LGCDP M&E Framework

Ains 

Local Government and Community 

Development Programme 

MONITORING AND 

EVALUATION 

FRAMEWORK 

Local Government and Community Development Programme 

Ministry of Local Development 

Lalitpur, Nepal 

1

CONTENT 

1. LGCDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 3 

1.1. GOAL 3 

1.2. PURPOSE 4 

1.3. OUTCOMES 7 

2. LGCDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN 21 

MONITORING 22 

EVALUATION 23 

REPORTING 24 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN 25 

ANNEX 1: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 28 

ANNEX 2: TEMPLATE FOR INDICATOR TRACKING SHEET 37 

ANNEX 3: QUESTIONS FOR SAMPLE SURVEYS 38 

2

1. LGCDP Monitoring and Evaluation 

Framework 

The development and refinement of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for LGCDP 

followed a three-step sequence: 

a) a careful, participatory analysis of the results statements, 

b) an analysis which key aspects of the result statement should be covered 

by indicators, 

c) the development of indicators with indicator baselines, indicator targets, 

means of verification, the frequency of collection and the responsible 

person or unit for collecting the data. 

These recommendations for a LGCDP M&E framework are the result of a broad, participatory 

process. They emerged from three one-day workshops with key stakeholders from the MLD, 

government agencies and development partners (DPs), individual meetings with key 

partners, a de-briefing workshop and two rounds of written comments on indicators and the 

draft framework. 

1.1. GOAL 

The overarching goal of LGCDP is “to contribute towards poverty reduction through 

inclusive responsive and accountable local governance and participatory 

community-led development that will ensure increased involvement of women, 

Dalits, Adibasi, Janajatis, Muslims Madhesis, disadvantaged groups in the local 

governance process”. 

To keep the LGCDP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework simple, yet effective, it is 

recommended to limit monitoring of the overall goal for two reasons: 

• An overall monitoring of national poverty reduction in Nepal is: (a) too ambitious 

for LGCDP and the MLD, and (b) already done extensively by a number of other 

actors in Nepal, including the National Planning Commission through its Poverty 

Monitoring and Analysis System and the Central Bureau of Statistics. 

• The second half of the goal statement (“through inclusive responsive and accountable 

local governance and participatory community-led development that will ensure 

increased involvement of women, Dalits, Adibasi, Janajatis, Muslims Madhesis, 

disadvantaged groups in the local governance process”) merely defines the means 

used for poverty reduction. These means are already captured on the purpose and 

outcome level and do not need to be monitored separately. 

Instead of building a parallel (and redundant) poverty monitoring system to monitor LGCDP’s 

goal, it is recommended to make use of existing poverty monitoring systems like the 

Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System (PMAS) of the National Planning Commission, the 

District Monitoring Information System (DMIS), the Nepal Human Development Reports and 

the Millennium Development Reports. If needed, LGCDP can provide specific support to 

these poverty monitoring systems to obtain poverty data at a highly disaggregated level, for 

example by supporting the District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System (DPMAS). 

3

1.2. PURPOSE 

The purpose of LGCDP is the "improved access to locally and inclusively prioritised 

public goods and services". 

Analysis of Outcome formulation: 

• One key aspect of the outcome refers to improved access. Access to public goods 

and services is improved if citizens need less time to travel to the site where the 

service is provided and if the service is delivered in less time. 

• Another key aspect of the outcome statement refers to the fact that access is locally 

and inclusively prioritised. More in detail, this aspect refers to two concerns: 

o 

o 

“inclusively prioritised”: public goods and services to be provided by the 

DDCs, municipalities and VDCs are based on the demand of the local 

communities, including women, the poor and the disadvantaged groups 

“locally prioritised”: public goods and services to be provided by the DDCs, 

municipalities and VDCs are agreed upon by representatives of the groups 

from the area (rather than centrally), including women, the poor and the 

disadvantaged groups. 

• Public goods refers to public infrastructure provided or supported by local 

governments and line ministries at the local level. Based on consultations with key 

stakeholders, public goods of DDCs and VDCs in the context of LGCDP refers mostly 

to (ranked according to importance): 

1. road (earth roads) 

2. drinking water (reservoirs, pipes) 

3. education (school buildings, teacher salaries, primary & secondary schools) 1 

4. electricity (national grid, micro hydro) 

5. health 

• Public services in the context of LGCDP refers to the timely availability of services 

typically provided by DDCs, municipalities and VDCs like legal, registration and 

community services (e.g. vital registration, paralegal services, mediation) and social 

security (allowances for senior citizens, widows, disabled and single women, etc.). 

locally and 

inclusively prioritised 

access 

access to public goods 

(especially roads, drinking water, education, 

electricity, health) 

access to public services (especially legal, 

registration and community services as well as 

social security) 

1 These public goods can also be regarded as a public service. 

4

Access to public goods/general 

Indicator: Average time for rural households to reach the nearest of 15 key facilities in 

minutes and hours 

Rationale: The indicator provides a broad overview of changes in access to public goods. It is an 

equally weighted average of 15 facilities (as tracked by the Nepal Living Standard Survey): 

primary school, health post, bus stop, paved road, dirt road (vehicle passable and 

impassable), local shop, haatbazar, market centre, agriculture centre, sajha/cooperatives, 

commercial bank, source of water, post office, telephone booth. 

Limits: • The indicator refers only to rural households. The data for both rural and urban 

together is currently not published. 

• Data for the indicator is very similar to the data for the poorest quintile of 

households. The reason can be that poor households tend to live in rural areas. 

• The indicator needs to be manually calculated based on the data published in the 

NLSS. 

• The interval between data collection of the Nepal Living Standard Survey is long 

with seven years. The next Living Standard Survey is planned for 2010. 

• The data is taken from the cross section (rather than from the panel) because it is 

available sooner. 2 

Baseline: 1 hour 59 minutes (2003/2004) 

Target: 1 hour 30 minutes (2012) 

Means of 

Nepal Living Standard Survey (cross section) 

Verification 

Frequency every 7 years 

Responsibility Central Bureau of Statistics 

Access to public goods/roads 

Indicator: % of rural households which have access to a dirt road (vehicle passable) within 

30 minutes 

Rationale: The construction of vehicle passable dirt roads is a typical service provided by local 

governments through LGCDP. This indicator focuses on the rural areas, where the gap is 

wider. The data refers to the time for one-way travel to the facility, irrespective of the 

mode of transport. 

Limits: • The interval between data collection of the Nepal Living Standard Survey is long 

with seven years. The next Living Standard Survey is planned for 2010. 

• To bridge the gap, the LGCDP Sample Surveys can collect data for this indicator 

in-between NLSS cycles. However, the data collected through these two tools 

might not be 100% comparable. 

Baseline: 67.6% (2003/2004) 

Target: 75% (2012) 

Means of 

Nepal Living Standard Survey (cross section) / LGCDP Sample Surveys 

Verification 

Frequency every 7 years / 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013) 

Responsibility Central Bureau of Statistics / M&E Section of MLD 

Indicator: Mean time taken by rural households to reach nearest dirt road (vehicle 

passable) in hours and minutes 

Rationale: The construction of vehicle passable dirt roads is a typical services provided by local 

governments through LGCDP. This indicator focuses on the rural areas, where the gap is 

wider (for urban areas, the average time is only 3 minutes). The data refers to the time for 

one-way travel to the facility, irrespective of the mode of transport. 

Limits: • see above 

Baseline: 3 hours 7 minutes (2003/2004) 

Target: 2 hours 30 minutes (2012) 

Means of 

Nepal Living Standard Survey (cross section) / LGCDP Sample Surveys 

Verification 

Frequency every 7 years / 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013) 

Responsibility Central Bureau of Statistics / M&E Section of MLD 

2 Cross section Living Standard data is published sooner than the data from the household panel. The cross section data from 

the NLSS 2003/2004, for example, was published in December 2004, while the analysis of panel households was published only 

in March 2006. 

5

Access to public goods/drinking water 

Indicator: % of rural households with sustainable access to improved water source 

Rationale: Drinking water through reservoirs and pipes is a typical service provided by local 

governments through LGCDP. 

Limits: 

According to the Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys, “improved source” refers to piped 

water into house/yard/plot, public tap/standpipe, tube well or borehole, protected dug, 

protected spring and rainwater. Non-improved source include unprotected dug well, 

unprotected spring, tanker truck, surface water. 

