A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 22: two examples of scoring criteria based on the “evaluation colours” DESDE LO LOCAL PRIMER CUADRANTE: DESARROLLO INSTITUCIONAL PARA UN BUEN GOBIERNO 1.4 MUNICIPIO PARTICIPATIVO PARAMETER MEANS OF VERIFICATION RED YELLOW GREEN 1.4.1 System of democratic participation 1.4.1 Is there a committee for municipal planning? No evidence. There are some processes to establish it. Yes, there is a committee for municipal planning. EVIDENCE No committee. Institutional act for the establishment of a committee and sessions’ programmes. Act for the establishment of a committee, sessions’ programmes and minutes, follow up of decisions, etc. Self-evaluation location Verification location 1.4.5 Collaboration with civil society organisations 1.4.5 Are there any means of collaborating with civil society organisations? Of what kind? There are none. The municipality has contacts with some organisations, but no joint actions. There is a registry of CSOs; projects and seminars have been realised with CSOs. EVIDENCE There is none. List of CSOs in the municipality. Registry of CSOs, joint projects and seminars. Self-evaluation location Verification location Figure 3: DESDE LO LOCAL: Desarrollo Institucional para un Buen Gobierno 96 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
y the State and the municipality as an impartial and competent reviewer. Once the evaluation is completed, municipalities that present red indicators choose at least three areas where the three levels of government will coordinate actions and programmes to bring improvements and achieve green scores, and obtain a certificate of quality. Key actors/stakeholders The municipality represents the main actor of the assessment process as it is a self-evaluation instrument: at least four officials belonging to different ‘sections’ of municipal government and administration should apply the diagnostic tool. For the category of Institutional Development for a Good Government, one key official is the City Council Treasury Secretary. Ideally, members of the administration, town hall and wider population should also participate in the assessment. The town hall approves the results in order to formalise the process of evaluation and certification of municipal improvements. A third neutral body, such as an NGO, is also involved in the assessment process, notably in verifying the results of the self-evaluation. The national and state governments promote the application of the Agenda and provide the necessary coordination, information and administrative support to municipalities implementing the tool. National and state governments also help identify programmes and actions that can help municipalities to move from red to green practices. Results reporting format At the end of the assessment process, the municipality has to fill a “summary sheet” for each category according to the format shown in figure 3: Gender focus There is a gender-focused indicator (indicator 3.4.) assessing whether the municipality promotes gender equity in the category “Socially Inclusive Development”. This indicator introduces 22 different parameters to assess municipal capacity to promote gender equity, including the existence of municipal programmes in relation to day nursery, institutional and entrepreneurial awareness in gender recruiting, individual and collective credit schemes for women, to recruitment of women in public administrations, etc. Poverty focus There is a poverty-focused indicator (indicator 3.11) assessing whether the municipality runs specific programmes to fight poverty, in the category “Socially Inclusive Development”. This indicator introduces 22 different parameters to assess municipal capacity to fight poverty, including the existence of municipal programmes of training and education for low-income adult population, of job creation, credit and food security for the poorest, as well as the existence of coordination mechanisms amongst different levels governments and with civil society to fight poverty. Strengths • The self-evaluation tool can be used by Mexican municipalities as guidelines on how to carry out decentralization, and how to foster coordination amongst the different levels of government. • The results can be easily communicated to the population given the simple presentation of results using the three-color code, which fosters downwards accountability. • The three-color code for presenting results focuses attention on weaker areas within a municipality, and downplays inter-municipality comparisons, which