LGCDP M&E Framework

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