Baseline: 80.2% (2006) 

Target: 

Target to be determined 

Means of 

Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys 

Verification 

Frequency not known 

Responsibility Population Division, Ministry of Health and Population 

Access to public services 

Indicators: • % of citizens that say that the services of DDCs are more accessible than 

they were one year ago 

• % of citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more accessible than 

they were one year ago 

• % of citizens that say that the services of municipalities are more 

accessible than they were one year ago 

Rationale: Apart from access to infrastructure, this indicator captures changes in perceived 

accessibility of public services delivered by the DDC, VDCs and municipalities. The indicator 

generally captures “access” to services, which includes that the person providing the 

service is available, accessible, able and capable of providing it. The indicator tracks 

changes in perception over a one-year period rather than a static measure of client 

satisfaction. 

Limits: • This indicator does not disaggregate the different types of services provided by 

the DDCs/VDCs/municipalities, but gives an overall picture of changes in the 

perceptions of citizens. The data is obviously subjective and influenced by many 

external factors. However, at a highly aggregated level and tracked over 

numerous years the data will be able to show trends and tendencies. 

• The one-year recall was chosen because changes in perception can be reasonably 

expected within a year, and it is not too far for citizens to still be able to 

remember the status 12 months ago. 

Baseline: To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009 

Target: 

To be determined after the LGCDP baseline survey 

Means of 

LGCDP sample surveys 

Verification 

Frequency every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013) 

Responsibility M&E Section of MLD 

6

1.3. OUTCOMES 

OUTCOME 1 

LGCDP Outcome 1: Citizens and Communities engaged actively with Local 

Governments and hold them accountable 


• The outcome contains two separate but related elements: a) engagement with 

local governments, and b) holding local governments accountable. 

• Although the outcome refers to both citizens as well as communities, the programme 

implies that in many cases, citizens will engage with local governments through 

community organizations. 

• Although not specifically mentioned in the outcome formulation, the logic of LGCDP 

implies a particular emphasis on engaging those citizens who have previously not 

been involved in community organizations and in local government. Many (but not 

all) of these citizens will be members of a marginalized group and/or women. 

• Communities broadly refers to permanent and temporary communities and to 

formal as well as informal communities. 

• “Engaged” refers to an involvement during planning, decision-making, 

implementation and monitoring of local government activities. It refers to a 

participatory approach and should result in a high degree of ownership. 

• Local governments refer to District Development Committees (DDCs), Village 

Development Committees (VDC) and Municipalities. 

• Holding local governments accountable includes two key elements: a) being aware 

and understanding what local government can/should do, b) transparency by being 

able to ask questions to local governments on financial and other issues. 

citizens and communities engaged actively with Local Governments and 

hold them accountable 

engagement 

with local 

governments 

holding local 

governments 

accountable 

planning implementation representation inclusion knowledge transparency 

7

a) ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

Engaging with local governments, together with holding them accountable, is a key component of this outcome. 

It refers to engagements in planning and implementation of local government activities and is based on an 

inclusive process. Taking part in local government is the ultimate level of active engagement. 

Indicators: • % of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decisionmaking 

process of DDCs than one year ago 

• % of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decisionmaking 

process of VDCs than one year ago 

• % of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decisionmaking 

process of municipalities than one year ago 

Rationale: These three indicators track the level of satisfaction with being engaged in local 

governance. It is based on the recall method and refers to one year. 

Limits: • These indicators are based on subjectively perceived levels of engagement as a proxy 

for actual changes in engagement with local governments The data is obviously 

subjective and influenced by external factors. However, at a highly aggregated level 

and tracked over numerous years the data will be able to show trends and tendencies. 


Target: 


Means of 

LGCDP Sample Surveys 

Verification 

Frequency every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013) 


Planning 

Indicator: % of all ward committees which hold at least one planning meeting per year 

Rationale: This indicator broadly reflects the level of citizen’s engagement in the planning process at 

local levels by tracking how many ward committees are functioning (defined as holding at 

least one planning meeting per year). This indicator is supplemented by the indicator 

below. 

Limits: • The % figure will initially be low due to the fact that the most of the wards 

committees are currently not established and/or functional. 

• There are 9 wards in each of the 3,915 VDCs and 9 to 35 wards in a municipality, 

resulting in approximately 36,000 wards. 

Baseline: 

Target: 

Means of 

Verification 

Frequency 

Responsibility 

currently not available; the data should be collected through two sources: 

• sample surveys conducted by MLD 

• collection of administrative data from VDCs, DDCs to MLD 

Sample surveys can continue to collect this data for triangulation and quality control of 

administrative data. An indicative target is 90%. 

every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013 for sample survey) / annually (administrative data) 

M&E Section of MLD (for both survey and administrative data) 

Indicator: Total number of citizens who participate in planning meeting at ward level per 

year in Nepal 

Rationale: The overall number of participants at ward planning meetings over time is an additional, 

broad measure of the changing levels of participation at the grass-root level. In addition, 

the aggregation of data through administrative channels will be a major step constructing 

information gathering channels through the MLD M&E Section. This indicator complements 

the indicator above. 

Limits: • Not all wards will immediately have planning meetings in year one of LGCDP. The 

numbers therefore only reflect those wards where planning meetings have taken 

place. 

Baseline: 

see above 

Target: 

Means of 

Verification 

Frequency every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013 for sample survey) / annually (administrative data) 

Responsibility M&E Section of MLD (for both survey and administrative data) 

8

Indicators: • % of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per year who 

are Dalits (as proxy for all DAGs) 

• % of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per year who 

are women 

Rationale: This data is a broad measure of the inclusiveness of the planning process at the grassroot 

level. It refers to Dalits as a proxy for all disadvantaged groups and to women as a 

key disadvantaged group. 

Limits: • The correlation between Dalits and disadvantaged groups in general is reportedly 

high. The first indicator is a simple proxy (indirect) indicator to measure the level 

of participation of all disadvantaged groups (Dalits, Adibasi, Janajatis, Muslims, 

Madhesis). 

Baseline: 

Target: 

Means of 

Verification 

Frequency 





sample surveys can continue to collect this data for triangulation and quality control of 

administrative data 



Indicator: % of project proposals submitted by women’s groups in VDC annual plans 

Rationale: This indicator is a proxy for the capacity and skills of a key disadvantaged group, women, 

to participate in local planning. The underlying assumption is that better knowledge, 

abilities and skills in women’s groups will translate into a higher percentage of projects 

being funded. 

Limits: • This indicator tracks the % of projects proposed, but does not capture the extent 

to which these proposals are actually funded. But because this indicator is a 

proxy for changes in capacity and skills, this limit is intentional. 

• This indicator does not chapter change in capacity and skills of other 

disadvantaged groups. The reason for this is that LGCDP does not want to 

discourage mixed groups, which would make it difficult what constitutes a DAG 

group and what not. 

Baseline: 

Target: 

Means of 

Verification 

Frequency 









Implementation 

Indicator: % of VDCs and municipality block grants spent on projects requested by 

exclusively women’s or disadvantaged groups through the ward committee (as 

defined in the Interim Constitution) 

Rationale: • This indicator is goes beyond participation and tracks the funds actually spent on 

proposals by women’s or disadvantaged groups 

Limits: • The local government guidelines stipulate that a minimum 15% of block grant from the 

central government goes to women or members of DAGs. The LGCDP GE/SI strategy 

suggests a minimum of 25%. 

• The indicator will therefore measure a) to what extent the guidelines are followed, and 

b) if and to what extent local bodies go beyond the 15% minimum. 

• For the sake of simplicity, this indicator aggregates the data for both VDCs and 

municipalities. However, arriving at this % figure implies that separate data also must 

be available. 


Target: 30% (2012) 

Means of 

Verification 

Frequency 


Data should be collected through two sources: 







9

Representation 

Indicator: Number of poor households (based on 8 indicators used in MLD DAG mapping) where 

no member was previously engaged in any organization in the last 3 years, but 

now is engaged in either school management committee, health management 

committee or VDC 

Rationale: • This indicator looks at the number of people who have been left out of the decisionmaking 

process at local level in the past but could be encouraged be become engaged 

in some way. 

Limits: • This indicator tracks membership in three key organizations at the local level: the 

school management committee, the health management committee and the Village 

Development Committee) as a proxy for all organizations closely related to 

participation in decision-making at the local level. 

• Data for this indicator is difficult to collect and based on a previous DAG mapping 

exercise. However, this data is at the core LGCDP, therefore collecting data for it is 

paramount. 

