LGCDP M&E Framework

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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. 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 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 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 every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013 for sample survey) / annually (administrative data) M&E Section of MLD (for both survey and 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 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 every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013 for sample survey) / annually (administrative data) M&E Section of MLD (for both survey and administrative data) 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. Baseline: To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009 Target: 30% (2012) Means of Verification Frequency Responsibility 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) 9
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: 1.3. OUTCOMES OUTCOME 1 LGCDP Outco
Page 11 and 12: ) ACCOUNTABILITY The following indi
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?