LGCDP M&E Framework
LGCDP M&E Framework LGCDP M&E Framework
) 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. Baseline: To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009 Target: To be determined after the LGCDP baseline survey Means of Sample surveys by MLD Verification Frequency Every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013) Responsibility M&E Section of MLD 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. Baseline: To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009 Target: To be determined after the baseline survey Means of Sample Surveys by MLD Verification Frequency Every two years (2009, 2011, 2013) Responsibility M&E Section of MLD 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 Frequency annually Responsibility M&E Section of MLD 16
OUTCOME 3 LGCDP Outcome 3: Strengthened policy and national institutional framework for devolution and local self-governance Analysis of Outcome formulation: • 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
- 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 and 10: Indicators: • % of participants a
- Page 11 and 12: ) ACCOUNTABILITY The following indi
- Page 13 and 14: a.) MANAGING RESOURCES DDCs Indicat
- Page 15: VDCs Indicator: % of all 3915 VDCs
- 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 33 and 34: Indicators Indicator Baseline Indic
- Page 35 and 36: Indicators Indicator Baseline Indic
- Page 37 and 38: ANNEX 2: TEMPLATE FOR INDICATOR TRA
- Page 39: HOUSEHOLD / CITIZEN LEVEL % of rura
OUTCOME 3<br />
<strong>LGCDP</strong> Outcome 3: Strengthened policy and national institutional framework for<br />
devolution and local self-governance<br />
Analysis of Outcome formulation:<br />
• The outcome refers to two broad issues: a) policies and b) the institutional<br />
framework for devolution.<br />
• Policies refers to laws passed by the parliament and regulations and guidelines<br />
produced by the cabinet and by ministries. Although the constitution is not a policy, it<br />
plays a significant role for setting policies in the current context for devolution in<br />
Nepal. Equally, strategies refer to the implementation of policies.<br />
• The “national institutional framework” refers to institutions beyond the Ministry<br />
of Local Development.<br />
• “Devolution” and “local self-governance” are similar concepts, but devolution is<br />
more concrete in further defining a certain type of local self-governance.<br />
Outcome 3<br />
policy for devolution is stronger (staffing<br />
policies, Sector-Wide Approach, sector<br />
devolution)<br />
national institutional framework is stronger (Local<br />
Bodies Fiscal Commission, DMIS)<br />
17
Change language