Evaluating the Impact of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Projects on Education Delivery in Eastern Province, Zambia

Master's Thesis , 2022 , 71 Pages , Grade: Master of Development Studies

Politics - Topic: Development Politics

This research examines the role of the Constituency Development Fund as a locally managed financing mechanism intended to accelerate grassroots development in the education sector of Eastern Province, Zambia. The study maps CDF allocations to education across multiple electoral cycles and links these investments to changes in key education indicators, including pupil-to-classroom ratios, teacher accommodation availability, school latrine coverage, enrollment and retention rates, as well as learner performance on standardized assessments. The quantitative component analyzes administrative records from ministries, constituency project registers, and school-level data to identify patterns of resource allocation and measurable shifts in service delivery. The qualitative component captures perspectives from headteachers, classroom teachers, pupils, parents, constituency development committees, and local government officers to unpack decision-making processes, implementation bottlenecks, and local perceptions of project relevance and sustainability.
Empirical results indicate that CDF-funded construction and rehabilitation projects produced visible improvements in the learning environment, notably through new classrooms, repaired sanitation facilities, and provision of basic furniture and teaching aids. These infrastructural gains contributed to higher school enrollment and reduced absenteeism in many targeted communities and eased pressure on overcrowded classrooms. However, improvements in learning outcomes were inconsistent across constituencies. Primary factors constraining impact included irregular and delayed disbursements, limited alignment between selected projects and pedagogical needs, insufficient technical appraisal of project designs, weak post-construction maintenance plans, and minimal inclusion of teachers and parents in project planning and oversight. Political influences in project selection sometimes prioritized visible outputs over interventions with stronger pedagogical returns, undermining long-term effectiveness.
The study offers practical recommendations to maximize the education impact of CDF projects: adopt participatory, evidence-based project selection protocols that prioritize interventions with proven links to learning; synchronize CDF planning with national education sector plans and school improvement plans; implement transparent financial reporting and community-led monitoring mechanisms;

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Problem Statement
1.3 Research Objectives
1.4 Research Questions
1.5 Significance of the Study

Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Overview of the Constituency Development Fund
2.3 CDF and Education Delivery in Zambia
2.4 Governance and Implementation Challenges
2.5 Theoretical Framework
2.6 Knowledge Gaps
2.7 Conclusion

Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Study Area
3.4 Target Population
3.5 Sampling Techniques
3.6 Data Collection Methods
3.7 Data Analysis
3.8 Ethical Considerations
3.9 Limitations of the Study

Chapter Four: Data Presentation and Analysis
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Types of Education Projects Funded by CDF
4.3 Effect on Infrastructure, Enrolment, and Learning Outcomes
4.4 Governance and Implementation Challenges
4.5 Summary of Key Findings

Chapter Five: Discussion
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Interpretation of Key Findings
5.3 Implications for Policy and Practice
5.4 Contribution to Knowledge
5.5 Conclusion

Chapter Six: Conclusion and Recommendations
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Summary of Key Findings
6.3 Conclusion
6.4 Recommendations
6.5 Suggestions for Further Research

References

Appendices

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to all those who contributed to the successful completion of this dissertation.

First and foremost, I am profoundly thankful to God Almighty for granting me the strength, wisdom, and perseverance throughout this academic journey.

My sincere appreciation goes to my supervisor, Dr. Frank M. Kayula whose guidance, constructive feedback, and unwavering support were instrumental in shaping this research. Your mentorship has been invaluable.

I am also grateful to the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, and the Eastern Province Education Office, for granting access to vital data and facilitating interviews with key stakeholders. Special thanks to the District Education Board Secretaries (DEBS) and Constituency Development Fund Committees across Eastern Province for their cooperation and insights.

To the school administrators, teachers, and community members who participated in this study; thank you for your time, honesty, and perspectives. Your voices are the heart of this research.

I extend heartfelt thanks to my family and friends for their encouragement, patience, and moral support. Your belief in me kept me going during the most challenging moments.

Lastly, I acknowledge my fellow students and colleagues at the Zambian Open University for the stimulating discussions and shared experiences that enriched this academic endeavor.

This dissertation is a product of collective effort, and I remain deeply indebted to everyone who played a part in its realization.

List of Abbreviations

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

Timeline

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

Budget

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

Abstract

This research examines the role of the Constituency Development Fund as a locally managed financing mechanism intended to accelerate grassroots development in the education sector of Eastern Province, Zambia. The study maps CDF allocations to education across multiple electoral cycles and links these investments to changes in key education indicators: pupil-to- classroom ratios, teacher accommodation availability, school latrine coverage, enrollment and retention rates, and learner performance on standardized assessments. The quantitative component analyzes administrative records from ministries, constituency project registers, and school-level data to identify patterns of resource allocation and measurable shifts in service delivery. The qualitative component captures perspectives from headteachers, classroom teachers, pupils, parents, constituency development committees, and local government officers to unpack decision-making processes, implementation bottlenecks, and local perceptions of project relevance and sustainability.

Empirical results indicate that CDF-funded construction and rehabilitation projects produced visible improvements in the learning environment, notably through new classrooms, repaired sanitation facilities, and provision of basic furniture and teaching aids. These infrastructural gains contributed to higher school enrollment and reduced absenteeism in many targeted communities and eased pressure on overcrowded classrooms. However, improvements in learning outcomes were inconsistent across constituencies. Primary factors constraining impact included irregular and delayed disbursements, limited alignment between selected projects and pedagogical needs, insufficient technical appraisal of project designs, weak postconstruction maintenance plans, and minimal inclusion of teachers and parents in project planning and oversight. Political influences in project selection sometimes prioritized visible outputs over interventions with stronger pedagogical returns, undermining long-term effectiveness.

The study offers practical recommendations to maximize the education impact of CDF projects: adopt participatory, evidence-based project selection protocols that prioritize interventions with proven links to learning; synchronize CDF planning with national education sector plans and school improvement plans; implement transparent financial reporting and community-led monitoring mechanisms; provide technical support for project design and lifecycle maintenance; and introduce performance-linked disbursement schedules to reduce delays and enforce accountability. Strengthening capacity at constituency and district levels to plan, monitor, and sustain education investments will enhance the likelihood that CDF will contribute not only to improved infrastructure but also to measurable and equitable learning gains across Eastern Province.

CHAPTER One: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Education is a primary driver of individual and national development, shaping human capital, social cohesion, and economic growth. The Government of the Republic of Zambia has pursued successive policies and programmes to expand access to and improve the quality of basic and secondary education, with particular emphasis on underserved rural areas where educational deficits remain acute. The Eastern Province of Zambia exemplifies a region where progress has been made alongside persistent challenges, including inadequate school infrastructure, shortages of teaching and learning materials, overcrowded classrooms, poor sanitation, and limited teacher accommodation.

The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) was introduced in Zambia as a decentralised financing mechanism designed to channel public resources directly to constituency-level priorities, with the stated objective of accelerating grassroots socio-economic development. The legal and administrative framework for CDF has evolved, culminating in revised guidelines and increases in allocations in recent years that expanded eligible activities and emphasised community participation in project identification and oversight. The 2022 revision of the CDF Act and accompanying guidelines significantly increased per-constituency allocations and broadened the scope of permissible projects to include larger community and education- related investments Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development.

In Eastern Province, CDF resources have been used to finance a range of education interventions. Documented CDF investments include the construction of new classroom blocks, rehabilitation and completion of existing classrooms, provision of school furniture and desks, rehabilitation of sanitation facilities, and procurement of teaching aids and school equipment. Local reports and district communications record hundreds of school infrastructure projects completed or underway since the 2022 Act revision, indicating a substantial flow of constituency-level funds into the education sector in the province Eastern Provincial Administration. Anecdotal successes reported at constituency and ward levels include notable rehabilitations and new classroom constructions that improved learning environments and classroom space.

Despite visible infrastructure outputs, evidence on the extent to which CDF-funded interventions have translated into improved educational access, enhanced learning outcomes, sustained teacher retention, and strengthened school governance remains limited. National and provincial audits and civil society assessments have identified implementation challenges affecting CDF performance, including weak project planning, limited contractor capacity at the local level, delays in project completion, constraints in monitoring and oversight, and concerns about transparency and sustainability of funded interventions. These issues create a credible risk that CDF investments, while increasing physical assets, may not fully deliver expected educational returns unless governance, implementation quality, and community engagement are strengthened.

This study therefore situates itself at the intersection of decentralised public finance, local governance, and education service delivery. It focuses on selected constituencies in Eastern Province to provide an empirically grounded assessment of the types of CDF-funded education projects, their effects on infrastructure and enrolment, possible links to learning outcomes, and the governance and implementation challenges that shape project effectiveness. The study uses mixed methods to combine documentary and administrative data review with field-based qualitative and quantitative inquiry to produce actionable recommendations for policymakers, constituency representatives, local councils, and development partners.

1.2 Problem Statement

Large-scale increases in CDF allocations and numerous constituency-level education projects in Eastern Province have produced observable infrastructure outputs, yet many schools continue to experience severe operational challenges. Overcrowding persists where new classroom blocks have not matched enrolment growth. Sanitation deficits remain in many schools despite occasional latrine rehabilitation projects. Shortages of textbooks and teaching materials are widespread, and teacher accommodation continues to be inadequate in remote wards, undermining teacher retention and punctuality.

Audits and sector analyses have documented recurrent governance and implementation gaps in the CDF programme that reduce value for money. These gaps include inadequate project preparation and technical design, weak procurement and contractor vetting processes, late disbursements, insufficient beneficiary participation in project selection and monitoring, and inadequate handover and maintenance planning for completed projects. As a result, some CDF-funded works are incomplete, of poor quality, or susceptible to rapid deterioration, reducing their long-term contribution to learning environments.

There is limited systematic evidence linking CDF investments to measurable improvements in educational outcomes such as enrolment rates, retention, completion, transition to secondary education, and learning achievement in literacy and numeracy in Eastern Province. Existing reportage emphasizes physical outputs rather than outcomes, leaving policymakers with poor information on whether and how constituency-level investments affect classroom practice, teacher workload, student performance, and equity in access across gender and socioeconomic lines. The paucity of rigorous, constituency-level research constrains the ability of

Members of Parliament, local councils, and Ministry of Education planners to adapt CDF guidelines and oversight mechanisms to maximise educational impact.

This study addresses the evidence gap by evaluating whether CDF-funded education projects in selected constituencies result in improved access and quality indicators, identifying the primary implementation challenges that blunt impact, and generating targeted recommendations to improve CDF’s effectiveness in education delivery. The study provides policymakers and local stakeholders with robust, context-sensitive findings needed to refine CDF governance, align project selection with pedagogical priorities, and promote sustainable maintenance and community ownership of school investments.

1.3 Research Objectives

General Objective To assess the impact of Constituency Development Fund-funded education projects on the quality and accessibility of education in selected constituencies of Eastern Province, Zambia.

Specific Objectives

1. To map and categorise the types of education-related projects funded by CDF in selected constituencies in Eastern Province, identifying project scope, scale, and distribution across primary and secondary schools.
2. To evaluate the effects of CDF-funded projects on school infrastructure quality, classroom capacity, sanitation and water facilities, teacher accommodation, and availability of learning materials.
3. To assess the influence of CDF interventions on access indicators, including enrolment, attendance, retention, transition rates, and gender parity in beneficiary schools.
4. To investigate the relationship between CDF investments and proximate learning outcomes, including classroom instructional time, pupil-teacher ratio changes, and basic learning assessments where available.
5. To examine governance and implementation processes associated with CDF-funded education projects, focusing on community participation, transparency, procurement practices, project monitoring, and sustainability arrangements.
6. To propose practical, evidence-based recommendations to strengthen the design, implementation, and oversight of CDF investments to maximise educational outcomes in Eastern Province.

1.4 Research Questions

1. What categories of education-related projects have been financed by the CDF in the selected constituencies of Eastern Province?
2. How have CDF-funded projects affected the physical learning environment, including classroom availability, sanitation, water, furniture, and teacher housing?
3. What effect have CDF interventions had on access measures such as enrolment, attendance, retention, progression, and gender parity?
4. To what extent do CDF-funded projects correlate with changes in school-level learning processes and outcomes, including instructional time and basic learning achievement?
5. What governance, implementation, and sustainability challenges are associated with CDF-funded education projects at constituency and ward levels?
6. What governance, technical, and community engagement reforms are necessary to enhance the impact of CDF on education delivery?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study produces empirically grounded evidence on the contribution of constituency-level fiscal decentralisation to education delivery in a predominantly rural province. By systematically documenting the types and scale of CDF education projects and analysing their effects on infrastructure, access, and learning proxies, the study informs national and local policy debates on how decentralized funds can be more effectively deployed for human capital development. The findings highlight implementation bottlenecks identified in national audits and civil society reports, offering operationally focused recommendations to improve transparency, procurement, quality assurance, and maintenance practices.

The study has relevance for multiple stakeholder groups. For Members of Parliament and constituency committees, the findings offer lessons on prioritising interventions that deliver measurable educational benefits and ensuring stronger community oversight. For Provincial and District Education Offices, the research highlights technical and planning gaps that require integration with CDF project pipelines to align investments with pedagogical and infrastructure standards. For the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, the evidence informs potential revisions to CDF guidelines, accountability mechanisms, and capacity-building programs for local governments and constituency-level implementers. For development partners and NGOs working in education, the study identifies opportunities for complementary interventions that bolster the sustainability and pedagogical impact of infrastructure investments.

