A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Timeline Initiated in 2006. Conducted in the 20 municipalities in BiH in 2007. Ongoing. Gender focus In the section on “local governance”,the questionnaire includes two questions about the degree of gender equity:“Do you think that women and men have equal access and influence to the decisions taken by local authorities?” and “To what extent do women have sufficient positions/seats to represent themselves in the local government?” Poverty focus Not explicit. Strengths • The Social Audit of Local Governance is developing baseline indicators against which improvements can be measured and capacity gaps identified. It is the first assessment undertaken at municipal level in postwar Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the purpose to be applied in the whole country. • It allows cross-sectoral and cross-municipality comparisons. Weaknesses • The questionnaire does not include questions which specifically address Bosnia’s post-war context, such as access of different communities to public services and decision-making processes. • There is little emphasis on disaggregation of data and results to allow for comparison between various sections of the community (for example women and men, poor and non-poor, and the different ethnic communities including Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats and others). Where to find it http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCACCDEMSIDEGOV/Resources/Prism_SocialAuditinBiH_SurveyQuestionnaire_final.pdf Contact details Task Manager: Mary L. McNeil, Email: Mmcneil@worldbank.org Task Administrator: Damon C. Luciano, Email: dluciano@worldbank.org Supplementary tools/guidelines Information about the dissemination workshop: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTSOCACCDEMSIDEGOV/0,,contentMDK:21241045~pagePK:64168445~ piPK:64168309~theSitePK:2872075,00.html http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/WBIPROGRAMS/CMUDLP/0,,contentMDK:21124070~pagePK:64156158~p iPK:64152884~theSitePK:461754,00.html Social accountability capacity building programme on BIH: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTSOCACCDEMSIDEGOV/0,,contentMDK:21339390~pagePK:64168445~ piPK:64168309~theSitePK:2872075,00.html Qualitative research for the development of quantitative survey instruments: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCACCDEMSIDEGOV/Resources/Prism_SocialAuditofLGinBiH_QualitativeReport.pdf 110 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
14 Social Audit of Governance and Delivery of Public Services (Pakistan) Producer Community Information, Empowerment and Transparency (CIET) – a Pakistani NGO History The social audit of governance and public service delivery was developed essentially to monitor the devolution process initiated in Pakistan in 2001. The devolution reform is intended to improve access to public services, encourage sustainability of local development initiatives, and enhance public sector resources through community mobilization, increased transparency and reduced leakages of resources out of the system. The social audit of governance and public service delivery in Pakistan was developed in two phases. An initial social audit was undertaken in 2001-02. The second phase (2004 – 2009) further develops this approach.The first social audit in 2002 focused on overall satisfaction with public services while that of 2004/5 also included an emphasis on local government and citizen participation. Objectives The social audit of governance and public service delivery has the following key objectives: • to monitor the effects of, and inform policy makers about, the devolution of public service delivery and local governance; • to assess the views of citizens about public services, measure citizens’ knowledge about local governance,and evaluate their participation; and • to increase the informed interaction between communities and public service providers. Applicability The social audit of governance and public service delivery can be used at any local government level. However, it is best used in situations where public services have been devolved to lower levels of government, and where the local governments are willing and interested in monitoring their own performance and accepting feedback from citizens. Types and sources of data used Qualitative and quantitative data are used, collected through household questionnaires, community profile questionnaires, published and available administrative data, interviews with elected representatives and service providers, and focus group discussions. Most of the information is subjective, although objective information resting on published and available administrative data is also used. Methodology Within each district, representative communities are selected by a two-stage stratified random sampling process. The sampling frame in each district is represented by the official list of union councils within the district, which are stratified in rural and urban types in order to include a proportion of urban and rural sites according to the urban and rural population proportions in the census. The allocated number of union councils for the district is then picked randomly from the list of urban and rural union councils for the district. For each of the randomly selected union councils, a list of communities and villages is obtained and a random selection of one community from each list is obtained. The household questionnaire (organised into four section: general, public services, local government and community participation) together with the community profile questionnaire focus on the use, experience and perception of public services. These findings are linked to the data collected from the service providers, the elected representatives and government officials, and analysed in order to identify actions for improving service delivery. The findings are discussed with communities through focus groups in order to develop possible solutions that would be discussed and implemented jointly by service providers, planners and community representatives.This cycle is expected to be repeated regularly. Table 26 presents the two main themes and the specific issues analysed in the social audit of governance and public service delivery in 2004-05. A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 111
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 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
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 and 104: Table 20: Indicators belonging to t
Page 105 and 106: y the State and the municipality as
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: Box 7: Sample indicators for Social
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?