makes the assessment less politically threatening to individual municipal governments. In other words, the tool is not meant to evaluate or rank municipalities, but to help them identify areas for improvements and take concrete action to improve performance in these areas. • Involvement of a third independent party to cross-check results. Weaknesses • The tool relies exclusively on objective data assessing the existence of mechanisms and processes for local governance, but fails to assess the quality of these mechanisms. • Gender and poverty disaggregation could have been mainstreamed across all indicators, instead of having specific indicators measuring gender equality and the “fight against poverty”. A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 97
Page 1:
A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local
Page 5 and 6:
Contents Acknowledgements Acronyms
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements AUTHORS Alexandra
Page 9 and 10:
Introduction This Guide is intended
Page 11:
1 Assessments of Local Governance
Page 14 and 15:
Decentralized governance for develo
Page 16 and 17:
and local specificity. In order to
Page 18 and 19:
A critical step in developing an as
Page 20 and 21:
Box 5. Key phases in a governance a
Page 22 and 23:
achieve the results. These can incl
Page 24 and 25:
Gender-sensitivity in governance is
Page 26 and 27:
1.11 Key contextual factors influen
Page 28 and 29:
findings of the assessment in ways
Page 30 and 31:
for union parishads (UPs) comprise
Page 32 and 33:
Box 14. Short-, Medium- and Long-Te
Page 35 and 36:
Voices from the Trenches 2 2.1 Choo
Page 37 and 38:
governments, and representatives of
Page 39:
the assessment - in terms of social
Page 43 and 44:
Case Studies 3 The following four f
Page 45 and 46:
Case Study 2: Moving from governmen
Page 47 and 48:
Case Study 3: Balancing comparabili
Page 49 and 50:
Case Study 4: Ensuring uptake of as
Page 51 and 52:
References • Aberbach, J.D. and R
Page 53 and 54: Source Guide
Page 55 and 56: The summary matrix also indicates w
Page 57 and 58: Summary matrix: Main features of to
Page 65 and 66: Table 3: UGI sub-indices and indica
Page 67 and 68: Weaknesses • While the UGI helps
Page 69 and 70: Table 4: Local Governance Barometer
Page 71 and 72: Table 5: Scale to assess local gove
Page 73 and 74: Jean-Michel Dufils, PACT (Madagasca
Page 75 and 76: Table 6: Principles and indicators
Page 77 and 78: Where to find it The initiative is
Page 79 and 80: Table 7: Local Democracy Assessment
Page 81 and 82: Poverty focus Not explicit. The onl
Page 83 and 84: Local governance performance measur
Page 85 and 86: Europe. They have first been used i
Page 87 and 88: Table 9: Methodological Guidelines
Page 89 and 90: 7 Governance Index (Indonesia) Prod
Page 91 and 92: Table 12: Example of form for colle
Page 93 and 94: Where to find it The initiative is
Page 95 and 96: Table 15: MIDAMOS’s themes, indic
Page 97 and 98: Table 17: Grading System Qualificat
Page 99 and 100: Table 18: Framework of module on
Page 101 and 102: Key actors/stakeholders The initial
Page 103: Table 20: Indicators belonging to t
Page 107 and 108: 11 Council of Europe’s Guide to D
Page 109 and 110: Table 25: Evaluation and comments f
Page 111 and 112: 12 Citizen Report Cards (CRC) Produ
Page 113 and 114: Box 5: Citizen Report Card applicat
Page 115 and 116: 13 Social Audit of Local Governance
Page 117 and 118: Box 7: Sample indicators for Social
Page 119 and 120: 14 Social Audit of Governance and D
Page 121 and 122: Box 8: Report extract - The Social
Page 123 and 124: Table 26: Themes and issues analyse
Page 125 and 126: 15 Local Governance Self-Assessment
Page 127 and 128: Table 27: EXAMPLES OF KEY ISSUES FR
Page 129 and 130: 16 Governance for Local Development
Page 131 and 132: Coverage Following the pilot testin
Page 133 and 134: Table 32: PBGS in Uganda, Tanzania
Page 135 and 136: Table 34: Nepal - Summary of the st
Page 137 and 138: Manual for assessment of Minimum Co
Page 139 and 140: Table 35: LGPMS - perfofrmance them
Page 141 and 142: Coverage The LGPMS was field-tested
Page 143 and 144: 19 Index of Responsibility, Transpa
Page 145 and 146: Gender focus Not explicit. Poverty
Page 147 and 148: Table 39: Dimensions for the standa
Page 149 and 150: 21 Local Integrity Initiative Produ
Page 151 and 152: Table 42: Integrity Indicator score
Page 153 and 154: Figure 6: 2008 Scorecard Summary: L
Page 155 and 156:
Table 43: Two examples of questions
Page 157:
Where to find it Users’ Guide & s
show all

A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?