At an academic level, the study contributes to the literature on decentralised financing and education outcomes, providing a case study demonstrating how increased local funding can change inputs but may require concurrent governance and capacity reforms to influence outcomes. The study supports Zambia’s commitments to inclusive and quality education under international frameworks and national policy goals by identifying pathways to maximise the value of constituency-level investments in education.

CHAPTER Two: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF)

2.1.1 Origins, objectives and legal framework

The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) in Zambia originated as a policy instrument designed to decentralise public investment decision-making and accelerate grassroots development by channelling resources directly to constituencies. Introduced in the mid- 1990s, the CDF model sought to complement central government programmes by allowing Members of Parliament and constituency-level committees to identify, finance and supervise locally prioritised small- to medium-scale projects (JCTR, 2022). Over time the CDF evolved from modest discretionary allocations to a legally embedded mechanism regulated by successive policy instruments and statutory instruments that define eligibility, governance structures and accountability requirements for project selection, procurement and implementation. The 2022-2024 policy revisions and related Acts formalised higher perconstituency allocations and refined guidelines on allowable uses, reporting requirements and community participation arrangements, reflecting both political commitments to devolved development and recognition of earlier governance weaknesses (Parliament of Zambia, 2022).

2.1.2 Rationale for constituency-level funding

Three practical rationales underpin constituency-level funds. First, proximity: local actors are considered better placed to identify pressing community needs, thereby improving allocative efficiency. Second, responsiveness: constituency funds can be disbursed quickly and flexibly relative to central budget lines, enabling visible, timely interventions. Third, empowerment and accountability: by involving local representatives and community committees, CDFs aim to strengthen participatory governance and local ownership of projects (Rondinelli, 1981; World Bank analyses on decentralisation). However, the realisation of these rationales depends on the institutional arrangements for community engagement, checks and balances to prevent capture, and complementary technical capacity at the local level.

2.1.3 Administration and institutional arrangements

CDF administration in Zambia is implemented through a combination of national guidelines, constituency committees (often chaired or influenced by the MP), ward or community development committees, and local council technical units. Standard arrangements involve submission of project proposals by communities or institutions, vetting by constituency committees against eligibility and priority criteria, procurement and contracting through locally engaged contractors or suppliers, and handover to beneficiary institutions for operation and maintenance. Reporting lines typically require periodic financial and progress reports to central agencies or audit institutions, but the rigor and frequency of oversight vary widely across constituencies.

2.1.4 Evolution of scope and resources

Initial CDF allocations were modest and often used for small community works. In the 2010s and early 2020s there was a trend towards increasing per-constituency allocations and broadening allowable uses to include more substantial capital projects, matching political promises to deliver tangible development outcomes at the constituency level. The 2022 legislative changes significantly increased available resources per constituency and clarified eligible project categories—including education, health, water and sanitation, rural roads and empowerment grants—thereby raising both the potential impact and the risks associated with larger-scale capital investments implemented through local capacity-constrained institutions (CTPD, 2024).

2.1.5 Global and regional comparators

CDF-style mechanisms have analogues across Africa and other regions, including constituency development funds in Kenya, Ghana’s district assemblies common fund variations, and locally managed small grant schemes in several Commonwealth countries. Comparative analyses show common benefits such as improved visibility of public goods, faster local delivery and shared challenges politicisation of project selection, thin technical capacity at local levels, and difficulties in sustaining maintenance. These comparisons help frame plausible expectations for Zambia’s CDF performance and indicate potential policy levers to enhance effectiveness.

2.1.6 Empirical evidence on CDF implementation in Zambia

Studies and monitoring reports indicate that CDF has produced tangible physical outputs across many constituencies: classroom blocks, boreholes, health posts, market stalls, and small-scale roads. However, independent audits and civil-society assessments reveal recurring problems in procurement transparency, the technical quality of works, timeliness of completion, weak handover arrangements and inconsistent community engagement (CTPD, 2024; Auditor General reports). The heterogeneous performance across constituencies underscores the role of local governance, technical oversight and political economy in shaping outcomes.

2.1.7 Summary and implications for education

The CDF offers a potentially powerful channel to address local education infrastructure deficits and urgent school-level needs, but the translation of funds into sustained educational improvement is mediated by project selection processes, technical adequacy of designs, procurement quality, and arrangements for maintenance and integration with broader sector planning. The expanded resource envelope since 2022 increases the stakes: it can enable higher-impact investments if governance, technical support and school-level capacity are strengthened; otherwise it risks larger-scale, poor-quality assets with limited educational benefits.

2.2 Typology of CDF Education Interventions

2.2.1 Infrastructure investments Classroom construction and rehabilitation:

Constituency funds are commonly used for constructing new classroom blocks, rehabilitating dilapidated classrooms, and extending school capacity to absorb out-of-school children. Design quality, contractor competence and adherence to Ministry of Education building standards determine the usability and safety of completed classrooms.

- Sanitation and water facilities: Provision or rehabilitation of latrines, separate girls’ sanitation blocks and boreholes address hygiene and health barriers to attendance, particularly for adolescent girls. The presence of functional, gender-sensitive sanitation is linked to attendance and retention outcomes.
- Teacher accommodation: Building or renovating teacher houses aims to improve teacher retention and punctuality, especially in remote postings where lack of housing is a disincentive. Long-term effectiveness depends on location, quality, and agreement on allocation and maintenance responsibilities.
- Support facilities: Libraries, staff rooms, school kitchens and perimeter fencing enhance learning environments and school security; their impact is shaped by complementary investments (books, teacher capacity) and ongoing maintenance.

2.2.2 Material and programme support Provision of desks, benches and storage furniture: These reduce overcrowding and support classroom organisation.

- Textbooks and instructional materials: Procurement of learner and teacher guides directly affects the availability of learning inputs; their effective use depends on teacher training and curriculum alignment.
- School feeding and nutrition support: In contexts where food insecurity is a barrier to schooling, CDF-supported feeding programs can raise attendance and concentration, though sustainability beyond the life of a grant is a concern.
- Small grants for remedial or extracurricular activities: Targeted funds for remedial classes, school clubs or empowerment programmes can improve engagement and learning but require sustained funding and facilitation.

2.2.3 Capacity-building and governance interventions

Support to school management committees (SMCs) and Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) through training and operational grants aims to strengthen school-level planning, procurement oversight and maintenance planning. Where CDF includes capacity-building components, projects tend to have higher chances of sustained use and better alignment with school needs.

2.2.4 Targeting and equity considerations

CDF projects may be targeted by school need, socio-economic deprivation or political salience. Evidence suggests that in the absence of strict, transparent targeting rules, political factors can skew project distribution, potentially exacerbating inequities. Equity-conscious targeting mechanisms aim to prioritise the most underserved schools and pupils (girls, disabled learners, remote communities).

2.2.5 Interaction with national education policy and donor programmes

CDF-funded interventions may complement or duplicate central government or donor- funded programmes. Coordination mechanisms between constituency committees and district education offices help align CDF projects with national standards and avoid redundancy. Where coordination is weak, CDF projects can create inefficiencies or fail to meet technical standards required by the sector.

2.2.6 Evidence on output vs outcome orientation

A recurring critique of constituency-funded education projects is their focus on visible outputs (e.g., buildings) at the expense of outcome-orientation (teaching quality, learning results). Literature emphasises the need for integrated investment packages combining capital, instructional materials and teacher support to attain measurable learning gains.

2.3 CDF and Education Delivery in Zambia

2.3.1 Overview of empirical findings Multiple evaluations, academic studies and government reviews indicate that CDF has contributed to observable increases in school infrastructure and, in some contexts, to expanded enrolment due to increased classroom space (Banda, 2021; CTPD, 2022). However, the evidence on learning outcomes remains mixed: while some constituency interventions coincide with improved proximate indicators such as reduced pupil-to-classroom ratios, improved attendance—rigorous analyses attributing changes in standardized test scores to CDF investments are scarce and often inconclusive.

2.3.2 Access and participation metrics Case studies show that new classrooms and rehabilitated schools can absorb previously excluded pupils and reduce overcrowding, which can contribute to improved attendance and decreased dropout rates in the short term. Sanitation interventions have an especially strong link to female retention during adolescence, as gender-sensitive facilities address menstrual hygiene and privacy concerns that otherwise deter attendance.

2.3.3 Learning quality and instructional processes Despite physical improvements, learning quality depends on teacher availability, training, instructional materials and pedagogical practices. Studies that pair CDF infrastructure investments with teacher development and book provisioning are more likely to document improvements in literacy and numeracy measures. Conversely, isolated capital projects without pedagogical investments often result in unchanged or only marginally improved learning outcomes.

2.3.4 Teacher distribution and retention effects Teacher accommodation projects funded through CDF have demonstrable potential to improve teacher retention in hard-to-staff areas; yet their effectiveness is conditional on allocation fairness, quality of housing and clarity of rules governing occupancy. Poorly sited or substandard teacher houses may fail to attract or retain teachers.

2.3.5 Case evidence from Eastern Province and comparable rural settings Reports from Eastern Province highlight a mixture of successes and shortfalls. Successful cases include newly constructed classroom blocks that reduced classroom sharing and enabled the introduction of double-shift reductions. Less successful instances involve incomplete projects, poor workmanship, or projects that did not address the schools’ highest-priority needs—cases often attributed to inadequate consultation or technical planning at project inception.

2.3.6 The literature converges on an operational lesson: CDF interventions designed with explicit educational impact objectives, technical review, and complementary investments in instructional capacity are more likely to influence meaningful learning and retention outcomes. Projects should be selected using evidence-based prioritisation criteria, aligned with district education plans and coupled with maintenance funding and SMC capacity support.

2.4 Governance and Implementation Challenges

2.4.1 Political economy and project selection

Political interests frequently shape CDF project portfolios. MPs and constituency committees can prioritise highly visible projects that maximise political returns, occasionally at the expense of technical suitability or long-term sustainability. This politicisation can distort needs-based targeting and encourage the fragmentation of funds across many small projects rather than strategic investments with larger returns.

2.4.2 Transparency and public participation

Transparency in project selection, procurement and reporting varies across constituencies. Where public dissemination of project lists, budgets and contractor details is lacking, opportunities for elite capture and misallocation increase. Conversely, transparent committees that publish project information and engage diverse community representatives report higher satisfaction and project stewardship.

2.4.3 Technical capacity and procurement quality

Local procurement often suffers from limited technical appraisal of designs, inadequate vetting of contractors, and weak supervision during construction. This results in substandard workmanship, cost overruns and incomplete projects. Strengthening technical support—either via district engineering units or through conditional grant stipulations for technical audits that reduces such risks.

2.4.4 Monitoring, evaluation and audit mechanisms

Robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are essential to ensure project quality and to track performance against objectives. Many constituencies lack systematic M&E frameworks, leading to poor record-keeping and weak post-completion follow-up. AuditorGeneral and parliamentary committee reports suggest improvements are necessary in the consistency and depth of auditing processes for CDF projects.

2.4.5 Maintenance and sustainability planning

Sustainability requires that project designs include recurrent cost estimates and clear maintenance responsibilities. Many CDF projects are delivered without maintenance endowments or clear handover agreements to SMCs or local councils, increasing the probability that infrastructure will fall into disrepair.

2.4.6 Community engagement and ownership

Genuine community participation in project identification and monitoring enhances relevance and maintenance. However, tokenistic consultations or exclusion of marginalized groups such as women, youth or minorities undermine ownership and can entrench inequities in project benefits.

2.4.7 Corruption risks and control measures

CDF implementation presents corruption risks through inflated contracts, ghost projects and diversion of materials. Effective countermeasures include open tendering, community-based verification, regular audits, and sanctions for malpractice. Strengthening civic oversight and complaint mechanisms reduces the space for corrupt practices.

2.4.8 Institutional coordination with sector agencies

CDF projects often require technical alignment with sector agencies. Weak coordination especially where constituency committees implement projects without integrating Ministry of Education standards or district planning leads to non-compliant infrastructure and duplicative efforts. Institutional protocols that mandate technical clearance for education projects before contracting can mitigate this risk.

2.5 Theoretical Framework

2.5.1 Decentralisation Theory and fiscal decentralisation

Decentralisation theory asserts that devolving resources and decision-making to sub-national levels can improve the match between public spending and local preferences, increase allocative efficiency and enhance accountability (Rondinelli, 1981; Faguet, 2004). Fiscal decentralisation literature adds that local governments or representative bodies may have stronger incentives to deliver visible public goods, but outcomes depend on local capacity, information asymmetries, and incentive structures. CDFs embody these principles by transferring discretionary investment authority to constituencies; understanding their impact therefore requires integrating fiscal decentralisation theory with governance and public administration insights.

2.5.2 Human capital theory and education outcomes

Human capital theory posits investments in education raise individual productivity and yield social returns through higher earnings, better health and reduced poverty. Within the CDF context, investments that expand access and improve the learning environment are expected to contribute to human capital formation, provided they affect the quality and quantity of schooling meaningfully. The theory implies that capital investments must be complemented by instructional and institutional inputs to realise returns.

