LGCDP M&E Framework

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
) 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. 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 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 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 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 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 11
Page 1 and 2: Ains Local Government and Community
Page 3 and 4: 1. LGCDP Monitoring and Evaluation
Page 5 and 6: Access to public goods/general Indi
Page 7 and 8: 1.3. OUTCOMES OUTCOME 1 LGCDP Outco
Page 9: Indicators: • % of participants a
Page 13 and 14: a.) MANAGING RESOURCES DDCs Indicat
Page 15 and 16: VDCs Indicator: % of all 3915 VDCs
Page 17 and 18: OUTCOME 3 LGCDP Outcome 3: Strength
Page 19 and 20: STAFFING POLICIES Indicator: Local
Page 21 and 22: Indicator: % of VDC Secretaries who
Page 23 and 24: LGCDP Sample Surveys do complement
Page 25 and 26: LGCDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLA
Page 27 and 28: 2069 1 st Trimester: • Indicator
Page 29 and 30: Indicators Indicator Baseline Indic
Page 31 and 32: INCLUSION • % total budget of DDC
Page 37 and 38: ANNEX 2: TEMPLATE FOR INDICATOR TRA
Page 39: HOUSEHOLD / CITIZEN LEVEL % of rura

LGCDP M&E Framework

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?