LGCDP M&E Framework

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.
Baseline: To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009
Target:
To be determined after the LGCDP baseline survey
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Inclusion
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
every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013 for sample survey) / annually (administrative data)
M&E Section of MLD (for both survey and administrative data)
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.
Baseline: To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009
Target:
To be determined after the LGCDP baseline survey
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Data should be collected through three sources:
• LGCDP Sample Surveys,
• Gender Budget Audits
• Sample DAG Budget Audits
every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013 for sample survey) / annually (administrative data)
M&E Section of MLD / GESI Section of MLD
10