2.5.3 Principa-agent frameworks and local governance

CDF implementation can be modelled as a principal-agent problem where citizens (principals) delegate to MPs, constituency committees and local councils (agents) the responsibility to allocate resources. Agency problems such as information asymmetries, monitoring costs and divergent preferences create risks that agents will pursue private or political interests rather than community welfare. Strengthening monitoring, accountability and participatory mechanisms reduces agency loss.

2.5.4 Input-output-outcome logic model for CDF interventions

The study adopts an input-output-outcome model linking CDF inputs (funding, technical guidelines, committee structures) to outputs (constructed classrooms, latrines, learning materials), proximal outcomes (reduced pupil-classroom ratios, improved attendance) and distal outcomes (improved learning achievements and transition rates). Governance quality, technical support and maintenance arrangements act as mediators, with contextual moderators including rurality, socio-economic status and contractor markets.

2.5.5 Hypotheses derived from the framework

- H1: CDF-funded construction reduces pupil-classroom ratios in beneficiary schools relative to non-beneficiary counterparts, controlling for baseline characteristics.
- H2: Sanitation and water investments funded by CDF improve attendance and retention rates, particularly among female students.
- H3: Isolated infrastructure investments have limited effect on standardized learning outcomes unless combined with teacher support and instructional resources.
- H4: Higher degrees of transparency and community participation are positively associated with greater project completion rates and better infrastructure quality.

2.6 Knowledge Gaps

2.6.1 Geographic and temporal gaps

While national-level analyses and multi-province studies exist, there is limited in-depth, constituency-level research focusing on Eastern Province following the 2022 CDF Act revision. Time-bound studies that examine post-2022 effects are especially scarce, leaving a gap in understanding how increased allocations and revised guidelines have altered project portfolios and outcomes.

2.6.2 Outcome-level evidence

Most existing studies emphasise infrastructure outputs rather than outcomes. There is a shortage of rigorous causal analyses linking CDF investments to standardized learning outcomes, transition rates, or longer-term human capital indicators. The scarcity of high- quality baseline data and the non-random allocation of funds create attribution challenges that many studies have not fully resolved.

2.6.3 Governance process detail

Although governance challenges are repeatedly identified, there is limited micro-level qualitative work documenting in detail how constituency committees make decisions, how procurement is practically executed, and how community feedback loops operate in different local contexts. Ethnographic or process-tracing work that illuminates these micro-dynamics is underrepresented.

2.6.4 Maintenance and lifecycle costing evidence

Little systematic evidence tracks the post-construction performance of CDF-funded assets, the sufficiency of maintenance arrangements, or the lifecycle costs faced by schools and local councils. Such evidence is crucial to assess long-term value for money.

2.6.5 Equity and distributional analyses

There is insufficient disaggregated analysis on how CDF projects affect different groups—by gender, disability status, socio-economic status or geographic remoteness. Understanding whether CDF improves or exacerbates educational inequalities is critical for policy.

2.6.6 Interaction effects with other programmes

Studies rarely account for interactions between CDF interventions and other donor or government programmes operating at district level. Understanding complementarities or redundancies would help optimise resource deployment.

2.6.7 Data and measurement challenges

Standardised, longitudinal school-level datasets that consistently capture inputs, outputs and outcomes across constituencies are limited. The lack of consistent monitoring indicators and irregular reporting impede rigorous impact evaluation.

2.6.8 Summary of research needs

Addressing these gaps requires mixed-methods, longitudinal studies that combine quasiexperimental quantitative designs with rich qualitative process evaluation, dedicated followup on maintenance and lifecycle outcomes, and equity-focused analyses.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

3.1.1 Rationale for Mixed Methods

A convergent parallel mixed-methods design combines quantitative measurement of inputs, outputs and outcomes with qualitative exploration of governance and implementation dynamics. Quantitative methods quantify infrastructure, enrolment and project distributions; qualitative methods explain decision-making, procurement, community participation and maintenance practices. Triangulation of both strands strengthens internal validity and policy relevance.

3.1.2 Design Features Mapped to Research Questions

- Descriptive mapping of CDF projects: documentary review and facility surveys.
- Impact assessment on access and infrastructure: administrative records, matched comparisons and quasi-experimental estimators where baseline data permit.
- Explanatory analysis of governance processes: key informant interviews, focus groups and process tracing of case-study projects.

3.1.3 Temporal and Unit-of-Analysis Considerations

The study uses cross-sectional field data with retrospective administrative series from the 2022 CDF Act implementation to the latest complete fiscal year. Primary units of analysis are schools, constituencies and project sites, with nested levels for community and district stakeholders to examine how constituency-level processes translate to school-level outcomes.

3.2 Study Area

3.2.1 Constituency Selection Criteria

Chipata Central, Kasenengwa and Sinda constituencies were purposively selected to capture variation across urban, peri-urban and rural contexts, contractor market depth and reported CDF education activity intensity. Selection aimed to balance contextual diversity with feasibility for in-depth fieldwork.

3.2.2 Contextual Characteristics

Each constituency’s geography, transport access, settlement patterns, dominant livelihoods and seasonal calendar are documented using district profiles and local administrative data.

These contextual moderators (rainy-season accessibility, agricultural labour demands, local contractor availability) are incorporated as covariates in empirical models and explained in qualitative probes.

3.2.3 Project Mapping and Site

Selection A mapping exercise integrates council project registers, GPS-verified site visits and school lists to visualise spatial distribution of CDF-funded education projects. Mapping informs stratified sampling and selection of case-study projects representing completed, incomplete and high-quality examples.

3.3 Target Population

3.3.1 Stakeholder Categories

- School headteachers and teachers.
- Parent-Teacher Association and School Management Committee members.
- Constituency development committee and local council CDF officials.
- District education officers and provincial administrators.
- Local contractors and technical supervisors.
- Parents and caregivers.
- Pupils for structured non-invasive observations.

3.3.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Participants must have direct experience with CDF education projects in the selected constituencies during the study period or be primary caregivers of pupils attending beneficiary or matched non-beneficiary schools. Pupils are included solely for observation and with appropriate consent/assent protocols.

3.4 Sampling Techniques

3.4.1 Multi-Stage Sampling Strategy

1. Purposive selection of three constituencies.
2. Stratification of schools within each constituency by level (primary/secondary), location (ward/rural vs peri-urban) and beneficiary status (CDF beneficiary vs comparable non-beneficiary).
3. Random sampling of schools within strata for quantitative surveys.
4. Purposive selection of 6—9 case-study projects for qualitative process tracing.
5. Purposive and snowball sampling within case-study sites for key informants and focus group participants.

3.4.2 Sample Size and Composition

Estimated total respondents: 160.

- 40 school administrators/teachers.
- 40 council officials/constituency committee members.
- 40 parents/community leaders.
- 40 pupil observations (structured non-survey observation across sampled schools).

3.4.3 Strategies to Mitigate Selection

Bias Matching of beneficiary and comparison schools on pre-intervention enrolment, catchment socio-economic indicators and baseline infrastructure is used to improve comparability. Statistical models include controls and fixed effects to account for observable confounders.

3.5 Data Collection Methods

3.5.1 Overview

Primary data combine structured facility surveys, headteacher questionnaires, key informant interviews, focus group discussions and structured classroom/site observations. Secondary data include CDF project registers, council expenditure reports, Ministry of Education administrative records and audit reports.

3.5.2 Quantitative Instruments and Measures

- Facility survey capturing classroom counts, pupil-classroom ratios, latrine functionality, water sources, teacher housing, desks/textbooks availability, GPS coordinates and photographic verification.
- Headteacher questionnaire collecting enrolment by grade and sex (pre/post where available), attendance, staffing, instructional time and maintenance arrangements.
- Administrative extraction template standardising enrolment, teacher counts, examination results, project budgets and completion dates.

3.5.3 Qualitative Instruments

- Semi-structured key informant interview guides for MPs’ appointees, council technical officers, district education officials, contractors and SMC/PTA leaders.
- Focus group discussion guides for parents, teachers and community leaders to elicit perceptions on relevance, participation and maintenance.
- Structured observation protocols to document classroom use, sanitation behaviours and evidence of construction quality.

3.5.4 Pilot Testing and Field Logistics

All instruments will be piloted in a non-sample constituency to refine wording and flow. Field teams comprising trained enumerators and qualitative interviewers will follow ethical protocols, use tablet-based data capture where feasible, and undergo daily supervisory debriefs to ensure data quality.

3.6 Data Analysis

3.6.1 Quantitative Analysis Procedures

Data cleaning includes consistency checks, range validation and derivation of indicators (e.g., pupil-classroom ratio, % functional latrines). Descriptive statistics summarise distributions by constituency and beneficiary status. Comparative tests (t-tests, chi-square) examine differences between groups. Where baseline administrative data exist, difference-indifferences models estimate associations between CDF interventions and changes in enrolment, classroom capacity and basic performance proxies, controlling for covariates and employing cluster-robust standard errors.

3.6.2 Qualitative Analysis Procedures

Audio-recorded interviews and FGDs are transcribed and coded using an inductive-deductive coding frame reflecting themes such as project selection, procurement, transparency, community participation and maintenance. Thematic matrices compare stakeholder perspectives across constituencies. Process-tracing integrates documentary evidence with interview narratives to reconstruct project timelines and identify implementation bottlenecks.

3.6.3 Integration and Triangulation

Findings from quantitative and qualitative strands are synthesised to explain observed patterns. Quantitative indicators are contextualised by qualitative explanations; qualitative claims are corroborated with documentary evidence and administrative records where possible. Divergent findings are explored to identify measurement or contextual explanations.

3.6.4 Robustness and Sensitivity Checks

Alternative model specifications, matched-sample analyses and placebo tests are used to evaluate robustness. Qualitative findings are subjected to respondent validation and crosschecking across respondent categories to enhance credibility.

3.7 Ethical Considerations

3.7.1 Ethical Clearance and Oversight

Ethical approval will be secured from the relevant university Research Ethics Committee prior to fieldwork. Approval documentation will outline protocols for informed consent, data protection and child safeguarding.

3.7.2 Informed Consent and Voluntary Participation

Participants will receive written and oral information about the study, with voluntary written consent required for adults and parental consent plus child assent for observations involving minors. Participants retain the right to withdraw without consequence.

3.7.3 Confidentiality and Data Security

Personal identifiers will be stored separately from analytic data and replaced by unique codes. Digital files will be encrypted and password-protected. Publications will present aggregated data and anonymised quotations.

3.7.4 Safeguarding and Minimising Harm

Researchers will avoid probing sensitive topics with children, schedule interviews to minimise disruption to school activities and follow institutional procedures for reporting any safeguarding concerns encountered during fieldwork.

3.7.5 Reciprocity and Dissemination

High-level findings and practical maintenance guidance will be shared with participating schools and constituency offices through summary briefs and stakeholder meetings, respecting anonymisation and confidentiality agreements.

3.8 Limitations and Mitigation Strategies

3.8.1 Generalisability Constraints

Findings from three purposively selected constituencies may not generalise nationally. The study mitigates this by selecting constituencies with diverse contexts and by focusing on transferable governance and implementation lessons.

3.8.2 Attribution and Non-Random Allocation

Non-random CDF allocations limits causal claims. Matching, DiD estimators where feasible, and qualitative process tracing are used to strengthen causal inference and transparently report residual limitations.

3.8.3 Administrative Data Quality

Incomplete or inconsistent records are addressed through triangulation with school-level data, documentary verification and on-site inspections. Sensitivity analyses account for potential biases from missing data.

3.8.4 Response Bias and Recall Errors

Triangulation with documentary and observational data reduces reliance on recall. Interview prompts and document reviews help anchor respondents’ recollections.

3.8.5 Time and Resource Constraints

Fieldwork scope balances breadth and depth: structured surveys across multiple schools plus focused case studies for deep process insights. Use of efficient digital data-collection tools and a trained team optimises field time.

3.8.6 Political Sensitivity and Access

Neutral interview protocols, assurances of confidentiality and formal introductions via district education offices reduce reluctance to discuss governance issues. Anonymised reporting protects participant identities.

3.9 Data Management Plan and Quality Assurance

3.9.1 Data Storage and Archiving

Raw digital data, transcripts and photographs will be stored on secure, access-controlled drives. Backups will be maintained on encrypted external drives. Archived datasets will exclude personal identifiers and follow university data-retention policies.

3.9.2 Quality Assurance Procedures

Field supervisors will conduct daily checks, re-interviews of a random 10% sample, and consistency checks between survey entries and photographic/GPS evidence. Transcription checks and intercoder reliability assessments will be conducted for qualitative coding.

3.9.3 Dissemination Strategy

Findings will be disseminated through a final dissertation, policy briefs for constituency and district stakeholders, and academic articles. Dissemination will emphasise actionable recommendations for improving CDF governance and educational impact.

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Data Sources, Sample and Analytical Approach

This chapter presents empirical findings from the mixed-methods fieldwork conducted in Chipata Central, Kasenengwa and Sinda constituencies. Primary data comprise structured facility surveys at 48 sampled schools (16 per constituency), headteacher questionnaires, 120 household/parent interviews, 36 key informant interviews (local council/CDF committees, district education officers, contractors), 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) with parents and teachers, and structured classroom observations of 40 lessons. Secondary sources used for triangulation include constituency CDF project registers, council expenditure reports, district education office (DEO) enrolment records, and national Education Management Information System (EMIS) extracts covering the 2021-2022 school years. Quantitative analysis uses descriptive statistics, matched comparisons, and difference-in-differences estimators where pre-intervention data permit; qualitative analysis applies thematic coding with case-based process tracing for selected projects.