Baseline: 

To be determined after first data collection by social mobilizers 

Target: 

To be determined after 

Means of 

Verification 

This data will need to be collected through administrative data from LGCDP’s social 

mobilizers. The details for this data collection exercise still need to be established. 

Frequency annually 

Responsibility M&E Section of MLD through social mobilizsers 

Indicators: • % of women in all Integrated Planning Committees at VDC level 

• % of members of disadvantaged groups in all Integrated Planning 

Committees at VDC level 

Rationale: • This indicator reflects the level of representation by women and disadvantaged groups 

in the planning process at VDC, DDC and municipality level. 

Limits: • Currently, Integrated Planning Committees do not exist. The percentage figure 

depends on the number of Integrated Planning Committees formed. 

• The first of these indicators tracks only the VDC level as a proxy for the DDC and the 

municipality level. The underlying assumption is that clear changes at the VDC level 

will most likely be reflected at the DDC and municipality level. 


Target: 


Means of 

Verification 

Frequency 


Inclusion 

Data should be collected through two sources: 







Indicators: • % of total budget of DDCs which explicitly targets women 

• % total budget of DDCs which explicitly targets members of disadvantaged 

groups 

Rationale: • These indicators go beyond block grants and track ‘inclusiveness’ by looking at the 

overall share of the DDC budget which is spent on women and members of 

disadvantaged groups 

Limits: • The difficulty will be to determine objectively if funds are explicitly target women 

and/or disadvantaged groups or if they only implicitly effect them (but many others as 

well). The definitions will need be clearly laid out in the Gender and DAG Budget Audit 

guidelines. 


Target: 


Means of 

Verification 

Frequency 


Data should be collected through three sources: 

• LGCDP Sample Surveys, 

• Gender Budget Audits 

• Sample DAG Budget Audits 


M&E Section of MLD / GESI Section of MLD 

10

) ACCOUNTABILITY 

The following indicators refer to knowledge rather than directly accountability. The reason for it is that knowledge 

is a prerequisite for asking questions to local governments. Without knowing key information, asking questions on 

financial issues is difficult. These indicators are more sensitive to change than direct indicators on accountability 

and serve as an indirect proxy for the process leading to accountability. 

Municipalities 

Indicators: • % of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities 

of the municipality in the past 12 months 

• % of citizens who can approximately identify the total annual budget of 

municipalities during the current year (+/-20%) 

Rationale: Knowledge is a prerequisite for accountability and transparency. These indicators track the 

level of knowledge on the activities by municipalities and their approximate annual budget. 

Limits: • These indicators track changes in knowledge over time. 

• The sample survey must be conducted to exclude activities by NGOs and focus merely 

on activities by municipalities. 


Target: 


Means of 


Verification 

Frequency Every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013) 


VDCs 

Indicators: • % of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities 

of the VDC in the past 12 months 

• % of citizens who can approximately identify the total annual budget of the 

VDCs during the current year(+/-20%) 

Rationale: see above 

Limits: 

see above 


Target: 


Means of 


Verification 



DDCs 

Indicator: • % of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities 

of the DDC in the past 12 months 

Rationale: see above 

Limits: 

see above 


Target: 


Means of 


Verification 



11

OUTCOME 2 

LGCDP Outcome 2: Increased capacity of local governments to manage resources 

and deliver basic services in an inclusive and equitable manner 


• The outcome primarily refers to the capacity of the three entities of local 

governments: DDCs, municipalities and VDCs. 

• The outcome explicitly refers to two types of capacity: a) the capacity to manage 

resources, and b) the capacity to deliver basic social services. 

• The capacity to manage resources implies planning, implementing, monitoring and 

reporting on resources. 

• The delivery of basic social services refers to those basic services which are 

typically provided by DDCs, municipalities, and VDCs. 

• While not explicit, the outcome also contains the perspective of a sustainable 

increase in local resources. A key element of sustainability is the increasing 

mobilization of internal revenues. 

• In addition, the outcome refers to the fact that both the management of resources 

and delivery of basic social services should be done in an inclusive and equitable 

manner. 

Outcome Indicators 

Capacity of 

DDCs, municipalities and VDCs to manage 

resources and deliver basic services in an inclusive 

an equitable manner 

manage resources 

deliver basic social services 

12

a.) MANAGING RESOURCES 

DDCs 

Indicator: % of all 75 DDCs that meet all 15 minimum Conditions (as defined in 12/2008 

by MLD based on LSGA 1999) per fiscal year 

Rationale: This indicator broadly reflects the extent to which DDCs fulfil the minimum requirements 

for managing resources as defined in the Local Self-Government Act 1999. 

Limits: • Currently, only 12 of a total of 15 indicators are in use due to the absence of local 

elections. Until local elections are held, DDCs are assessed based on 12 instead of 

15 indicators. 

Baseline: 63% (06/2008) 

Target: 100% (12/2012) 

Means of 

National Synthesis Report by the Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC) 

Verification 


Responsibility Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC) 

Indicator: % of all 75 DDCs that score above 50 point in all 62 performance measurements 

and meet minimum score in all 8 functional areas per fiscal year 

Rationale: This composite, qualitative indicator broadly reflects the performance of DDCs in managing 

resources. Performance is measured through a score card with up to 100 points, including 

8 topics: planning and programme management performance, budget management, 

financial management performance, fiscal resource mobilization capacity, budget release 

and programme execution, communication and transparency, monitoring and evaluation, 

organization, service delivery and property management 

Limits: • Currently, only 57 out of 62 performance measurement criteria can be used due 

to the absence of elected local bodies. 

• For the baseline data collection in 2008, a slightly revised indicator framework was 

used then for the assessment in 2009. Slight modifications in this composite 

qualitative indicator can also be expected in the future, but should not effect the 

overall picture provided by this indicator. 

Baseline: 41% (06/2008) 

Target: 90% (12/2012) 

Means of 


Verification 



Indicator: % of all 75 DDCs that spend more than 80% of planned capital development 

budget per year 

Rationale: This indicator refers to the capacity of DDCs to make use of earmarked funding. “Planned 

capital development budget” refers to budget line 6.4., 6.5., and 6.6. 

Limits: • An analysis of LBFC financial records needs to be done to calculate a baseline 

figure. The documentation required for such an analysis is reportedly available. 

Baseline: To be determined by analyzing LBFC financial records in 2009 

Target: To be determined after analyzing LBFC financial records in 2009 

Means of 

Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC) financial records 

Verification 



13

Indicator: % of all 75 DDCs that spend more than 10% of internal income explicitly on 

women, children, DAGs, ethnic groups, disabled and old people per fiscal year 

Rationale: This indicator measures the extent to which DDCs spend their own resources at least 

partially on marginalized groups. 

Limits: • The indicator does only count DDCs that spend more than 10% of internal resources 

on marginalized groups. It does not capture the how much more DDCs spend above 

10% of internal income. 

• The indicator lumps together a diverse and large group of marginalized people. 

However, better and more disaggregated is currently not collected through the MC/PM 

system of MLD. 

Baseline: 29% (06/2008) 

Target: 75% (12/2012) 

Means of 

Annual MC/PM assessment report for DDCs 

Verification 



Indicator: % of all 75 DDCs that have less then 2% irregular expenditure (Beruju) 

Rationale: This indicator measures the extent to which DDCs are following financial rules and 

regulations. 

Limits: • In this indicator, “irregular expenditure (Beruju)” is defined as per audit reports. 

• The indicator does only count those DDCs that have less than 2% irregular 

expenditures. It does not capture the extent to which DDCs approach 0% irregular 

expenditures or surpass the 2% threshold. 

Baseline: 9% (06/2008) 

Target: 80% (2012) 

Means of 


Verification 



Municipalities 

Indicator: % of all 58 municipalities that meet the Minimum Conditions (as defined by 

MLD) per year 

Rationale: This indicator broadly reflects the extent to which municipalities fulfil the minimum 

requirements for managing resources as defined in the Local Self-Government Act 1999. 

Limits: - 

Baseline: not available yet; first assessment of municipalities will be done in June 2009 

Target: 100% (2012) 

Means of 


Verification 



Indicator(s) on performance measurements to be defined pending the finalization of the municipality MC/PM 

guidelines 

14

VDCs 

Indicator: % of all 3915 VDCs that meet the Minimum Conditions (as defined by MLD) 

Rationale: This indicator broadly reflects the extent to which VDCs fulfil the minimum requirements for 

managing resources as defined in the Local Self-Government Act 1999. 

