Policy Options. European Union.
LISGIS. (2008). National Population Census. Monrovia: Liberia Institute of Statistics
and Geoinformation Service, Government of Liberia.
Litvack. (1998). Rethinking Decentralization in Developing Countries. Massachusetts:
Copyright Clearnance Center.
Mbabazi, P. (2005). Which Way for Africa in the Twenty First Century? CODESRIA
Bulletin 3 & 4, 53.
Ministry of Internal Affairs (2008). Montserrado County Development Agenda 2008-
2012. Monrovia, Liberia: Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Ministry of Finance (2013). Liberia National Budget 2013-2014 Fiscal Year. Monrovia,
Liberia: Ministry of Finance.
Murray, M. H. (2000). Local Development in Northern Ireland-The Way Forward.
Belfast, Northern Ireland: Northern Ireland Economic Council.

56
National Elections Commission. (2011). Electorial District Update. Monrovia, Liberia:
NEC.
Northen Ireland Economic Council (2000). Local Development: A Turning Point. Belfast,
Northern Ireland: NIEC.
Nyamanjo, F (2005). Rethink African Development. CODESRIA Bulletin 3 & 4, 1.
Parahoo, K. (1997). Nursing Research: Principles, Processes and Issues. London, United
Kingdom: Macmillan.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (pp. 169-186). Beverly
Hills, Carlifonia : Sage.
Pawson, P. R. (2006). Evidence Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London, United
Kingdom: Sage.
Randa, I. E. (1999). Assessing the Development Impact of CDF-like Experiences.
Nairobi, Kenya: World Bak.
Szeftel, M. (2000). Clientelism,Corruption, and Catastrophe. Review of African Political
Economy Journal 27(85), 427-442.
UNDP (2007). Supporting Capacities for Integrated Local Development. New York,
New York: United Nations Development Programs.
Worldbank. (2000). Entering the Twenty first Century:The Changing Landscape. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.

A
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Research Questionnaire
This questionnaire is only intended to collect data for academic purposes in aid of the
attainment of a master’s degree in Public Financial Management. The focus of the study
is “An Assessment of the Management and Use of Montserrado County Development
Funds: The Case of Electoral District No. 11 for the period 2010—2015”. Please be
assured that your responses would be used strictly for academic purposes.
NB: The CDF here refers to County Development Fund, a program which was introduced
in Liberia in 2007 and in which legislators and local citizens are supposed to make
decisions on local development projects. CDF financed projects as mentioned in this
questionnaire include educational bursary.
1. What is your gender?
A. Male { }
B. Female { }
2. What is your age range?
C. Below 18yrs { }
A. 18-35yrs { }
B. 36-65yrs { }
C. Above 65yrs { }
3. What is your educational level?
A. Up to High School { }
B. Under Graduate { }

B
C. Graduate { }
D. Post Graduate { }
4. What is your marital status?
A. Single { }
B. Married { }
C. Divorced { }
D. Widow/Widower { }
5. How strongly do you agree that many ordinary citizens know about the
CDF?
A. Strongly Agree { }
B. Agree { }
C. Strongly disagree { }
D. Disagree { }
6. How strongly do you agree that the projects were financed by the CDF in
your community/location?
A. Strongly agree { }
B. Agree { }
C. Strongly disagree{ }
D. Disagree { }
7. How strongly do you agree that you were informed about the projects?

C
B. Agree { }
D. Disagree { }
8. If agree, at what time were you informed about the projects? Multiple
answers can be ticked.
A. Before implementation { }
B. During implementation { }
C. After implementation { }
D. At all the stags{ }
9. How were the CDF projects identified?
A. Project Management Committee identify { }
B. Suggested by your law maker { }
C. Extracted from district plan{ }
D. Community people identify { }
10. How satisfied are you with the quality the projects?
A. Decision making{ }
B. Project design{ }
C. Implementation{ }
D. Monitoring and Evaluation { }
11. How strongly do you agree that district authority make periodic financial
reports to county authority on the usage of the CDF?

D
A. Agree { }
B. Strongly disagree { }
C. Disagree { }
12. How strongly do you agree that financial transactions (receipts and
disbursements) involving the management and use of the CDF are done
through the banking system?
B. Agree{ }
D. Disagree{ }
13. What causes the failure or abandonment of CDF financed projects?
A. Inadequate budgetary allotment { }
B. Bureaucracy in releasing allotted fund { }
C. Lack of capacity on the part of contractors { }
D. Lack of a robust M&E Team{ }
14. How strongly do you agree that contractors are paid by installment using the
percentage of completion method?
A. Strongly agree{ }
B. Agree{ }
D. Disagree { }

E
15. How strongly do you agree that Project Management (PMT) members are
selected by the citizens of the projects areas?
B. Agree { }
D. Disagree { }
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

F
Appendix 2: Letter of Permission for Data Collection

G
Appendix 3: Breakdown of sample population
No. Type of Respondent No. of
Respondent
Stratum
1. Community chairperson 36 DDC Members
2. Office of District Representative 1 DDC
2. Superintendent 1 County
Administration.
3. PMC Member 1 County
Administration.
4. County Comptroller 1 County
Administration.
5. County Treasurer 1 County
Administration
6 Assistant Superintendent, Fiscal
Affairs
1 County
Administration
7 PMT Member 1 DDC
8 Township commissioner 2 County
Administration.
Total 45
Source: Researcher’s adoption based on county/district administration structure

H
Appendix 4: Sources of Funding for local development in some selected countries
Country Sources of Fund for Local Development Name of Local
Development Fund
Australia Grants and general or special purpose
payments of federal and state governments
comprise 23 per cent of local government
revenues. Other
sources include tax on immovable property,
fees and fines, net operating
surplus of trading enterprises and interest
N/A
Bangladesh Taxes, rates, fees and charges levied by local
bodies, rents and profits accrued from their
properties and money received through its
services. Government grants, international
project funding and loans raised by local
bodies are additional sources of income.
Taxes are the most important source of
income, while loans and voluntary
contributions are rare.
N/A
Ghana Taxes, user fees and charges, central
government transfers and donor funds
The District Assemblies
Common Fund (DACF)
Kenya Fees and charges, water and sewerage fees,
local property taxes and business
Permits
Constituency Development
Fund (CDF)
Liberia A fixed portion of total national revenue for
a fiscal year
County Development Fund
(CDF)
Source: Researcher’s Adoption Based on Dirie (2005): Municipal Finance: Innovative
Resourcing for Municipal Infrastructure and Service Provision. pp 22-23

I
Appendix 5: Factors for Allocating the DACF
Factor Rationale % of DACF Allocated
Equality This factor is aimed at ensuring that districts
have a minimum allocation from the Fund.
This is to prevent the situation where certain
districts will be poorly served with the Fund
whiles others are enjoying the “lion share”
50%
Need This seeks to address the imbalance in
development infrastructure among the
districts. The level of need is determined
from the GDP per capita. This is evident with
the number of schools, doctor/population
ratio
40%
i. Health (22%):
[Health facilities (6%);
Doc/Pop Ratio (8%);
Nurse Pop ratio (8%)]
ii. Education (11%):
[Education facilities
(5%); Teacher/Pupil
Ratio
(6%)]
iii. Water (7): Water
coverage (7%)
Responsiveness This is a rewarding factor for assemblies that
have done well in revenue collection in terms
of per capita revenue collected
4%
Source: Adapted from the NDPC, 2010.

Assessing the Management of Montserrado County Development Funds

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessing the Management of Montserrado County Development Funds

Similar to Assessing the Management of Montserrado County Development Funds (20)

Assessing the Management of Montserrado County Development Funds