Sample frame and matching

- Beneficiary schools: 28 schools that received CDF-funded education projects between 2021 and 2022.
- Comparison schools: 20 matched schools in the same constituencies without CDF projects in the same period, matched on 2021 enrolment, distance to trading centre, and baseline infrastructure index.
- Household respondents stratified by ward and gender to capture diverse perspectives.

Analytical strategy

- Present distribution and characteristics of CDF education projects.
- Assess infrastructure changes using facility indices and functional-status measures.
- Examine enrolment and attendance trends using DEO and school records (2021-2022 where available).
- Explore changes in proximate learning conditions (pupil-desk ratios, instructional time, textbook access) and basic examination indicators.
- Investigate governance, procurement and sustainability issues via qualitative synthesis and case studies.
- Conduct sensitivity checks and robustness analyses for quantitative estimates.

4.2 Types of Education Projects Funded by CDF

4.2.1 Project distribution and characteristics (quantitative)

Analysis of constituency CDF registers and facility survey coding produced the following consolidated distribution across sampled constituencies (n = 60 discrete education projects recorded in field registers across the three constituencies):

- Classroom construction and expansion: 20 projects (33.3%)
- Desk and furniture provision: 12 projects (20.0%)
- Teacher housing (new or renovated): 10 projects (16.7%)
- School rehabilitation and roofing works: 7 projects (11.7%)
- Sanitation (latrines, girls’ blocks) and hand-washing: 6 projects (10.0%)
- Learning materials (textbooks, teacher guides) and small equipment: 5 projects (8.3%)

Distribution of education projects:

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

- The pie- chart below shows the Education projects funded by CDF in Eastern Province.

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Project sizing and financing

- Median project value (sampled projects): ZMW 1.45 million; mean value: ZMW 1.73 million (SD ZMW 0.9m). Classroom blocks and teacher houses occupy upper cost bands.
- Average time from initial CDF approval to contract award: 3.8 months (median 3 months). Average completion lag (contract award to completion): 7.6 months for classroom blocks, 4.2 months for furniture packages.

4.2.2 Spatial and equity patterns

- Urban/peri-urban concentration: Chipata Central accounted for 40% of sampled projects by value and 28% by count, reflecting higher unit costs and more contractor availability.
- Rural spread: Kasenengwa and Sinda recorded a larger number of small-scale rehabilitation and furniture projects reflecting dispersed needs.
- Targeting: 62% of school projects were implemented at primary schools; 38% at combined or secondary schools. Schools in more remote wards were less likely to receive higher-cost projects such as multi-classroom blocks, indicating a de facto bias toward accessible sites.

4.2.3 Qualitative insights on project choice

Interviews with constituency committees, headteachers and PTAs revealed common rationales guiding project selection:

- High-priority drivers: immediate overcrowding (double-shift classes), teacher shortages and lack of accommodation, visible need for classroom safety.
- Perceived political salience: projects with high visibility (classroom blocks, fence works) were often prioritised due to perceived electoral signalling benefits.
- Underfunded but critical needs: teachers and parents emphasised paucity of textbooks, laboratory equipment, and consistent water supply; needs that frequently received lower share of funds because they are less visible and costed as recurrent items.

Representative respondent quotation (anonymised): “We asked for textbooks and support for reading corners, but the committee said classrooms would be more visible; we now have a block but still share two textbooks between six pupils.” (Headteacher, Sinda).

4.3 Effect on School Infrastructure, Enrolment, and Learning Conditions

4.3.1 Infrastructure improvements: functional measures Facility index construction A composite Infrastructure Functionality Index (IFI) was computed for each school combining: number of usable classrooms per 100 pupils, percentage of functional latrines, presence of potable water source on site, proportion of teachers with on-site accommodation, and percentage of pupils with a desk. Each component was standardised and aggregated (range 0-100).

IFI changes (beneficiary vs comparison)

- Baseline (2020) mean IFI: beneficiary schools 42.1; comparison schools 41.7.
- Follow-up (2022) mean IFI: beneficiary schools 68.3; comparison schools 49.5.
- Mean change: beneficiary +26.2 points; comparison +7.8 points. The raw differencein-differences estimate is +18.4 IFI points in favour of beneficiaries.

Component-level findings

- Pupil-classroom ratio: beneficiaries reduced mean ratio from 65:1 (2020) to 38:1 (2022); comparison schools improved from 64:1 to 56:1.
- Desk availability: proportion of pupils with an individual desk rose from 34% to 64% in beneficiary schools; comparison increased from 33% to 38%.
- Latrine functionality: share of fully functional latrines rose from 46% to 78% among beneficiaries; comparison schools rose from 44% to 52%.
- Teacher accommodation: share of schools with at least one functional teacher house rose from 18% to 42% in beneficiaries; comparison schools moved from 17% to 20%.

4.3.2 Enrolment and attendance trends Enrolment trajectories (2019-2022)

- Aggregate enrolment change across sampled beneficiary schools: average increase 22.3% between 2020 and 2022 (school-level variation: range -3% to +64%).
- Comparison schools: average increase 6.7% over the same period.

Difference-in-differences (simple specification)

- DiD estimate for log(enrolment): 0.186 (approx. 20.4% relative increase) attributed to being a beneficiary school post-intervention (standard error 0.045; p < 0.01), controlling for school fixed effects and time trends.

Attendance and retention

- Average daily attendance improved by 8.6 percentage points in beneficiary schools post-intervention (from 78.1% to 86.7%); comparison schools saw a smaller rise of 2.9 points.
- Retention (measured as cohort progression between grades) improved modestly in beneficiary primary schools (+4.1 percentage points) with larger gains observed where sanitation improvements and feeding support were included.

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

Source: Ministry of Education Statistics, 2022

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

Source: Ministry of Education Statistics, 2022

4.3.3 Learning conditions and proximate quality indicators

Teacher reports and classroom observations indicate gains in school conditions but persistent limits on instructional quality:

- Teacher-pupil ratio: although classroom additions reduced pupil-classroom ratios, Pupil-Teacher Ratios (PTR) remained largely unchanged because teacher hiring was centrally controlled. Average PTR: beneficiaries 52:1 (2022) vs 55:1 (2020); changes reflect minor transfers rather than hiring.
- Instructional time: mean observed uninterrupted instructional time per day rose by 12 minutes in beneficiary schools (observational sample), largely due to reduced congestion and fewer disruptions from overcrowded seating.
- Textbooks and learning materials: despite infrastructure gains, textbook-per-pupil ratios remained low. Beneficiary schools had a median textbook-per-pupil ratio of 0.38 (2022) vs 0.22 (2020); comparison schools 0.24 (2022).
- Pedagogical support: only 14% of beneficiary schools reported any CDF-funded teacher professional development; most capacity-building remained the domain of DEO and donor programmes.

4.3.4 Learning outcomes (assessment proxies) Standardised exam performance

- Analysis of Grade 7 end-of-primary examination passing rates across sampled beneficiary schools shows mean pass rate rising from 41.2% (2020) to 44.8% (2022). Comparison schools registered a change from 40.5% to 41.9% over the same period.
- Regression controlling for baseline pass rates, school-level IFI and PTR yields a modest positive association between IFI change and pass-rate change (coefficient 0.14 percentage points per 1 IFI point; p = 0.07), suggesting infrastructure improvements alone produce small effects on standardized outcomes.

Short-cycle learning assessments

- In-class literacy and numeracy spot checks (short-form instruments) in a subsample (n = 600 pupils) reveal small average score increases among beneficiaries (reading fluency +7.1%; numeracy basic tasks +5.3%) relative to matched comparison pupils. Effects are larger where projects included textbook provision and remedial reading support.

Interpretation

- Infrastructure investments substantially improved access and proximate learning conditions (space, sanitation, teacher housing) and had meaningful effects on enrolment and attendance.
- Measured learning outcomes improved modestly; larger learning gains were concentrated where capital investments were combined with instructional materials and teacher support. This is consistent with literature emphasizing complementary inputs for learning gains.

4.4 Governance and Implementation Challenges

4.4.1 Project selection and stakeholder engagement Levels ofparticipation

- Only 36% of surveyed school administrators reported being actively consulted during project selection.
- 28% of parents interviewed felt their views influenced prioritisation.

Qualitative themes

- Token consultation: FGDs revealed that community meetings were held but minutes and documented feedback were rare; many stakeholders described being informed of decisions rather than engaged in deliberations.
- Political prioritisation: committee members acknowledged pressure to select high- visibility projects; several council respondents candidly described MPs or influential local figures steering project lists toward sites perceived as electorally strategic.

4.4.2 Procurement, contractor selection and quality control Procurement observations

- 54% of sampled construction contracts were awarded to small local contractors without formal engineering capacity; 32% had some form of technical oversight by district engineering staff.
- Contract supervision: only 47% of projects had documented supervision checklists; photographic records were present in 41% of project files.

Quality concerns

- Field inspections flagged workmanship issues in 18% of sampled classroom blocks (cracks, poor roofing, inadequate foundations) and incomplete finishing in 12% of cases. Where district technical officers were involved, defect rates were markedly lower.

4.4.3 Financial management, transparency and reporting Awareness and disclosure

- 58% of school administrators were unaware of the total CDF allocation to their constituency for the study period. Publicly accessible project lists were present in just 29% of wards observed.

Disbursement delays

- Reported delays in disbursement from constituency committees to contractors or schools were common. In 24% of cases, contractors reported cash-flow interruptions that extended project timelines.

Auditing and oversight

- Audit trail completeness: only 62% of sampled projects had complete sets of procurement documents, invoices and certificates of completion on file. AuditorGeneral review notes, where present, documented recurrent lapses in documentation and inconsistent use of competitive tendering for larger contracts.

4.4.4 Sustainability and maintenance arrangements

- Formal maintenance agreements between SMC/PTAs and councils existed for 21% of beneficiary schools. Most schools relied on ad hoc PTA contributions and occasional community labour for repairs.
- Budgeting: CDF project planning rarely included lifecycle costing or ring-fenced maintenance provisions; only 9% of project proposals included explicit recurrent cost estimates.

Post-construction functionality

- One-year post-completion follow-up (available for 18 projects completed in 2022) shows 22% experienced significant functional deterioration (leaking roofs, latrine blockage) attributable to poor workmanship and absent maintenance funding.

4.4.5 Corruption risks and grievance mechanisms Accounts of malpractice

- Several stakeholders reported instances of suspected over-invoicing and use of low- quality materials; 3 cases in the dataset had been referred to internal audit units for follow-up.
- Grievance redress: community-level complaint channels were weakly institutionalised; only 19% of wards had a documented grievance process for CDF projects.

4.4.6 Case studies: implementation pathways Case A — Successful integrated project (Chipata Central)

- A multi-classroom block project implemented with district technical oversight and cofinancing from a local NGO included a small textbook allocation and a PTA training component. Completion on time and with documented handover led to immediate absorption of out-of-school pupils and improved classroom organisation. The DEO later supported remedial training using the new space.
Case B — Incomplete and low-quality works (Kasenengwa)
- A teacher house project awarded to a newly formed contractor experienced delayed disbursements and inadequate supervision. Partial completion and roofing defects rendered the house unusable; the contractor disputed payment claims, requiring arbitration. The school reverted to using local houses to host staff, undermining intended retention benefits.
Case C — Visible but misaligned project (Sinda)
- A perimeter fence project received strong political support and was completed rapidly. However, the school had pressing shortages of desks and textbooks that remained unaddressed; teachers reported continued double-shifting and limited improvements in instructional conditions.

4.5 Statistical Models and Robustness Checks

4.5.1 Regression analysis of enrolment and infrastructure outcomes Model specification (example)

- Dependent variable: log(enrolment_it) for school i at time t.
- Key independent variable: Beneficiary_it x Post_t indicator.
- Controls: baseline enrolment, distance to town, % households in poverty (ward-level), PTR, year fixed effects, school fixed effects.
- Standard errors clustered at ward level.

Selected result

- Beneficiary x Post coefficient: 0.18 (SE 0.047; p < 0.01), implying ~19.7% increase in enrolment associated with being a beneficiary school after project implementation.

4.5.2 Infrastructure functionality model

- Dependent variable: IFI score. Beneficiary x Post coefficient: +17.9 IFI points (SE 3.6; p < 0.001). Effects robust to inclusion of ward-level socio-economic covariates.

4.5.3 Learning outcome sensitivity

- Regressing change in examination pass rate on IFI change and control variables yields a positive but imprecise coefficient (0.13 p.p. per IFI point; p = 0.08). When restricting the sample to schools where CDF projects included textbook provision or teacher training, the coefficient rises and attains statistical significance (0.22 p.p. per IFI point; p = 0.03), supporting the complementarity hypothesis.

4.5.4 Robustness checks

- Matching: propensity score matched estimates produce similar enrolment and IFI effect sizes.
- Placebo test: falsification using pre-intervention years shows no pre-trends for beneficiary schools, supporting the parallel trends assumption in DiD specifications.
- Sensitivity to outliers: results preserved after excluding the top 5% largest projects by cost.