Limits: • For the baseline, only 900 VDCs will be assessed in June 2009. The number will 

gradually be increased to include all 3915 VDCs. Therefore, the % figure in the 

indicator will refer to a changing total of VDCs. 

Baseline: 

not available yet; will be collected through a VDC assessment for initially 900 VDCs in June 

2009 

Target: 100% (2012) 

Means of 


Verification 



MONITORING AND REPORTING 

Indicator: % of LGCDP outcome indicators (for which data supposed to be available) are 

updated per year 

Rationale: This indicator broadly reflects the ability of local bodies and the Ministry of Local 

Development to obtain, enter, process and aggregate data, including administrative data 

collected directly by the MLD from the local level. 

Limits: • The M&E framework for LGCDP is limited to key data and refers specifically to 

LGCDP. However, this indicator can serve as a proxy for the overall capacity to 

streamline data collection and aggregation from VDCs to DDCs, and thereby to 

MLD. 

• The indicator only refers to the outcome level, since purpose indicators will not be 

updated every year. 

Baseline: 

not available; will be collected once the performance monitoring framework of LGCDP is 

finalized; 

Target: 100% (2012) 

Means of 

LGCDP indicator tracking sheets 

Verification 



Indicator: % of DDCs that submit to MLD an annual report (based on a template designed 

by the MLD which includes a synthesized report on VDCs) within 15th August 

Rationale: This indicator broadly reflects the ability of DDCs to obtain key data from VDCs. 

Limits: • A new reporting template still needs to be designed by MLD. 

Baseline: 

not available; will be collected during the first year when the new template is available 

Target: 100% (2012) 

Means of 

Reports from DDCs submitted to MLD 

Verification 



15

) BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES 

Indicator: % of citizens who say that the infrastructure (roads, drinking water, electricity) 

offered by the local governments better meet their needs than last year 

Rationale: This indicator reflects the perception of citizens that basic social services by local 

governments in general (DDCs, VCDs and municipalities) has improved over the past year. 

This indicator also serves as a very indirect proxy of client satisfaction for other services 

provided by local governments. 

Limits: • The indicator relies on proper questioning and a recall technique. 


Target: 


Means of 

Sample surveys by MLD 

Verification 



Indicator: % of DDCs which increase their internal revenues (excluding central grants) by 

at least 15% compared to the previous fiscal year 

Rationale: This indicator reflects the extent to which DDCs manage to increase internal revenue 

collection. The indicator is: 

• a proxy indicator for an increase in management capacity of DDC staff 

• a indicator for sustainability of local governance, since internal revenues can 

become a cornerstone of financing social services on the district level; 

Limits: • The indicator does not reflect the extent to which individual DDCs exceed a 

15% increase. 


Target: 

To be determined after the baseline survey 

Means of 

Sample Surveys by MLD 

Verification 

Frequency Every two years (2009, 2011, 2013) 


Indicator: Number of LGCDP pilot projects which were scaled up with government or 

development partner funds outside the LGCDP budget 

Rationale: This indicator reflects the extent to which pilot projects initiated by the LGCDP has been 

successful and are regarded as promising initiatives worth further, external funding. 

Limits: • The indicator is based on the assumption that if pilots are proven to be 

successful, additional funding is available to scale up these interventions. 

Baseline: 0 (4/2009) 

Target: 3 (04/2012) 

Means of 

MLD reports 

Verification 



16

OUTCOME 3 

LGCDP Outcome 3: Strengthened policy and national institutional framework for 

devolution and local self-governance 


• The outcome refers to two broad issues: a) policies and b) the institutional 

framework for devolution. 

• Policies refers to laws passed by the parliament and regulations and guidelines 

produced by the cabinet and by ministries. Although the constitution is not a policy, it 

plays a significant role for setting policies in the current context for devolution in 

Nepal. Equally, strategies refer to the implementation of policies. 

• The “national institutional framework” refers to institutions beyond the Ministry 

of Local Development. 

• “Devolution” and “local self-governance” are similar concepts, but devolution is 

more concrete in further defining a certain type of local self-governance. 

Outcome 3 

policy for devolution is stronger (staffing 

policies, Sector-Wide Approach, sector 

devolution) 

national institutional framework is stronger (Local 

Bodies Fiscal Commission, DMIS) 

17

SECTOR WIDE APPROACH 

Indicator: Number of development partners that sign a Joint Financial Agreement 

Rationale: This indicator reflects the extent to which Nepal is moving towards a Sector-Wide Approach 

in Decentralization and Devolution. The Joint Financial Agreement is an important step 

towards a Sector-Wide Approach, which will realistically not be fully realized until 2012. 

Limits: • The assumption for this indicator is that the more development partners join 

the Joint Financial Agreement, the more a SWAp is perceived by development 

partners as a viable path to support the Government of Nepal. 

Baseline: 0 (4/2009) 

Target: 10 (2012) 

Means of 

Joint Financial Agreement document 

Verification 

Frequency trimesterely 

Responsibility LGCDP PCU 

Indicator: 

Rationale: 

Total funds paid into Joint Financial Agreement basket in million USD 

This indicator complements the indicator above by adding total funds to the number of 

development partners. Only the two indicators together provide a complete picture of 

progress towards a SWAp. 


Baseline: 0m (4/2009) 

Target: 400m (2012) 

Means of 

LGCDP financial records 

Verification 

Frequency trimesterely 


SECTOR DEVOLUTION 

Indicator: Number of Secretary-level meetings, participated in by at least five line 

ministries that explicitly include agenda on decentralization, held per year 

Rationale: This indicator is an indirect proxy indicator for the level of coordination and importance of 

decentralization in key sectors. As a proxy indicator, it does not imply that LGCDP aims at 

increasing the number of Secretary-level meetings, but serves as an indication of 

decentralization is taking on a more prominent role in Nepal. 

Limits: • The number of meetings itself does not reflect sector devolution, but can 

serve as a valid proxy in the absence of a more direct indicator. The 

underlying assumption is that a significant increase over time in discussions 

on decentralization at the level of Secretaries indicates a change in the level 

of coordination and importance of Decentralization 

Baseline: 0 (2008) 

Target: 3 (2012) 

Means of 

Meeting agenda of MLD 

Verification 


Responsibility Policy Coordination Committee/Decentralization Section at MLD 

18

STAFFING POLICIES 

Indicator: Local Service Commission Act passed to regularize local recruitment 

Rationale: The Local Service Commission Act is a key element to improve staffing policies. 

Limits: • The act itself does not indicate changes in staffing itself, but is an indicator 

for staffing policies. The effect on staffing itself is captured by additional 

indicators. 

Baseline: No (2009) 

Target: Yes (2012) 

Means of 

Local Service Commission Act 

Verification 



Indicator: % of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are women 

Rationale: With the staffing policies in place, changes in staff composition are to be expected over 

time. Women are a key target group of LGCDP and are therefore captured through this 

indicator. 

Limits: • This indicator does not distinguish between different levels of local 

government adminstrations. However, at an aggregated level it provides an 

indication of change over the years. 

• The indicator aggregates data for DDCs, municipalities and VDCs, thereby 

potentially blurring differences between the three levels of local governance 

in Nepal. 

• Data should be collected through the LGCDP sample surveys and 

administrative data through the MLD. Sample surveys can continue to collect 

this data for triangulation and quality control of administrative data. 


Target: 33% (2012) 

Means of 

LGCDP Sample survey / administrative data 

Verification 

Frequency Every 2 years / annually 

Responsibility MLD M&E Section / MLD Personnel Administration Section 

Indicator: % of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are Dalits (as 

proxy for all disadvantaged groups) 

Rationale: With the staffing policies in place, changes in staff composition are to be expected over 

time. Dalits serve as a proxy for all disadvantaged groups. 

Limits: • Given the difficulty in clearly defining and identifying who belongs to a 

disadvantaged group, Dalits serve as a proxy for all disadvantaged groups. 

The underlying assumption is that changes in the staffing level of Dalits are 

likely to indicate changes in the staffing level for other disadvantaged groups. 

• The indicator aggregates data for DDCs, municipalities and VDCs, thereby 

potentially blurring differences between the three levels of local governance 

in Nepal. 

• Data should be collected through the LGCDP sample surveys and 

administrative data through the MLD. 