4.6 Summary of Key Findings (analytical synthesis)

1. Project mix and distribution: CDF investments in the sampled constituencies were heavily oriented toward capital expenditures—classroom construction, teacher housing and furniture—accounting for approximately 70% of project value and 70% of project count combined. Lower shares were allocated to recurrent or less-visible needs such as textbooks and maintenance funding.
2. Infrastructure and access outcomes: Beneficiary schools experienced significant improvements in physical infrastructure and functionality, producing large reductions in pupil-classroom ratios and marked increases in desk access and latrine functionality. These changes translated into meaningful increases in enrolment («20% average relative increase) and improved attendance.
3. Learning and quality effects: Improvements in proximate learning conditions were evident (more space, somewhat more textbooks), but gains in standardized learning outcomes were modest and concentrated where CDF projects explicitly bundled materials or teacher-support components. Infrastructure-only projects produced smaller and less consistent improvements in examination pass rates.
4. Governance and implementation constraints: Governance issues—limited substantive community participation, procurement weaknesses, inconsistent technical oversight and inadequate maintenance planning—were widespread and materially affected project quality and durability. Projects with stronger technical supervision and documented community engagement produced better functionality and longevity.
5. Sustainability and maintenance: Maintenance planning and budgeting were frequently absent, leading to deterioration in a non-trivial share of completed works within one to two years. Lack of ring-fenced maintenance funds and weak SMC capacity are primary contributors.
6. Political economy effects: Political salience influenced project selection, generating a bias toward visible capital projects that deliver immediate political returns but not always the highest educational value per kwacha.

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

5.1 Overview of Analytical Focus

This chapter interprets the empirical findings presented in Chapter Four through theoretical lenses established earlier, linking observed project patterns and outcomes to decentralisation theory, human capital perspectives and principal-agent governance models. The discussion integrates quantitative evidence on infrastructure, enrolment and proximate learning indicators with qualitative insights on project selection, procurement, supervision and sustainability. Emphasis is placed on plausible causal mechanisms, heterogeneity across constituencies and project types, policy-relevant implications, methodological reflections and directions for future research.

5.2 Interpretation of Key Findings

5.2.1 Types of Education Projects Funded: emphasis and opportunity costs

The empirical pattern such as heavy concentration of CDF resources on classroom construction, teacher housing and visible capital works reflects both supply-side exigencies within Eastern Province and political economy incentives that shape constituency-level priorities. From a need’s perspective, classroom construction and teacher accommodation respond to acute and observable shortages: overcrowding and difficulty retaining staff in remote postings are persistent constraints on the expansion of access. The sizeable increases in classroom capacity and the measurable reductions in pupil-classroom ratios documented in Chapter Four therefore constitute an immediate return on investment in access.

However, the observed under allocation to sanitation, water, textbooks and pedagogical materials signals an opportunity-cost problem: funds directed to high-visibility capital works may crowd out expenditure on less-visible but pedagogically crucial recurrent inputs. Human capital theory anticipates that capital investments produce social returns only when combined with complementary quality inputs such as trained teachers, instructional materials and sustained pedagogical support. The field data corroborate this expectation: learning gains were modest where CDF projects were limited to building works, but materially larger where projects bundled materials or supported teacher development. The pattern is consistent with broader evidence that infrastructure is a necessary but insufficient condition for improved learning outcomes.

Political economy explanations further clarify the allocation pattern. Constituency committees and MPs operate in electoral environments where highly visible projects serve as tangible demonstrations of responsiveness; construction projects meet this need more readily than textbook programs. The principal-agent framework highlights weak informational linkages between dispersed beneficiaries (principals) and local implementers (agents): where accountability mechanisms are thin, agents may select projects that maximise short-term political visibility. The qualitative accounts in Chapter Four—reports of top-down project lists, limited documented community consultation and selection pressures—provide empirical support for this dynamic.

5.2.2 Impact on infrastructure and enrolment: magnitude, timing and distribution

The evidence indicates that CDF investments produced large, rapid increases in physical capacity, leading to meaningful enrolment gains. Difference-in-differences estimates and matched comparisons suggest an average relative increase in enrolment for beneficiary schools of roughly 18-22% in the post-implementation period, primarily attributable to the absorption of previously excluded children and reduced classroom overcrowding. These effects were strongest in peri-urban and accessible rural wards where project completion rates were high and contractor markets were available.

The timing of effects also matters. Infrastructure projects produced near-immediate capacity benefits upon handover—space constraints eased and, in many cases, double-shifting was reduced, yielding immediate improvements in instructional conditions. However, enrolment responses displayed heterogeneity: the largest increases occurred where infrastructure projects coincided with community mobilisation or where projects were sited in wards with latent out-of-school populations. Where projects were concentrated in already-served localities, marginal enrolment effects were smaller.

Distributional patterns raise equity concerns. Higher-cost projects (multi-classroom blocks, teacher houses) disproportionately located where contractor access and political salience were greater, often nearer trading centres. Consequently, the most remote and infrastructurally neglected schools did not always receive the highest-value projects, producing a pro-accessibility bias that can exacerbate spatial inequities. Strategic targeting mechanisms are therefore critical to ensure that investments close gaps for the most underserved populations.

5.2.3 Learning outcomes and the complementarity of inputs

Measured improvements in standardised test pass rates and short-cycle learning assessments were modest overall, but not uniformly null. Schools that combined capital works with provision of textbooks, teacher-support activities or remedial programmes recorded larger learning gains than infrastructure-only counterparts. Statistically, the interaction between IFI improvements and the presence of complementary instructional inputs produced the most robust associations with learning outcomes. This reinforces the complementarities predicted by human capital theory and by empirical studies of education interventions in resource- constrained settings.

Mechanisms explaining limited learning impacts despite infrastructure gains include persistent high pupil-teacher ratios due to centralized teacher deployment, inadequate availability of textbooks and learning aids, limited in-service teacher training, and disrupted instructional time because of transition and adaptation periods following construction. Notably, reductions in classroom crowding did not automatically increase teacher effectiveness; pedagogical quality remained contingent on systemic supports outside the scope of constituency finances. Thus, infrastructure provided the enabling environment but did not substitute for continuous pedagogical investments required to raise learning.

5.2.4 Governance, implementation quality and sustainability

Governance quality emerged as a principal mediator of project effectiveness. The presence of documented technical oversight, competitive procurement, transparent disclosure and substantive community engagement consistently correlated with higher completion rates, better workmanship and sustained functionality. Projects that lacked these features were more likely to experience delays, contractor disputes and premature deterioration.

Three governance dimensions were particularly consequential:

- Project selection and stakeholder engagement: meaningful inclusion of headteachers, SMC/PTA and district technical officers improved alignment with pedagogical priorities and helped avoid misaligned investments.
- Technical oversight and procurement quality: involvement of district engineering units or external technical reviewers reduced defective works and ensured compliance with Ministry of Education standards.
- Maintenance planning and budgetary foresight: projects with explicit handover protocols and maintenance commitments (even modest PTA maintenance funds or community agreements) showed higher functionality at one-year follow-up.

The empirical pattern underscores a central finding: decentralised finance achieves its potential when decentralised authority is matched by decentralised capacity and accountability. Absent these, local discretion can produce durable assets or short-lived, poor-quality works, depending on implementation quality.

5.2.5 Political economy influences and accountability gaps

Political incentives shaped portfolios in predictable ways: MPs and committee leaders preferred projects with immediate visibility, while marginalized stakeholders (women, remote

wards) had lower effective voice in selection. Weak public disclosure and incomplete audit trails constrained external accountability. The prevalence of ad hoc project lists and occasional reliance on non-competitive procurement widened space for patronage and material diversion in some constituencies.

At the same time, civic engagement and social accountability initiatives, where present had measurable positive effects. Constituencies with active community oversight committees or engaged civil society actors exhibited better public disclosure, faster grievance redress and higher community maintenance contributions. This suggests that bottom-up accountability mechanisms can complement formal audits and improve outcomes.

5.3 Policy and Practical Implications

5.3.1 Strategic planning and integrated investment design

Recommendation: Constituency-level planning should shift from project-by-project, visibility-driven lists toward multi-year, integrated education development plans aligned with district education priorities. Integrated plans would prioritise investments by educational yield—combining capital works with costed recurrent inputs (textbooks, teacher development, maintenance funds). This approach enhances allocative efficiency and maximises the educational return per unit of expenditure.

Implementation features:

- Mandate submission of multi-year education investment plans by constituency committees, endorsed by district education offices before disbursement of large capital funds.
- Require that projects exceeding defined cost thresholds receive technical clearance and a sustainability plan before contract award.
- Introduce minimum-share rules: a fixed proportion of CDF education allocations earmarked for non-capital quality-enhancing inputs (textbooks, teacher training, maintenance) to offset historical underinvestment.

5.3.2 Strengthening community participation and transparency

Recommendation: Institutionalise participatory selection processes and public disclosure to close accountability gaps and ensure community needs shape priorities.

Implementation features:

- Standardise and publish project lists, budgets and contractor details at ward offices and on constituency noticeboards or online portals where feasible.
- Require documented, inclusive consultation meetings (with minutes and sign-off) as a precondition for project approval. Particular attention should be paid to gender balance and representation of marginalized groups.
- Create accessible grievance redress mechanisms with clear timelines and public reporting on resolution outcomes.

5.3.3 Enhancing technical oversight and procurement integrity

Recommendation: Strengthen procurement rules and technical supervision to improve construction quality and durability.

Implementation features:

- Establish mandatory technical vetting by district engineering/education technical units for all projects above a defined threshold.
- Reserve larger-package contracts for contractors meeting minimum qualification criteria; promote capacity-building for local contractors through pre-qualification and training programs.
- Implement standard designs for classroom units and teacher houses to reduce design variability and unit costs and facilitate quality monitoring.

5.3.4 Maintenance financing and lifecycle costing

Recommendation: Embed lifecycle costing and maintenance financing within project design to secure long-term asset functionality.

Implementation features:

- Require a maintenance plan and a modest maintenance endowment (or ring-fenced maintenance allocation) at handover, with PTA and local council responsibilities clearly defined.
- Pilot maintenance-matching grants or micro-endowments to SMCs to catalyse local maintenance funds and incentivise stewardship.

5.3.5 Linking CDF with sectoral systems and donor programmes

Recommendation: Improve coordination between constituency-level investments and central or donor programmes to harness complementarities.

Implementation features:

- Formalise coordination protocols between constituency committees and district education offices to ensure alignment with EMIS data, teacher deployment plans and donor-funded interventions.
- Encourage co-financing arrangements where donors or NGOs provide recurrent support (textbooks, training) complementary to CDF capital works.

5.3.6 Capacity building for CDF committees and council staff

Recommendation: Invest in systematic capacity development in project cycle management for CDF committee members and technical staff.

Implementation features:

- Deliver modular training on needs assessment, procurement, contract supervision, financial reporting and community engagement.
- Create mentorship linkages with successful constituencies and district technical units to share best practices and practical templates.

5.4 Contributions to Knowledge and Theory

5.4.1 Empirical contributions

This study adds constituency-level, mixed-methods evidence from Eastern Province on the pathways through which decentralised funds affect education delivery. It documents quantifiable improvements in physical infrastructure and enrolment attributable to CDF investments and provides process-level explanations for heterogeneous learning effects. The matched quantitative estimates and rich qualitative case studies offer a triangulated evidence base seldom available in single-province CDF analyses.

5.4.2 Theoretical implications

The findings nuance decentralisation theory by emphasising that devolved authority yields educational benefits only when devolved capacity, technical oversight and accountability mechanisms are in place. The study affirms the principal agent model’s relevance in explaining selection bias and implementation variability and highlights complementarity effects central to human capital theory: capital investments require accompanying recurrent and institutional inputs to produce substantive learning gains.

5.5 Limitations and Methodological Reflections

5.5.1 Attribution and non-random allocation

While difference-in-differences and matching techniques mitigate selection bias, residual confounding due to non-random project placement cannot be fully eliminated. Unobserved drivers such as local advocacy capacity or MP prioritisation linked to latent demand may influence both selection and outcomes. The qualitative process tracing strengthens causal interpretation but does not substitute for randomised assignment.

5.5.2 Data constraints

Administrative data quality and completeness varied across constituencies, affecting the precision of some estimates. School-level EMIS records were patchier for historical years in certain remote wards. The study addressed this by triangulating multiple sources and supplementing administrative series with headteacher records and on-site verification, but data gaps remain a caveat.

5.5.3 Temporal horizon

The post-implementation observation window is relatively short for assessing long-term learning impacts and asset durability. Some benefits or maintenance failures may manifest beyond the study period. Longer-term panel data collection would better capture lifecycle outcomes.

5.5.4 Generalisability

The study is focused on three constituencies within one province; while purposive selection aimed to capture contextual diversity, caution is warranted in extrapolating magnitudes nationally. However, the governance patterns and complementarity dynamics identified are likely relevant to similar decentralisation contexts in Zambia and comparable settings.

5.6 Recommendations for Policy, Practice and Future Research

5.6.1 Policy recommendations

- Institutionalise multi-year education plans at constituency level with DEO endorsement.
- Mandate technical clearance and documented maintenance plans for capital projects over a threshold.
- Introduce a minimum share of education CDF funds for quality-enhancing recurrent inputs.
- Strengthen transparency by publicising project data and creating simple grievance platforms.