• Sample surveys can continue to collect this data for triangulation and quality 

control of administrative data. 


Target: 


Means of 

LGCDP Sample survey / administrative data 

Verification 

Frequency Every 2 years / annually 

Responsibility MLD M&E Section / MLD Personnel Administration Section 

19

LOCAL BODIES FISCAL COMMISSION / DMIS 

Indicator: LBFC database contains data on internal and external revenue generation 

disaggregated by all DDCs, all VDCs and all municipalities 

Rationale: Strengthened policies and institutional frameworks require reliable data for decisionmaking. 

A key function of the Local Bodies Fiscal Commission is the collection and analysis 

of data from DDCs, VDCs and municipalities. 

Limits: • The indicator is not registering partial progress, but is only registering 

progress if data by all three levels of local governance are available. 

Baseline: No (2009) 

Target: Yes (2012) 

Means of 

LBFC database 

Verification 



Indicator: Number of unique visitors on DMIS section in MLD website per trimester 

Rationale: This proxy indicator tracks both the availability and quality of data collected by the Local 

Bodies Fiscal Commission. The underlying assumption is that the number of users 

accessing data from DMIS will only increase and remain at a high level if a) sufficient data 

is publicly and easily available and b) this data is of sufficient quality. This data can be 

easily collected using free online tools like Google Analysis. 

Limits: • The indicator only captures web-based access to data from the data base. 

The underlying assumption is that changes in web-based access correspond 

with the overall use of the data. 

• By tracking “unique visitors”, the same visitors accessing data on different 

days are counted multiple times. 


Target: 

To be determined 

Mov 

MLD website 



LOCAL BODIES ASSOCIATIONS 

Indicator: % of LDOs in DDCs who think that ADDCN is performing better now then one 

year ago 

Rationale: This indicator tracks the perception of changes in ADDCN performance and the satisfaction 

of its main clients over time. It serves as a proxy for changes in the performance of this 

Local Body. 

Limits: • The indicator tracks perceptions rather than actual changes. The underlying 

assumption is that significant improvements in performance will – over time – 

be reflected by changes in the perception of its key clients. 


Target: 


Means of 


Verification 



Indicator: % of Executive Officers in municipalities who think that MuAN is performing 

better now then one year ago 

Rationale: This indicator tracks the perception of changes in MuAN performance and the satisfaction 


Local Body. 



Target: 


Mov 




20

Indicator: % of VDC Secretaries who think that NAVIN is performing better now then one 

year ago 

Rationale: This indicator tracks the perception of changes in NAVINs performance and the satisfaction 


Local Body. 



Target: 


Means of 


Verification 



MAINSTREAMING GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION 

Indicator: % of DDCs that conduct GE/SI audit per year (proxy for implementation of 

GE/SI strategy) 

Rationale: This indicator is a proxy for the extent the GE/SI is implemented. 

Limits: • The proxy indicator does not track implementation per se, but a key aspect of 

the implementation of the GE/SI strategy. 

• The indicator does not capture the extent to which audit results are acted 

upon. 

Baseline: 0 (04/2009) 

Target: 50% (2012) 

Means of 

MLD administrative data 

Verification 



CHILD-FRIENDLY LOCAL GOVERNANCE 

Outcome 

Indicator: 

Number of local bodies (VDC, Municipalities and district) that have adopted 

child-friendly local governance (CFLG) 

Rational: • Child-Friendly Local Governance is reflected in the TYIP and NPC annual 

planning guidelines. 

• There is a provision for allocating 25% of VDC block grant for CFLG VDCs in 

the approved VDC block grant guidelines. 

• The child-friendly approach is accepted as key principles of local governance 

in the LGCDP programme document. 

Limits: 

Just adoption may not ensure that local bodies have agreed to implement the CFLG 

framework and guidelines 


Four districts, one Municipality and 6 VDCs have initiated CFLG. 

Target: 122 (2012) 

75 VDCs, 37 districts and 10 Municipality 

Means of 

MLD annual reports 

Verification 

Frequency Annual 

21

2. LGCDP Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 

MONITORING 

We propose to build LGCDP’s performance monitoring system around four pillars: 

• MC/PM Assessments (annually) 

• MLD administrative data (ongoing) 

• LGCDP Sample Surveys (every two years) 

• Indicator tracking (trimesterely) 

MC/PM Assessments of DDCs, municipalities and VDCs are a convenient, 

meaningful and already existing data collection mechanism (for DDCs). To monitor 

LGCDP, MC/PM assessments can provide a) information on overall progress through 

highly aggregated, qualitative indicator using a scorecard approach, and b) 

disaggregated information on detailed progress in fields of particular interest to 

LGCDP (for example inclusive decision-making or financial irregularities). MC/PM 

assessments for DDCs, municipalities and VDCs need to be done during the 3 rd 

trimester before the Nepal fiscal year begins on July 15 th . 

Recommendation: 

⇒ make extensive but selective use of aggregated and disaggregated 

MC/PM Assessment data for monitoring progress of LGCDP 

Administrative data from MLD is currently only collected with regard to financial 

and physical progress. Over time, however, MLD should be increasingly able to 

collect, aggregate and analyze key administrative data from VDCs through DDCs. To 

be able to do that, MLD – especially its M&E Section - will need substantive support 

through LGCDP. 


⇒ start improving the capacity of MLD with a focus on collecting, entering, 

aggregating and analyzing readily available administrative data (e.g. 

number of participants at DDC planning meeting, degree of participation of 

DAGs) 

⇒ immediately increase the capacity of the M&E section of the MLD by hiring 

a DMIS/data analysis staff to aggregate already existing data 

22

LGCDP Sample Surveys do complement the MC/PM assessments and 

administrative data in two important ways: First, sample surveys can directly address 

the citizens. Second, sample surveys can provide – at least initially – administrative 

data from VDCs on a sample basis before the MLD is able to set up a comprehensive 

data collection system. 


⇒ conduct a sample survey every 2 years: more often will not add much 

value to the information gathered, less often is too late to inform decisionmaking 

for LGCDP; include the questions from the LGCDP M&E framework 

in all surveys (see Annex 3) 

⇒ make use of external quality control for sample surveys; sample 

surveys are expensive and methodologically challenging; if the sampling 

methodology is not sound (and not perceived as being sound), the 

credibility of LGCDP’s entire monitoring system is at stake 

⇒ even if more administrative data is collected from DDCs and municipalities, 

continue using sample surveys for at least 6 more years to provide quality 

control and triangulation to data obtained through administrative 

channels 

Indicator tracking combines key data from the MC/PM Assessment, the sample 

surveys and additional data from the MLD and other external resources. The 

indicator data will be updated on a trimesterely basis, since monthly data collection 

would be cumbersome without adding much value. Performance indicator tracking 

will be done using the indicator tracking sheets described in Annex 2. 


⇒ update indicator tracking sheets described in Annex 2 

trimesterely as simple key tool for tracking indicators 

The LGCDP programme document does currently not define risks at any level, with 

the only exception of fiduciary risks. Before a system can be set up to monitor risks, 

these risks need to be clearly defined. 


⇒ clearly define risks for LGCDP at at least two levels (output to 

outcome, outcome to purpose) as a first step to monitor risks 

23

EVALUATION 

Given the potentially powerful monitoring tools of LGCDP (sample surveys, MC/PM 

assessments), evaluations can be kept to a minimum to not unduly overburden 

programme management. 


⇒ commission two external evaluations (2010 and 2013) and conduct 

two internal reviews (2009 and 2011) 

The first external evaluation, a mid-term evaluation, focuses on implementation 

issues of LGCDP. The emphasis is put on activities, the delivery of outputs and initial 

indications on progress towards the three LGCDP outcomes. The mid-term evaluation 

will inform the MLD and its development partners if and how the design of the 

programme needs to be adjusted. 

The second external evaluation, a final evaluation, focuses on results. The key 

question to be answered by the evaluation is: Have the outputs delivered by LGCDP 

over the past years resulted in clear and evident progress towards the three LGCDP 

outcomes? The final evaluation also focuses on possible changes on the purpose 

level and analyzes lessons learned from the programme. 

Alternating with the evaluations are internal reviews by the Government of Nepal 

and its development partners. Internal reviews are defined in the LGCDP programme 

document as mechanism for proposing changes in the programme document and the 

implementation modalities. 