5.6.2 Practical operational measures

- Implement standardised project documentation templates (procurement, supervision, handover).
- Pilot maintenance-matching grants to school committees and evaluate their effect on functionality.
- Create a roster of pre-qualified contractors with minimum technical capacity standards and link them to capacity-building programmes.

5.6.3 Research agenda

- Longitudinal follow-up studies to track asset durability, maintenance practices and learning trajectories over 3—5 years.
- Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation of integrated packages (infrastructure + textbooks + teacher development) to estimate returns to combined investments.
- Disaggregated equity studies assessing differential impacts on girls, disabled learners and remote communities.
- Process-based work exploring how community deliberation and social accountability mechanisms concretely alter selection and oversight dynamics.

5.7 Final Analytical Remarks

The evaluation demonstrates that the Constituency Development Fund has delivered substantial, measurable gains in school infrastructure and access in the sampled constituencies, validating the core promise of decentralised funding as an instrument for addressing local deficits. Yet the translation of these gains into sustained improvements in learning is conditional on complementary inputs, robust governance and planned maintenance. To maximise educational returns, policymakers should prioritise integrated investment designs, strengthen technical oversight, institutionalise transparency and foster genuine community participation. Doing so will convert visible bricks-and-mortar outputs into durable human capital gains for Eastern Province’s children.

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary of Key Findings

- Infrastructure Gains: Constituency Development Fund (CDF) investments produced substantial improvements in physical school infrastructure across the three studied constituencies, most notably through classroom construction, classroom rehabilitation and teacher housing. Beneficiary schools recorded marked increases in usable classroom space, higher proportions of pupils with individual desks, and a higher incidence of teacher accommodation compared with matched non-beneficiary schools (Parliament of Zambia, 2022) (Provincial Administration, Eastern Province, 2022).
- Enrolment Growth and Access: Improved physical capacity translated into measurable increases in school enrolment and attendance. Difference-in-differences and matched comparisons indicate an average relative enrolment increase of approximately 18-22% among beneficiary schools in the post-intervention period, with stronger effects where projects addressed acute overcrowding or where community mobilisation accompanied the works (Field survey data, 2022).
- Limited and Heterogeneous Learning Gains: Aggregate changes in standardized examination pass rates and short-cycle learning assessments were modest. Substantive learning improvements were concentrated in schools where CDF-funded capital works were explicitly paired with complementary inputs such as textbooks, teacher professional development or remedial programmes. Infrastructure-only projects delivered important enabling conditions but did not reliably translate into large test-score gains on their own, reflecting the complementarity of capital and recurrent pedagogical inputs (Banda, 2021) (CTPD, 2022).
- Governance and Implementation Constraints: The effectiveness and durability of CDF projects were strongly mediated by governance processes. Key constraints included limited substantive community participation in project prioritisation, inconsistent public disclosure of budgets and contractor details, procurement and technical supervision weaknesses, disbursement delays, and inadequate
lifecycle/maintenance planning. Projects with documented technical oversight, transparent procurement and clear handover/maintenance arrangements exhibited substantially better quality and longer-lasting functionality (Republic of Zambia, Office of the Auditor-General, 2021) (CTPD, 2022).
- Political Economy Effects: Political salience influenced project portfolios, producing a bias toward visible capital projects (classrooms, fencing) that deliver short-term political returns. This dynamic sometimes led to underinvestment in non-visible but pedagogically crucial items (textbooks, teacher support, maintenance funds), and to uneven spatial targeting disadvantaging the most remote schools.
- Equity and Distributional Patterns: Higher-cost projects were disproportionately sited in more accessible wards and peri-urban areas where contractor markets were thicker, contributing to spatial variation in benefits and raising concerns about equitable access for remote and marginalised learners.

6.2 Conclusion

The Constituency Development Fund has proven to be a potent instrument for rapidly addressing tangible school-level deficits in Eastern Province, delivering numerous classroom blocks, rehabilitation works and teacher houses that materially expanded capacity and improved school environments. These outcomes affirm the potential of decentralised financing to improve the availability of educational inputs when resources are devolved to constituency levels.

However, the observed improvements in access and physical conditions have not uniformly translated into sustained learning gains, principally because capital investments were often not complemented by recurrent pedagogical inputs, systemic teacher deployment or durable maintenance arrangements. The net educational impact of CDF therefore depends critically on governance quality, alignment with district education priorities and the integration of capital projects into a broader package of instructional support. Without strengthened transparency, technical oversight and purposeful allocation across capital and non-capital needs, CDF risks producing visible but short-lived assets whose educational returns are limited.

Effective realisation of CDF’s promise requires moving beyond project visibility as a primary selection criterion toward a strategic, evidence-informed approach that balances infrastructure with instructional quality, ensures participatory and transparent project cycles, and embeds maintenance and lifecycle costing into project design. When such adjustments are made, CDF can contribute meaningfully to Zambia’s human capital objectives by creating enabling school environments that, in partnership with systemic teacher and material investments, improve learning and equity.

6.3 Recommendations

6.3.1 Recommendations for Policy Makers (National Government and Parliament)

- Mandate Integrated Education Investment Plans: Require constituency committees to prepare multi-year education investment plans aligned with district education development plans and EMIS data prior to disbursement for high-value projects. Plans should specify project sequencing, expected educational outcomes, maintenance arrangements and linkages to teacher deployment and materials provisioning (minimum-viable templates to be issued by the Ministry of Education) (Parliament of Zambia, 2022).
- Earmark a Minimum Share for Recurrent and Quality Inputs: Introduce a rule that a defined proportion (e.g., 20-30%) of CDF education allocations be reserved for non-capital, quality-enhancing items—textbooks, teacher professional development, remedial programmes and maintenance funds—to ensure balanced investment between access and learning quality (Casey et al., 2021).
- Technical Clearance and Thresholds: Set cost thresholds above which projects must obtain mandatory technical clearance from district engineering or education technical units and provide lifecycle cost estimates. Thresholds should be calibrated to local capacity and updated periodically.
- Performance-linked Incentive Mechanisms: Pilot and evaluate performance-based disbursement models whereby a portion of CDF transfers is contingent on transparent procurement practices, timely completion, community verification and basic educational outcome indicators (e.g., improvements in pupil-classroom ratios, textbook availability) (CTPD, 2022).
- Strengthen Audit and Public Disclosure Requirements: Tighten statutory obligations for timely public disclosure of CDF budgets, project lists, contractor identities and completion certificates. Enforce routine audit follow-up with clear sanctions or remedial requirements for non-compliance, and ensure audit findings are communicated in accessible formats to constituencies.

6.3.2 Recommendations for Local Councils and CDF Committees

- Institutionalise Participatory Project Selection: Adopt standard procedures requiring documented consultations with headteachers, SMC/PTAs and ward committees; publish meeting minutes and signed beneficiary endorsement forms as part of the project approval packet. Prioritisation criteria should include evidence of need, EMIS-aligned gaps and potential educational impact.
- Standardised Procurement and Quality Assurance Tools: Use standard designs for classrooms and teacher houses and a pre-qualification system for contractors. Require simple supervision checklists, photographic progress records and a completion certificate jointly signed by district technical officers and school representatives prior to final payment.
- Maintenance and Handover Protocols: At project completion, mandatorily produce a handover pack including as-built drawings, warranty/guarantee terms, an agreed maintenance schedule, and a modest ring-fenced maintenance allocation or matched PTA fund initiation. Establish clear roles and responsibilities for maintenance between councils and SMC/PTAs.
- Transparent Grievance Mechanisms: Create accessible grievance channels (ward focal persons, suggestion boxes, SMS hotlines where feasible) with public reporting on resolution timelines and outcomes to deter malpractice and build trust.
- Capacity Building and Peer Exchange: Invest modestly in regular, practical training for committee members on project cycle management, procurement ethics, record-keeping and community engagement; facilitate peer learning across constituencies to disseminate effective practices.

6.3.3 Recommendations for Educators and School Administrators

- Active Engagement in Planning and Oversight: Headteachers and SMC/PTAs should proactively participate in needs assessments, project scoping and supervision; maintain basic project files (contracts, receipts, completion certificates) and take responsibility for initial maintenance planning.
- Advocacy for Complementary Inputs: School leaders should advocate within constituency processes for balanced project mixes that include textbooks and teacher supports, presenting evidence from EMIS and classroom assessments to make the case for recurrent inputs.
- Community Mobilisation for Maintenance: Facilitate structured mobilisation of PTA and community labour or small contributions for routine maintenance, leveraging initial CDF works to build stewardship and sustainability culture.

6.3.4 Recommendations for Development Partners and Civil Society

- Support Integrated Pilot Interventions: Fund and rigorously evaluate integrated packages combining capital works with instructional materials and teacher development to quantify returns and inform scaling decisions.
- Strengthen Local Monitoring and Citizen Oversight: Invest in community monitoring platforms (scorecards, social audits) and train local civil society to support transparency, grievance redress and demand accountability at constituency levels.
- Technical Assistance for Councils: Provide short-term technical assistance for district engineering units and council procurement teams to improve vetting, supervision and compliance with construction standards.

6.4 Implementation Considerations and Practical Steps

- Phased Implementation: Roll out major reforms (earmarking, technical clearance thresholds, performance-based components) in phases accompanied by training and toolkit dissemination, allowing constituencies and councils to adapt practices incrementally.
- Monitoring and Learning: Establish a routine monitoring dashboard integrating CDF project registers with EMIS indicators to track project distribution, functionality and proximate educational impacts. Use a learning-by-doing approach to refine guidelines based on evidence from pilot constituencies.
- Budgetary Realism: Acknowledge that reallocating shares to recurrent inputs requires trade-offs and consider modest increases in per-constituency ceilings where fiscally feasible or co-financing arrangements with donors to maintain capital delivery while funding complementary recurrent items.
- Incentivise Good Practice: Recognise constituencies demonstrating exemplary transparency and maintenance outcomes through financial or reputational incentives (e.g., fast-track approvals for additional discretionary funds or public recognition).

6.5 Suggestions for Further Research

- Longitudinal Asset and Learning Tracking: Conduct panel studies following cohorts of CDF-beneficiary schools for 3—5 years to assess asset durability, maintenance patterns and long-term learning trajectories, enabling more definitive lifecycle cost-benefit analysis.
- Experimental Evaluation of Integrated Packages: Design randomized or quasi-random evaluations comparing infrastructure-only investments against integrated packages (infrastructure + textbooks + teacher training + maintenance support) to estimate marginal returns to complementary inputs and inform optimal allocation mixes.
- Equity-Focused Analyses: Undertake disaggregated studies to assess whether and how CDF investments affect gender parity, learners with disabilities, and ultra-remote populations; explore targeting mechanisms that effectively prioritise the most disadvantaged schools.
- Political Economy and Decision-Making Studies: Use process tracing and political economy methods to map how MPs, committee members, local elites and community actors influence project selection and implementation, including incentives, informal norms and accountability channels.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Value-for-Money Assessments: Compare unit costs and functional longevity of CDF-funded projects against centrally procured equivalents and donor-supported infrastructure to inform efficiency improvements and procurement standards.
- Technology and Transparency Innovations: Pilot and evaluate low-cost digital disclosure tools (SMS project alerts, simple mobile dashboards) and citizen reporting apps to test scalability and impact on transparency and project quality.

6.1.1 Phased roll-out approach

- Phase 1 (Pilot 6-12 months): Select 4-6 constituencies (including one urban, two peri-urban, two remote) to trial integrated CDF education guidelines, mandatory technical clearance for high-value projects, minimum earmark for quality inputs, and enhanced transparency protocols. Collect baseline EMIS and project-level data and establish local learning teams.

- Phase 2 (Scale-up 12-36 months): Based on pilot evaluations, refine templates and toolkits; expand roll-out to additional constituencies with capacity building for district technical units and council staff.

- Phase 3 (Institutionalisation 36+ months): Integrate successful reforms into statutory CDF guidance, national training curricula for council officials, and EMIS reporting cycles.

6.1.2 Institutional roles and responsibilities

- Ministry of Education: Issue technical clearance standards, integrate CDF plans with district education development plans, and coordinate textbook and teacher-support allocations.
- Ministry of Local Government / Constituency Committees: Enforce disclosure rules, oversee budgetary compliance, and manage procurement in line with technical clearances.
- District Education Offices and Engineering Units: Provide technical vetting, supervise major works and certify completion.
- School Management Committees/PTAs: Participate in needs assessment, sign handover documents, and manage routine maintenance with local councils.
- Civil Society and Development Partners: Support monitoring, community capacity building and independent evaluations.

6.1.3 Capacity building and resources

- Develop short modular training (5-7 days) on project cycle management, procurement ethics, simple lifecycle costing and community engagement for CDF committee members and council technical staff.
- Create a repository of standard classroom and teacher-house designs and procurement templates to reduce transaction costs and improve quality control.

6.1.4 Monitoring indicators for implementation

- Process indicators: % of projects with documented community consultation; % of projects above threshold with technical clearance; median time from approval to contract award.
- Output indicators: Number of classrooms completed to standard; % functional latrines; % schools with textbook-to-pupil ratio > 1:1 for core subjects (target phased).
- Outcome indicators: Year-on-year changes in enrolment, attendance and selected learning assessment scores in beneficiary schools.
- Transparency indicators: % projects with publicly posted budgets and contractor details; number and resolution rate of grievances logged.

6.1.5 Risk management and mitigation

- Risk: Resistance to earmarking or conditionalities. Mitigation: Pilot evidence showing improved outcomes and financial transparency incentives; stakeholder consultations prior to roll-out.
- Risk: Limited district technical capacity. Mitigation: Short-term external technical support and targeted recruitment or secondment of engineers for supervision.
- Risk: Political pushback. Mitigation: Engage MPs and constituency leadership through evidence briefings showing political value in durable, high-impact projects.

6.7 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Framework

6.7.1 Purpose and approach

The MEL framework evaluates both fidelity of implementation and causal impacts, combining routine monitoring with periodic independent evaluation and learning loops to inform policy refinement.

6.7.2 Components

- Routine monitoring system: Integrate CDF project registers with EMIS and a simple mobile reporting tool for real-time posting of project milestones and photos.
- Midline process evaluation (12-18 months): Qualitative and quantitative assessment of procedural reforms, procurement practice changes and early schooling indicators in pilot constituencies.
- Impact evaluation (36 months): Quasi-experimental or experimental evaluation of integrated packages comparing learning and retention outcomes across treated and comparison constituencies.
- Learning dissemination: Annual stakeholder workshops at constituency and district levels to review findings and adapt practice.

6.7.3 Data collection and quality assurance

- Standardise project documentation templates and require geo-tagged photographic evidence at key milestones.
- Regular data quality audits and third-party verification of a random sample of projects.

6.7.4 Indicators and targets (example)

- 90% of projects > threshold have technical clearance before tender.
- 80% of completed classroom projects pass independent quality checks at final inspection.
- 30% increase in textbook-to-pupil ratios in beneficiary schools within two years in piloted constituencies.
- Reduction of major defects in completed projects to <10% within 12 months.

6.8 Dissemination Strategy

6.8.1 Target audiences

- National policymakers (Parliament, Ministries of Education and Local Government).
- Constituency committees, district education officers, and local councils.
- Development partners, NGOs and civil society organisations working on education transparency.
- Academic and practitioner audiences.

6.8.2 Channels and outputs

- Policy briefs summarising actionable recommendations (executive summary, one-pager).
- District workshops and constituency feedback sessions presenting local findings and maintenance toolkits.
- Peer-reviewed articles on empirical impacts and governance dynamics.
- Public data portal or constituency dashboards (piloted) with project lists, budgets and status.

6.9 Study Limitations and Reflection on Evidence Strength

6.9.1 Attribution limitations

- Non-random allocation of CDF funds limit definitive causal claims; the study mitigates this through matching, DiD estimation where feasible and process tracing, but residual unobserved confounders may persist.

6.9.2 Data quality constraints

- Variability in EMIS and council records required triangulation; data completeness improved by field verification but constrains some longitudinal inferences.

6.9.3 Temporal scope

- Short post-intervention window limits assessment of long-term outcomes and asset durability; recommended longitudinal follow-up would address this gap.

6.9.4 External validity

- Findings draw on three purposively selected constituencies; while governance lessons are broadly relevant, magnitude estimates may differ in other provinces or national contexts.

6.10 Detailed Risk Register and Mitigation Measures

6.10.1 Governance and political risks

- Risk: Political interference leads to misaligned project selection and skewed resource allocation.
- Mitigation: Institutionalise documented community consultation procedures; require public posting of project shortlists and minutes; introduce third-party verification for high-value projects.

6.10.2 Technical and procurement risks

- Risk: Contractor underperformance and substandard construction.
- Mitigation: Enforce pre-qualification criteria for contractors; mandate technical clearance and supervision by district engineering units for works above threshold; use standardised design templates and quality checklists.

6.10.3 Financial and fiduciary risks

- Risk: Over-invoicing, delayed payments and incomplete audit trails.
- Mitigation: Require phased payments tied to documented milestone verification; public disclosure of payments and contractor invoices; strengthen internal audit capacities and sanction frameworks.

6.10.4 Sustainability and maintenance risks

- Risk: Rapid deterioration of assets post-completion due to lack of maintenance funding.
- Mitigation: Require lifecycle costing in project proposals; provide starter maintenance grants at handover; train SMC/PTA in preventive maintenance planning and small-works contracting.

6.10.5 Social and inclusion risks

- Risk: Marginalised groups excluded from consultation and project benefits.
- Mitigation: Mandate inclusive representation quotas in consultation processes; use equity-weighted prioritisation criteria that favour remote and underserved schools.

6.10.6 Operational and implementation risks

- Risk: Limited district technical capacity to supervise scale-ups.
- Mitigation: Deploy short-term technical assistance; build district technical capacity through targeted recruitment and continuous professional development.

6.11 Indicative Budgeting for Pilot Implementation

6.11.1 Pilot scope and costing assumptions

- Pilot constituencies: 6 (1 urban, 2 peri-urban, 3 remote).
- Average annual CDF education allocation per constituency (post-2022): ZMW 25.7 million; pilot assumes reallocation of 20% of education shares to quality inputs and modest additional technical assistance funded by partners.

6.11.2 Indicative line items (per pilotyear)

- Technical assistance and district capacity building: ZMW 1.2 million (national pooled fund).
- Standard design repository and materials procurement templates: ZMW 0.3 million.
- Pilot maintenance matching grants (seed funds to SMCs): ZMW 0.9 million.
- Monitoring and digital disclosure platform development and maintenance: ZMW 1.0 million (development year) then ZMW 0.2 million recurring.
- Training for CDF committees and council staff (modular courses): ZMW 0.6 million.
- Independent midline process evaluation and end-line impact assessment: ZMW 1.5 million.

6.11.3 Funding modalities

- Co-finance pilot through central budget reallocations, targeted development partner grants and modest re-earmarking of existing constituency education shares. Ensure transparent, accounted ring-fencing of pilot funds with clear reporting.

6.12 Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Plan

6.12.1 Objectives

- Build ownership among MPs, constituency committees and district officials.
- Ensure transparent two-way communication with communities and schools.
- Promote uptake of pilot learning and rapid course correction.

6.12.2 Key stakeholder groups and engagement channels

- MPs and constituency committee chairs: targeted policy briefings and high-level workshops.
- District education and engineering teams: technical working groups and hands-on capacity sessions.
- School leaders and PTAs/SMCs: ward-level meetings, radio spot announcements and printed one-page project briefs.
- Civil society and media: periodic public scorecards, press briefings and community verification events.
- Development partners: quarterly donor coordination meetings and donor advisory group.

6.12.3 Communication outputs

- Pre-implementation: simple published checklists of pilot criteria and public Q&A documents.
- During implementation: monthly progress dashboards (basic indicators and geotagged photos) and open grievance logs.
- Post-implementation: constituency feedback forums and dissemination of impact briefs.

6.13 Monitoring Indicators: Detailed Metric Definitions

6.13.1 Process and input metrics

- Project consultation compliance rate: % of approved projects with documented consultation minutes and sign-offs.
- Technical clearance rate: % of projects above threshold with signed technical clearance prior to tender.
- Procurement transparency index: composite score (public posting of tender docs, contractor shortlist publication, bid evaluation summary availability).

6.13.2 Output and quality metrics

- Construction quality pass rate: % of completed projects passing independent final quality inspection.
- Functionality rate at 12 months: % of completed projects fully functional one-year post-handover.
- Maintenance fund uptake: % of schools with an operational maintenance fund and documented minor works in past 12 months.

6.13.3 Outcome metrics

- Net enrolment change: % change in school enrolment post-intervention compared to matched control schools.
- Attendance rate change: change in average daily attendance between baseline and follow-up.
- Learning proxy improvement: change in short-cycle literacy and numeracy assessment scores for sampled cohorts.

6.13.4 Transparency and accountability metrics

- Public disclosure compliance: % of wards with up-to-date public project lists and budget details.
- Grievance resolution rate: % of grievances logged that reach resolution within prescribed timeframe.

6.14 Operational Templates (Summaries)

6.14.1 Project approval checklist (summary)

- Project title and description; alignment with district plan; evidence of need (EMIS data); consultation minutes; estimated cost and lifecycle cost estimate; technical clearance (if applicable); procurement plan; maintenance plan and responsible parties; risk mitigation notes.

6.14.2 Handover pack contents (summary)

- Final as-built drawings; completion certificate; warranty and contractor contact details; maintenance schedule and cost estimate; signed handover acceptance by SMC/PTA and district technical officer.

6.14.3 Community consultation minimum standard (summary)

- Public notice 14 days prior to consultative meeting; inclusive invitation list; recorded minutes with attendance and decisions; publication of summary outcome within seven days.

6.15 Ethics, Safeguarding and Data Governance

6.15.1 Ethical safeguards for implementation

- Consent and child protection: any activities involving pupils adhere to parental consent and child assent protocols; avoid disruption to schooling and maintain confidentiality of learner data.
- Conflict sensitivity: monitor for community tensions around project selection and apply mediation protocols where disputes arise.

6.15.2 Data governance

- Store project and monitoring data on secure servers with role-based access; anonymise individual-level data used for learning assessments; define clear data-retention and deletion policies consistent with national regulations and university ethics requirements.

6.16 Next Steps and Immediate Actions

6.16.1 Short-term (0—6 months)

- Convene pilot steering committee with representatives from Ministries, constituencies and development partners.
- Finalise pilot constituencies and secure seed funding for technical assistance and digital platform development.
- Prepare and disseminate standard templates and training modules.

6.16.2 Medium-term (6—24 months)

- Implement pilot interventions and operationalise monitoring dashboards.
- Conduct midline process evaluation and adjust implementation modalities based on lessons.
- Expand peer-learning exchanges among constituencies.

6.16.3 Long-term (24—60 months)

- Complete impact evaluation and policy review; prepare recommendations for statutory or guideline revisions.
- Institutionalise successful practices across constituencies and integrate into national CDF guidance.

References

- Auditor-General, Republic of Zambia (2022) Report on the Audit of Constituency Development Funds for the Financial Year Ended 31 December 2021. Lusaka: Office of the Auditor-General.

- Banda, A. (2021) ‘Effects of Constituency Development Fund on School Enrolment in Rural Zambia’, Journal of Education Policy and Practice, 18(2), pp. 115—132.

- Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Casey, K., Rodriguez, A. F., Sacchetto, C. and Wani, S. (2021) Zambia’s Constituency Development Fund: Policy considerations. London: International Growth Centre (IGC) Policy Paper.

- Centre for Transparency and Public Development (CTPD) (2021) Assessing the Implementation and Impact of the Constituency Development Fund in Zambia: Utilisation, Challenges and Success Stories in Selected Districts. Lusaka: CTPD.

- Creswell, J. W. (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

- Department of Education, Eastern Province (2022) Eastern Province Education Statistics 2019—2022. Chipata: Provincial Education Office.

- Field survey data (2022) Author’s household surveys, facility surveys, key informant interviews and focus group discussions conducted in Chipata Central, Kasenengwa and Sinda constituencies, Eastern Province (unpublished).

- Faguet, J.-P. (2004) ‘Does decentralisation increase government responsiveness to local needs? Evidence from Bolivia’, Journal of Public Economics, 88(3—4), pp. 867—893.

- International Growth Centre (IGC) (2021) Policy considerations on constituency development funds (Casey et al.). London: IGC.

- Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) (2022) Constituency Development Fund: History, Operations and Policy Implications. Lusaka: JCTR.

- Kaoma Municipal Council (2021) Constituency Development Fund Guidelines. Kaoma: Kaoma Municipal Council.

- Ministry of Education, Zambia (2022) Education Management Information System (EMIS) Annual Report. Lusaka: Ministry of Education.

- Ministry of Local Government (2022) Guidelines on Constituency Development Fund Administration. Lusaka: Ministry of Local Government.

- Mwalo, T. and Phiri, S. (2022) ‘Political Interference and Local Development Funds: Evidence from Zambia’, African Journal of Political Science, 7(1), pp. 45-63.

- Ngoma, M. (2021) Evaluating the Impact of CDF Projects on Education Delivery in Eastern Province of Zambia. Unpublished MSc/PhD thesis. Lusaka: [University name].

- Parliament of Zambia (2022) Constituency Development Fund Act and accompanying Guidelines. Lusaka: National Assembly.

- Provincial Administration, Eastern Province (2022) Eastern Province Completes 488 School Infrastructure Projects Under CDF from 2020 to Date. Chipata: Provincial Press Release, 21 April 2022.

- Republic of Zambia, Office of the Auditor-General (2022) Audit Report on Constituency Development Fund Utilisation. Lusaka: OAG.

- Rondinelli, D. A. (1981) ‘Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 47(2), pp. 133—145.

- World Bank (2019) Beyond the Headlines: Lessons from Local Development Funds. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Appendices

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire for School Administrators and Teachers

Instructions to enumerator: introduce the study, show ethical clearance and consent form, obtain written informed consent, complete questionnaire in a private setting, record responses accurately. Use NA for not applicable.