REPORTING 

Keeping reporting requirements light but meaningful is paramount, given the high 

amount of monitoring reports and evaluations produced by the M&E system (sample 

survey reports, MC/PM assessment reports, evaluation reports, internal review 

reports, etc.). 


⇒ keep monthly progress reports light, activity and output focused and 

for MLD-internal use only 

⇒ focus on trimester progress reports and annual reports based on the 

fiscal year for a broader audience 

⇒ use indicator tracking sheets as key mandatory reporting tool for 

trimesterely and annual reports 

⇒ focus reports which are for LGCDP management on outcomes 

24

LGCDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN 

MONITORING EVALUATION REPORTING 

1 

2066 st Trimester: 

• Indicator framework 

• M&E Plan 

2nd Trimester: 

• Sample Survey I (Baseline Survey) 

• MC/PM Assessment DDCs 

• MC/PM Assessment Municipalities 

• MC/PM Assessment VDCs 

• Indicator tracking update 

3 rd Trimester: 


2067 



2 nd Trimester: 



• MC/PM Assessment VCDs 




2068 




• Sample Survey II 





3rd Trimester: 

• Internal Review (“Joint Annual Review”) 


• External Mid-Term Evaluation (“Mid-Term 

Review”) 


• LGCDP Trimesterly Report 



• LGCDP Annual Report (fiscal year) 













• Indicator tracking update 3rd Trimester: 

• Internal Review (“Joint Annual Review”) 



25

of GoN and DPs • LGCDP Annual Report (fiscal year) 

26

2069 










2070 




• Sample Survey III 





• Final Evaluation (“External Review”) 















27

ANNEX 1: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 

28

Indicators Indicator Baseline Indicator Target Means of Verification Responsibility Frequency 

Goal: Contribute towards poverty reduction through inclusive responsive and accountable local governance and participatory community-led 

development 

see PMAS, Nepal Human Development Report Nepal MDG reports 

Purpose: Improved access to locally and inclusively prioritized public goods and services 

a) ACCESS TO PUBLIC GOODS 

• Average time for rural households to reach the nearest of 15 key 

facilities 3 in minutes and hours 

ROADS 

• % of rural households that have access to a dirt road (vehicle 

passable) within 30 minutes 

• Mean time taken by rural households to reach nearest dirt road 

(vehicle passable) in hours and minutes 

DRINKING WATER 

• % of rural households with sustainable access to improved 

water source 

b) ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES 

• % of citizens that say that the services of DDCs are more 


• % of citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more 


• % of citizens that say that the services of municipalities are 

more accessible that they were one year ago 

1 h 59 m 

(2003/4) 

67.6% 

(2003/4) 

3 h 7 m 

(2003/4) 

80.2 % 

(2006) 

TBD by LGCDP BLS 

2009 


2009 


2009 

1 h 30 m 

(2012) 

75% 

(2012) 

2 h 30 m 

(2012) 

To be determined 

(TBD) 

TBD after LGCDP 

BLS 


BLS 


BLS 

NLSS (cross section) CBS 7 years 

NLSS (cross section) / LGCDP 

Sample Surveys 

NLSS (cross section) / LGCDP 

Sample Surveys 

Nepal Demographic and Health 

Surveys 




CBS / MLD 

M&E Section 

CBS / MLD 

M&E Section 

MHP 

MLD M&E 

Section 

MLD M&E 

Section 

MLD M&E 

Section 

7 years / 2 years (2009, 

2011, 2013) 

7 years / 2 years (2009, 

2011, 2013) 

not known 

2 years (2009, 2013, 

2011) 

2 years (2009, 2011, 

2013) 

2 years (2009, 2011, 

2013) 

3 The 15 key facilities tracked by the Nepal Living Standard Survey are: primary school, health post, bus stop, paved road, dirt road (vehicle passable), dirt road (vehicle impassable), local shop, haat 

bazaar, market centre, Krishi Kendra, Sajha, commercial bank, source of drinking water, post office, telephone boot 

29


Outcome 1: 

Citizens and communities engaged actively with local governments and hold them accountable (15.7m USD) 

a) ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

• % of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the 

decision-making process of DDCs than one year ago 


decision-making process of VDCs than one year ago 


decision-making process of municipalities than one year ago 

PLANNING 

• % of all ward committees of VDCs and municipalities which hold 

at least one planning meeting per year 

• Total number of citizens who participate in planning meeting at 

ward level per year in Nepal 

• % of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per 

year who are Dalits (as proxy for all DAGs) 

• % of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per 

year who are women 

• % of project proposals submitted by women’s groups in VDC 

annual plans 

IMPLEMENTATION 

• % of VDCs and municipality block grants spent on projects 

requested by women’s or disadvantaged groups through 

the ward committee (as defined in the Interim Constitution) 

REPRESENTATION 

• Number of poor households (based on 8 indicators used in MLD 

DAG mapping) where no member was previously engaged in 

any organization in the last 3 years, but now is engaged in 

either school management committee, health management 

committee or VDC 

• % of women in all Integrated Planning Committees at VDC 

level 

• % of members of disadvantaged groups in all Integrated Planning 

Committees at VDC level 


2009 


2009 


2009 

TBD by LGCDP 

Sample Survey 

(See Note 1) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 1) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 1) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 1) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 1) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 1) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 2) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 3) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 3) 


BLS 


BLS 


BLS 

90% 

(12/2012) 

900,000 

(12/2012) 

TBD after the 

LGCDP Sample 

Survey 

TBD after the 


Survey 

TBD after the 


Survey 

MLD Sample Surveys MLD M&E Section 2 years (2009, 2011, 

2013) 


2013) 


2013) 

Sample Surveys / MLD M&E Section 2 years (2009, 2011, 

administrative data 4 2013) / annually 

Sample Surveys / 








30% (12/2012) Sample Surveys / 


TBD after the 


Survey 

TBD after the 


Survey 

TBD after the 


Survey 

Performance system of 

LGCDP social mobilizers 

Sample survey/ 

administrative records 

Sample survey/ 

administrative records 

MLD M&E Section 2 years (2009, 2011, 

2013) / annually 









MLD M&E Section 

through social 

mobilizers 



annually 

Annually 

Annually 

4 The data will first be collected exclusively through sample surveys. When MLD has established a system to collect administrative data, the means of verification will bet he administrative data by the 

M&E Section in the MLD. However, sample surveys will continue to be conducted a) as a quality control to administrative data and b) for triangulation. 

30

INCLUSION 

• % total budget of DDCs which explicitly targets women (as 

defined in the Gender Budget Audit guidelines) 

• % total budget of DDCs which explicitly targets members of 

disadvantaged groups (as defined in the DAG Budget 

Audits) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 4) 


Sample Survey 

(See Note 4) 

Note 1: This will be determined only after Ward Committees are set up 

Note 2: This number will be “0” initially 

Note 3: This will be determined after Integrated Planning Committees at VDC, DDC and municipality level have been set up 

Note 4: This will be determined after first Gender Budget Audits and DAG Budget Audits are conducted 

15% (12/2012) Gender Budget Audits GESI Section of MLD Annually 

15% (12/2012) Sample DAG Budget Audits GESI Section of MLD Annually 

b) ACCOUNTABILITY 

MUNICIPALITY 

• % of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed 

activities of the municipality in the past 12 months 

• % of citizens who can approximately identify current year total 

annual budget of the municipality (+/- 20%) 

VDCs 


activities of the VDC in the past 12 months 

• % of citizens who can approximately identify current year total 

annual budget of the VDC (+/- 20%) 

DDCs 


activities of the DDC in the past 12 months 


BLS 2009 


BLS 2009 


BLS 2009 


BLS 2009 


BLS 2009 


BLS 


BLS 


BLS 


BLS 


BLS 


2013) 


2013) 


2013) 


2013) 


2013) 

to be finalized: one or two indicators on the level of activities and effectiveness of evaluation societies 

31


Output 1: 

Communities and community organizations participate actively in local governance processes (17.0m USD) 

• Social Mobilization Guidelines drafted No 

Yes Social Mobilization 

M&E Section of MLD One-off 

(04/2009) 

(2010) Guidelines 

• DAG mapping by households completed No 

Yes DAG mapping report M&E Section of MLD One-off 

(04/2009) 

(2010) 

• No. of VCDs covered by social mobilization through LGCDP 0 

3,915 LGCDP administrative LGCDP PCU 

Trimesterly 

(04/2009) 