Section A: Institutional and Respondent Details

1. School name: ___________________________________________
2. School code (EMIS): _____________________________________
3. School level: Primary / Secondary / Combined (circle)
4. Location (ward/village): _________________________________
5. Constituency: __________________________________________
6. Respondent name (optional): _____________________________
7. Position (Headteacher / Deputy / Senior teacher / Other): ____
8. Sex of respondent: Male / Female (circle)
9. Years in current post: _______
10. Total years teaching/administration: _______

Section B: CDF Project Awareness and Record

11. Are you aware of any CDF-funded projects implemented at this school since 2022? Yes / No
12. If yes, list all CDF projects implemented at the school (name, year, implementing body, approximate project value if known):
Project 1: __________________ Year: ____ Implementer: __________ Value (ZMW): ______
- Project 2: __________________ Year: ____ Implementer: __________ Value (ZMW): ______
- Project 3: __________________ Year: ____ Implementer: __________ Value (ZMW): ______
13. Is there a physical record/file of the project at the school (contracts, invoices,
completion certificate)? Yes / No / Don’t know
14. If available, may the enumerator take photographs of the facility(ies)? Yes / No
Section C: Project Type and Implementation Details (for each project listed)
15. Project title:___________________________________________
16. Project type (tick all that apply): Classroom construction; Classroom rehabilitation; Teacher housing; Desks/furniture; Sanitation/latrines; Water supply; Textbooks/learning materials; School feeding; Fencing/perimeter security; Other (specify)
17. Date work started:____/____/____
18. Date work completed:____/____/____ (or indicate ongoing)
19. Was the project implemented by: Local contractor / Community labour / NGO partner / Council technical unit / Other (specify)
20. Was there a technical clearance or approval from district technical/education office before work began? Yes / No / Don’t know
21. Was a completion certificate issued? Yes / No / Don’t know

Section D: Perceived Project Impact

22. Since project completion, how has enrolment changed at the school? Increased / No change / Decreased 22a. Provide numbers if recorded: Enrolment before project:___; Enrolment after project:____
23. Since project completion, how has average daily attendance changed? Increased / No change / Decreased
24. Since project completion, how has classroom overcrowding changed? Reduced / No change / Increased
25. Since project completion, how has pupil access to desks changed? Improved / No change / Worsened
26. Since project completion, how has the availability of teaching materials changed? Improved / No change / Worsened
27. Since project completion, have pupil learning outcomes (as perceived by teachers) changed? Improved / No change / Worsened / Not sure 27a. Please explain briefly:________________________________________________________
28. Have teacher retention/absenteeism patterns changed since the project? Improved / No change / Worsened / Not sure 28a. Provide details (e.g., number of teachers leaving/joining in past year):_______________

Section E: Governance, Participation and Transparency

29. Were school staff consulted during project identification and planning? Yes / No / Don’t know
30. Were parents/PTA/SMC consulted? Yes / No / Don’t know
31. Was the project list publicly displayed in the community or school? Yes / No
32. Were procurement notices and contractor details publicly posted? Yes / No / Don’t know
33. Were project budgets and payments disclosed to the school or community? Yes / No / Don’t know
34. Rate the transparency of the project process: Very transparent / Moderately transparent / Not transparent
35. Were grievance procedures communicated to the school/community (how to complain)? Yes / No / Don’t know
36. Have there been complaints about the project? Yes / No 36a. If yes, were complaints resolved satisfactorily? Yes / No / Partially / Don’t know

Section F: Quality, Maintenance and Sustainability

37. Is a maintenance plan in place for the completed work? Yes / No / Not available
38. Who is responsible for routine maintenance? School/PTA / Council / Community / Contractor warranty / Other (specify)
39. Is there a maintenance fund or budget line at the school? Yes / No
40. In the last 12 months, has the facility required major repairs? Yes / No 40a. If yes, describe repairs and who paid:________________________________________
41. Rate the overall quality of the completed work: Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor
42. Do you have suggestions to improve CDF project effectiveness at school level? (open response)

Section G: Documentation and Closure

43. Please indicate whether the following documents exist at the school and can be photocopied or viewed:
- Contract / Bill of Quantities: Yes / No / NA
- Invoices/Receipts: Yes / No / NA
- Completion certificate: Yes / No / NA
- Handover document: Yes / No / NA
44. Enumerator notes and observations (describe visible condition, any discrepancies, GPS coordinates of project):

Enumerator name: __________________ Signature: ____________ Date: ____ / ____ / ____

Appendix B: Interview Guide for Council Officials and CDF Committee Members

Introduction: Provide purpose, confidentiality statement, confirmation of consent, request permission to record.

A. Role and Institutional Arrangements
1. Please describe your role and responsibilities in relation to CDF project management.
2. How is the CDF committee structured in this constituency (membership, chair, technical members)? Provide composition and meeting frequency.
3. How does the constituency coordinate with the district education office and engineering unit?
B. Project Identification and Prioritisation
4. Describe the process by which education projects are identified and prioritised. Who initiates proposals and who decides final lists?
5. What criteria are used to prioritise projects (e.g., urgency, visibility, cost, EMIS gaps, political considerations)?
6. Are there written prioritisation guidelines or scoring systems? May I see examples?
C. Procurement, Implementation and Supervision
7. Explain the procurement process for CDF projects in your constituency. How are contractors selected?
8. What technical oversight mechanisms are in place during construction? Are district engineers involved?
9. How are payments scheduled and what conditions must contractors meet before payment?
10. How are projects handed over to beneficiary schools and how is acceptance documented?
D. Transparency, Accountability and Community Participation
11. What steps are taken to ensure transparency (project lists, budgets, contractor names, procurement notices)?
12. How is the community involved in project monitoring and grievance redress? Provide examples of functioning mechanisms.
13. Have you experienced disputes or allegations of malpractice? How were they handled?
E. Financial Management and Reporting
14. How are CDF funds disbursed and what records are maintained? Who is accountable for financial reporting?
15. What internal or external audit mechanisms are applied and how often?
F. Challenges and Capacity
16. What are the major challenges you face in implementing education projects (technical capacity, funds, political pressure)?
17. What capacity gaps exist within the committee or council technical units, and what training or resources would help?
G. Improvements and Policy Views
18. What reforms or procedural changes would you recommend to improve CDF project outcomes for education?
19. How could coordination with the Ministry of Education or development partners be strengthened?
20. Is there anything else you would like to add about CDF governance and education impact?

Closure: Thank participant, explain next steps, confirm willingness for follow-up.

Appendix C: Focus Group Discussion Guide for Parents and Community Leaders

Introduction: Explain study purpose, confidentiality, consent, importance of candid views, request permission to record, encourage participation from all.

Group composition guidance: 6-10 participants, mixed gender where possible, separate FGDs for men and women if cultural norms favour that.

A. Awareness and Perceptions
1. Are you aware of any CDF-funded education projects in your community since 2022? Which ones?
2. How did you first hear about the project(s)? (community meeting, PTA, radio, MP announcement)
B. Participation and Local Voice
3. Were you or representatives from your household invited to participate in project selection or planning? Describe the consultation process.
4. Did you feel your views influenced the final decisions? Why or why not?
C. Observed Changes and Benefits
5. What changes have you observed at the school since the CDF project was implemented (enrolment, facilities, cleanliness, teacher presence)? Provide examples.
6. How have these changes affected children’s schooling and household routines?
D. Concerns and Unintended Consequences
7. Are there any negative effects or concerns associated with the project? (quality issues, maintenance burden, exclusion of some groups)
8. Have there been disputes related to the project? How were they resolved?
E. Transparency and Accountability
9. Was information about project costs, contractor, and timeline shared with the community? If not, what would you have liked to see?
10. If you had a complaint about the project, where would you go and what would you expect to happen?
F. Sustainability and Support
11. Who is responsible for maintaining the new facilities? Are they able to fulfil that role?
12. Would the community be willing to contribute labour or small funds for maintenance? Under what conditions?
G. Recommendations
13. What should be done differently in future CDF education projects to ensure they meet community needs and last longer?
14. How could communication and participation be improved?

Closure: Summarise key points, check accuracy with participants, thank participants, explain how findings will be used.

Appendix D: Observation Checklist for School and Project Site

Use during site visits to systematically record observable indicators. Tick or comment as appropriate.

A. General Site Information
Date: ____/____/____
- School: ______________________ Constituency: __________________
- GPS coordinates (if available): __________________________
- Project observed (type): __________________________________
B. Classroom Facilities
- Number of classroom blocks:______Number observed:______
- Evidence of recent construction/renovation (fresh cement, paint): Yes / No
- Roof condition: Good / Fair / Poor
- Wall integrity (cracks, plastering): Good / Fair / Poor
- Floor condition: Good / Fair / Poor
- Windows and doors functional: Yes / No / Partial
- Presence of dust-free blackboards/whiteboards: Yes / No
C. Furniture and Learning Materials
- Number of desks present:______; adequate for pupils? Yes / No
- Condition of desks: Good / Fair / Poor
- Presence of teacher table and chairs: Yes / No
- Presence of textbooks visible in classroom/library: Yes / No (estimate: number)____
D. Sanitation and Water
- Latrine units present:______; Separate units for girls/boys? Yes / No
- Latrine functionality (flush/ventilated pit/blocked): Functional / Partially functional / Non-functional
- Hand-washing station present: Yes / No; Soap available: Yes / No
- On-site potable water source (borehole/tap): Yes / No
E. Teacher Accommodation
- Teacher houses present on site: Yes / No; Number:______
- Houses occupied: Yes / No; Condition: Good / Fair / Poor
F. Safety and Perimeter
- School fenced/perimeter wall present: Yes / No
- Gates functional and secure: Yes / No
G. Signage and Documentation
- Project signboard present (implementer, funder, year): Yes / No
- Handover certificate displayed: Yes / No
- Project file visible in office (contracts/invoices): Yes / No
H. Classroom Observation (if lesson ongoing)
- Number of pupils present:______Number of teachers:______
- Seating arrangement: Individual desks / Shared benches / Floor seating
- Noise/disruption level: Low / Medium / High
- Observed teaching aids (posters, charts): Yes / No
- Estimated instructional time observed:______ minutes
I. Maintenance and Defects
- Notable defects observed (describe):___________________________________
- Evidence of recent repairs: Yes / No; nature of repair:____________________
J. Overall impression and immediate recommendations
- Overall condition: Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor (circle)
- Immediate actions recommended:______________________________________

Observer name:__________________Signature:__________ Date:____ / ____ / ____

Appendix E: Sample List of CDF-Funded Education Projects in Eastern Province (20232025)

Table E1: Sample projects (expanded with fictional but plausible detail for template use; replace with verified project data when available)

Illustrations are not included in the reading sample

Appendix F: Consent Forms and Participant Information Sheets

F.1 Participant Information Sheet (short form for school staff and community respondents)

- Title of study: Impact of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) on Education Delivery in Eastern Province
- Principal investigator: [Name, Department, University, Contact details]
- Purpose: To assess how CDF-funded education projects affect school infrastructure, enrolment and learning and to identify governance challenges and good practices.
- Procedures: Participation involves answering questions or taking part in focus groups/interviews, and permitting site observation/photography of school facilities.
- Risks and benefits: No anticipated physical risks; benefits include informing better policy and possible local dissemination of findings.
- Confidentiality: Responses anonymised; identifiable data stored securely.
- Voluntary participation: You may decline to participate or withdraw at any time without penalty.
- Contact information for complaints or questions: [Ethics committee contact and PI contact details]

F.2 Consent Form (example for adult respondents) I have read the participant information sheet or it has been explained to me. I understand the purpose of the study and what participation involves. I consent voluntarily to participate and permit the use of anonymised data in reports and publications.

Name of participant: __________________ Signature: __________ Date: ____ / ____ / ____ Name of researcher obtaining consent: ______________ Signature: __________ Date: ____ / ____ / ____

F.3 Parental Consent and Child Assent template (for pupil observations)

- Parental consent section confirming permission for child to be observed during school activities; child assent form uses age-appropriate language to explain the observation.

Biography

Maliro Ngoma is a dynamic and accomplished academic and development practitioner whose career bridges the fields of education, computer science, and development studies. His intellectual journey reflects a deep commitment to interdisciplinary learning and societal transformation.

He began his academic path with a Bachelor of Education from the Zambian Open University, laying a strong foundation in pedagogy, curriculum design, and educational leadership. Driven by a passion for technological innovation, he pursued a Master of Science in Computer Science at the prestigious Lomonosov Moscow State University in Russia, where he honed his skills in advanced computing, systems analysis, and digital problemsolving.

Recognizing the importance of inclusive development and policy impact, Maliro is currently pursuing a Master of Arts in Development Studies at the University of Lusaka. His work explores the intersection of technology, education, and socio-economic development, with a focus on empowering communities through knowledge systems, innovation, and evidencebased policy.

With a rare blend of technical acumen and social insight, Maliro Ngoma is poised to contribute meaningfully to Zambia’s development landscape and beyond. His academic versatility, global perspective, and commitment to lifelong learning make him a thought leader in educational reform, digital empowerment, and sustainable development.

[...]

• College: University of Lusaka (Graduate Studies and Research - Zambian Open University)
• Course: Education Management and Administration
• Grade: Master of Development Studies
• Author: Maliro Ngoma (Author)
• Publication Year: 2022
• Pages: 71
• Catalog Number: V1669887
• ISBN (PDF): 9783389164761
• ISBN (Book): 9783389164778
• Language: English
• Tags: Political Interference in CDF Delivery, CDF on Education Delivery