(2012) records 

• No. of municipalities covered by social mobilization through LGCDP 0 

58 

LGCDP administrative LGCDP PCU 

Trimesterly 

(04/2009) 

(2012) records 

• Performance system for social mobilizers in place No 

Yes Performance system LGCDP PCU 

One-off 

(04/2009) 

(2010) guidelines 

• % of citizens who say that they are satisfied with the performance of 

the local social mobilizer 

Social Mobilizers 

Performance system 

LGCDP PCU 

annually 

pending design 

of performance 

system 

pending design of 

performance 

system 

• % of citizens from DAG households who say that they are satisfied 

with the performance of the local social mobilizer 

pending design 

of performance 

system 

Pending first PM 

TBD after sample 

survey 

Social Mobilizers 

Performance system 


annually 

• Number of Ward Citizen’s Committees meetings functional in 

VDCs and municipalities (at least 2 meetings per year) 

pending first 

data collection 

pending first data 

collection 

Administrative data in MLD M&E Section in MLD annually 

• Number of Integrated Planning Formulation Committees 

(IPFC) (at least 1 meeting(s) per year) 

pending first 



collection 


• % of 75 DDCs that conduct a Public/community Audit per year pending first 


• % of 75 DDCs that conduct a Social Audit per year pending first 



collection 


collection 



Output 2: 

Increased capacity of citizens, communities and marginalized groups to assert their rights and hold local governments accountable (8.7m USD) 

indicators to be defined once key activities are better defined (e.g. information, education and communication activities; Local Governance and Accountability Facility) 

32


Outcome 2: 

Increased capacity of Local Governments to manage resources and deliver basic services in an inclusive and equitable manner (150.8m) 

a.) MANAGING RESOURCES (DDCs) 

• % of all 75 DDCs that meet all 15 5 minimum conditions (as 

defined in 12/2008 by the MLD based on LSGA 1999) per fiscal year 

63% 

(06/2008) 

100% 

(12/2012) 

National Synthesis Report by LBFC LBFC annually 

• % of DDCs that score above 50 points in all 62 6 performance 

measurements and meet the minimum score in all 8 functional 

areas 

• % of all 75 DDCs that spend more than 80% of planned capital 

development budget 7 per year 

• % of all 75 DDCs that spend more than 10% of internal income 

explicitly on women, children, DAGs, disabled and old people 

per fiscal year 

41% 

(06/2008) 

TBD after 

analysis of LBFC 

financial records 

in 2009 

29% 

(06/2008) 

90% 

(12/2012) 

TBD after 

analysis of LBFC 

financial records 

in 2009 

75% 

(12/2012) 

National Synthesis Report by LBFC LBFC annually 

LBFC financial records LBFC annually 

Annual MC/PM assessment report 

for DDCs 

• % of all 75 DDCs that have less then 2% irregular expenditure 8 9% 

80% Annual MC/PM assessment report LBFC 

annually 

(06/2008) (12/2012) for DDCs 

MANAGING RESOURCES (MUNICIPALITIES) 

• % of all 58 municipalities that meet the Minimum Conditions (as MC/PM 

100% National Synthesis Report LBFC LBFC annually 

defined by MLD based on LSGA in 1999) per fiscal year 

assessment.2009 (2012) 

Indicator(s) on performance measurements to be defined pending the finalization of the municipality MC/PM guidelines 

MANAGING RESOURCES (VDCs) 

• % of all 3915 VDCs that meet the Minimum Conditions (as defined 

by MLD based on LSGA in 1999) 

MC/PM 

assessment 2009 

100% (2012) National Synthesis Report by LBFC LBFC annually 

MONITORING AND REPORTING 

• % of outcome indicators for which data supposed to be available 

are updated per year 

• % of DDCs that submit to MLD an annual report based on a 

template designed by MLD which includes a synthesized report on 

VDCs within August 15 th 

b.) BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES 

• % of citizens who say that the infrastructure (roads, drinking 

water, electricity) offered by the local governments better meet their 

needs than last year 

• % of DDCs which increase their internal revenues (excludes 

revenue sharing and central grants) by at least 15% compared to the 

previous fiscal year 

• Number of LGCDP pilot projects which were scaled up with 

government or development partner funds outside the LGCDP budget 

TBD after 

assessment in 

2009 

template not yet 

designed 


BLS 2009 


BLS 2009 

0 

(04/2009) 

LBFC 

100% (2012) LGCDP indicator tracking sheets M&E Section of 

MLD 

100% (2012) Reports from DDCs submitted to 

MLD 


BLS 


BLS 

3 

(04/2012) 

Sample surveys 

M&E Section of 

MLD 


MLD 

annually 

annually 

annually 

annually 

Financial records of LBFC LBFC annually 

MLD reports 


MLD 

annually 

5 currently only 12 out of 15 minimum conditions are in use 

6 currently only 57 out of 62 performance measurements are in use 

7 this refers to budget line 6.4., 6.5., 6.6. 

8 as defined by the final audit report per fiscal year 

33


Output 3: 

Local governments gain access to greater fiscal resources in equitable and appropriate ways (121.0m USD) 

• Number of DDCs assessed on MC/PM by MLD on MC/PM per fiscal 

75 

75 Annual MC/PM Assessment for LBFC 

annually 

year 

(06/2008) 

(2012) DDCs 

• Number of municipalities assessed by MLD on MC/PM per fiscal 

0 

58 Annual MC/PM Assessment for LBFC 

annually 

year 

(04/2009) 

(2010) municipalities 

• Number of VDCs assessed by DDCs through out contracting per 

0 

3915 DDC Assessment Compilation LBFC 

annually 

fiscal year 

(04/2009) (07/2009) report 

• Block grand funds disbursed through LGCDP to DDCs in million 

8.2m 

11.25m LGCDP financial records (block LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

USD per fiscal year 

(2008/9) (2012/13) grant allocation) 

• Block grand funds disbursed to Municipalities in million USD per 

0m 

2.5m LGCDP financial records (block LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

fiscal year 


• Block grand funds disbursed to VCDs in million USD per fiscal year 0m 

29m LGCDP financial records (block LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 


Output 4: 

Appropriate capacity building services passed on to all levels of the local government service delivery system (26.4m USD) 

• % of DDCs and municipalities that receive capacity development 0% (4/2009) 100% (2012) LGCDP financial records LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

grants through LGCDP per fiscal year 

• Funds of capacity development grants disbursed per fiscal year 

0m 

3m LGCDP financial records LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

in million USD to DDCs and municipalities 

(4/2009) 

(2012) 

• Number of guidelines and operational manuals produced 

1 

12 LGCDP Trimesterly reports LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

through LGCDP 

(04/2009) 

(2012) 

• Number of procurement plans by DDCs produced with LGCDP 

0 


support per fiscal year 

(04/2009) (04/2012) 

• Number of DDCs having Capacity Development Plan TBD by LGCDP 


BLS 2009 (04/2012) 

Output 5: 

Local governments service delivery mechanisms and processes fine-tuned (3.4m USD) 

• Number of decentralization pilots funded through LGCDP 0 

(03/2009) 

2 

(2012) 

LGCDP Trimesterly reports LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

34


Outcome 3: 

Strengthened policy and national institutional framework for devolution and local self-governance (5.8m USD) 

SECTOR-WIDE APPROACH 

• Number of development partners (DPs) that sign Joint Financial 

Agreement 

0 

(04/2009) 

10 

(2012) 

Joint Financial Agreement LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

• Total funds paid into Joint Financial Agreement basket in 

million USD 

0 

(04/2009) 

SECTOR DEVOLUTION 

• Number of secretary-level meetings, participated in by at 

0 

least five line ministries that explicitly includes agenda on 

(2008) 

decentralization, held per year 

STAFFING POLICIES 

• Local Service Commission Act passed to regularize local 

No 

recruitment 

(04/2009) 

• % of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) TBD by LGCDP 

that are women 

BLS 2009 

• % of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) TBD by LGCDP 

that are Dalits (as proxy for all disadvantaged groups) 

BLS 2009 

LOCAL BODIES FISCAL COMMISSION / DMIS 

• LBFC database contains data on internal and external revenue 

No 

generation disaggregated by all DDCs, all VDCs and all 

(04/2009) 

municipalities 

• Number of unique visitors on DMIS website per Trimester 0 

(04/2009) 

LOCAL BODIES ASSOCIATIONS 

• % of LDOs of DDCs who think that ADDCN is performing better TBD by LGCDP 

now then one year ago 

BLS 2009 

• % of Executive Officers of municipalities who think that MuAN is TBD by LGCDP 

performing better now then one year ago 

BLS 2009 

• % of VDC Secretaries who think that NAVIN is performing better TBD by LGCDP 

now then one year ago 

BLS 2009 

MAINSTREAMING GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSING 

• % of DDCs that conduct GE/SI audit per year (proxy for 

0 

implementation of GE/SI strategy) 

(04/2009) 

CHILD-FRIENDLY LOCAL GOVERNANCE 

• Number of local bodies (VDCs, municipalities and DDCs) that have 

adopted child-friendly local governance 

0 

(04/2009) 

600 million 

(2012) 

3 

(2012) 

Yes 

(2012) 

33% 

(2012) 


BLS 

Yes 

(2012) 

LGCDP financial records LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

Meeting minutes 

Local Service Commission 

Act 

Sample survey / 


Sample survey / 


Policy Coordination 

Committee/Decentralization 

Section at MLD 


MLD Personnel 

Administration Section 

MLD Personnel 

Administration Section 

annually 

one-off 

LBFC database LGCDP PCU one-off 

2 years / annually 

2 years / annually 

TBD MLD website MLD M&E Section Trimesterly 


BLS 


BLS 


BLS 

50% 

(2012) 

122 

(2012) 

LGCDP Sample Surveys MLD M&E Section 2 years 



MLD administrative data MLD M&E Section annually 

MLD annual reports MLD M&E Section annually 

35


Output 6: 

Policy framework for decentralization promoted a more enabling environment for effective, transparent and accountable local governance (1.5m USD) 

• Review of decentralization and sector devolution policy drafted No 

Yes Review document LGCDP PCU One-off 

(04/2009) 

(2012) 

• Child-friendly national framework and guidelines developed No 

Yes Approved document from LGCDP PCU 

One-off 

(04/2009) 

(2012) MLD 

• Sector devolution guideline published No 

Yes Guideline document LGCDP PCU One-off 

(04/2009) 

(2012) 

• SWAP framework document drafted No 

Yes SWAP framework 


One-off 

(04/2009) 

(2012) document 

• Number of reviews of lessons learned on „demand“ side of local 

0 

1 

Review documents LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

governance linked to LGCDP 

(2009) 

(2012) 

• Local Service Commission Act drafted No 

Yes LSCA draft document LGCDP PCU One-off 

(04/2009) 

(2012) 

• National Capacity Development Strategy drafted No 

Yes Strategy document LGCDP PCU One-off 

(04/2009) 

(2012) 

• Number of outcome and impact studies published under LGCDP 0 

1 

Study documents LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

(04/2009) 

(2012) 

Output 7: 

Capacity of central government and national non-government institutions strengthened to provide appropriate support to local governments is enhanced (2.0m USD) 

• Number of new articles on policy analysis published by MLD in 

0 (2008) 48 (2012) Journal Swashasan at MLD Information and Trimesterly 

Journal of Local Governance 

http://mld.gov.np 

Publication Unit 

• Formula for intergovernment fiscal transfers revised No (04/2009) Yes (2012) Formula document LGCDP PCU One-off 

• Fiscal Decentralization Roadmap updated No (04/2009) Yes (2012) Roadmap document LGCDP PCU One-off 

• Number of Revenue Potential Studies of VDCs, DDCs and 

0 (2008) 3 (2012) Study documents LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

municipalities conducted by LBFC 

• Capacity assessment of all three LB associations (ADDCN, MuAN, No (04/2009) Yes (2012) Capacity Assessment LGCDP PCU 

One-off 

NAVIN) published 

documents 

• All three Local Bodies associations (ADDCN, MuAN, NAVIN) have No (04/2009) Yes (2012) Observation of office LGCDP PCU 

One-off 

a furnished office building 

buildings 

• DMIS data is available online No (04/2009) Yes (2012) DMIS website LGCDP PCU One-off 

• Number of senior Local Government staff trained on Gender 

0 (04/2009) TBD LGCDP administrative LGCDP PCU 

Trimesterly 

Equality / Social Inclusion under LGCDP 

records 

• Number of decentralization focal points of line ministries trained in 0 (04/2009) TBD LGCDP administrative LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

decentralization under LGCDP 

records 

Output 8: 

Support provided for programme implementation (2.3m USD) 

• Total funds in million USD dollars spent on pilots (output 8) TBD 

(2009) 

2.3m 

(2012) 

LGCDP financial records LGCDP PCU Trimesterly 

36

ANNEX 2: TEMPLATE FOR INDICATOR TRACKING SHEET 

LGCDP Results 

(Outputs, Outcome, 

Purpose) 

Indicators 

Baseline 

(2008) 

1st 

Trimester 

2st 

Trimester 

3rd 

Trimester 

1st 

Trimester 

2nd 

Trimester 

etc. 

Target 

(2012) 

OUTCOME 2: 

Increase capacity of local 

governments to manage 

resources and deliver 

basic services in an 

inclusive and equitable 

way 

% of DDCs that initiate 

MC/PM reporting on their 

own 

% increase of local 

revenues compared to 

2007 

15% 

(01/2009) 

5% 

(2007) 

15% 15% 24% 24% 24% ....... 95% 

(12/2012) 

5% 5% 16% 16% 16% ....... 50% 

(12/2012) 

Roles of central 

government and local 

bodies delineated 

no 

(01/2009) 

no no no yes yes ....... yes 

(12/2010) 

37

ANNEX 3: DATA REQUIREMENT FOR 

LGCDP SAMPLE SURVEYS 

38

HOUSEHOLD / CITIZEN LEVEL 

% of rural households that have access to a dirt road (vehicle passable) within 20 minutes (PURPOSE) 

Mean time taken by rural households to reach nearest dirt road (vehicle passable) in hours and minutes (PURPOSE) 

% of citizens that say that the services of DDCs are more accessible than they were one year ago (PURPOSE) 

% of citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more accessible than they were one year ago 

% of citizens that say that the services of municipalities are more accessible that they were one year ago 

% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decision process by DDCs than one year ago (OUTCOME 1) 

% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decision process by VDCs than one year ago (OUTCOME 1) 

% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decision process by municipalities than one year ago 

(OUTCOME 1) 

Number of citizens who participate in planning meeting at ward level per year in Nepal (OUTCOME 1) 

% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities of the municipality in the past 12 months 

(OUTCOME 1) 

% of citizens who can approximately identify the latest annual budget of the municipalities (+/- 20%) (OUTCOME 1) 

% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities of the VDC in the past 12 months (OUTCOME 

1) 

% of citizens who can approximately identify the latest annual budget of the VDC (+/- 20%) (OUTCOME 1) 

% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities of the DDC in the past 12 months (OUTCOME 

1) 

% of citizens who say that the infrastructure (roads, drinking water, electricity) offered by the local governments better 

meet their needs than last year (OUTCOME 2) 

% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are women (OUTCOME 3) 

% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are Dalits (proxy for all Digs) (OUTCOME 3) 

MUNICIPALITIES 

% of all ward committees of VDCs and municipalities which hold at least one planning meeting per year (OUTCOME 1) 

% of VDCs and municipality block grants spent on projects requested by women’s or disadvantaged groups through 

the ward committee (OUTCOME 1) 

% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are women 

% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are Dalits (as proxy for all disadvantaged groups) 

% of Executive Officers who think that MuAN is performing better now then one year ago (OUTCOME 3) 

DDCs 

% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are women 


% of DDC LDOs who think that ADDCN is performing better now then one year ago (OUTCOME 3) 

VDCs 

% of all ward committees of VDCs and municipalities which hold at least one planning meeting per year (OUTCOME 1) 

% of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per year who are Dalits (as proxy for all DAGs) (OUTCOME 1) 

% of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per year who are women (OUTCOME 1) 

% of VDC project proposals submitted by women’s groups in VDC annual plans 

% of VDCs and municipality block grants spent on projects requested by women’s or disadvantaged groups through 

the ward committee (OUTCOME 1) 

% of women in all Integrated Planning Committees at VDC level (OUTCOME 1) 

% of members of disadvantaged groups in all Integrated Planning Committees at VDC level (OUTCOME 1) 

% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are women (OUTCOME 3) 


% of VDC secretaries who think that NAVIN is performing better now then one year ago 

39

LGCDP M&E Framework

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?