A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Key actors/stakeholders A national core group has been formed to support the social audit process at the highest level. The group includes representatives from each focus district as well as from provincial governments, rural development departments, the National Reconstruction Bureau and the CIET which provides technical support. Field teams are recruited in each province to undertake the survey. People recruited into the field teams include government employees (for example teachers, bureau of statistic staff ), members of NGOs and other community based associations and senior university students as well as recent graduates. The social audit integrates the view of citizens as well as those from local elected representatives (union councillors) and service providers (especially in the health and education sectors) at the district and sub-district government levels. The CIET plays a central role as the lead organization. The results are used by the National Reconstruction Bureau for policy discussion and actions related to devolution. In the Lasbela district, after the first social audit, the CIET team, Citizen Community Boards (CCBs), other community based associations and government bodies initiated a programme to build capacity for collecting, analysing and using information to plan and implement priority improvements for key public services. Results reporting format Reports on the baseline social audit are produced for each district and also as a summary measure at the national level. In order to take into account the disproportion in the sample population distribution amongst the different districts, a weight is attached to each district according to its relative over or under representation in the sample. Box 8 presents an extract from the social audit report of Pakistan, 2004-05. For the follow up social audit, the CIET produced maps showing the changes in outcomes between 2001/2 and 2004. These maps give an at-a-glance view of the way the situation for an outcome has changed, not only whether it has improved overall but also in which areas the change has been more or less marked. Box 9 provides an example of the changes in the perceived access to government garbage services. Coverage This initiative has been launched only in Pakistan. The first social audit covered ten districts, involving more than ten thousand households in 2001. In the first part of 2002, 89 districts belonging to four provinces of Pakistan were included in the audit, involving about 47,000 additional households. The second social audit was completed in October 2004 by including all districts – except Kohlu and Dera Bugti, which could not be surveyed for security reasons, and Islamabad, which is not yet included in the new local government system – and involving 53,000 households throughout the country. Timeline Initiated in 2001-02. Repeated twice so far (2001-02 and 2004-05), allowing comparisons in citizens’ views, use and experiences of public services. Expected to be conducted every alternate year, although in 2008 it has been delayed because of elections. Ongoing. Gender focus In the first exercise, two sets of gender-based focus group discussions were conducted. The social audit also gives particular attention to women in analysing and organising the results, as also demonstrated in the report extract presented in Box 14. Poverty focus The social audit gives particular attention to poor, vulnerable and marginalised groups; most results are also disaggregated to highlight the particular experiences of these sub-groups. Strengths • If the social audit is repeated regularly, it can be a powerful tool to check whether the devolution process has had the desired effects. • It provides feedback about problem areas and generates ideas to improve the effectiveness of the devolution process. • The number of households covered is quite extensive, which enhances accuracy and facilitates inter-district and inter-province comparison. The importance accorded to community voices increases the confidence of civil society and encourages it to participate actively in local governance. 112 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Box 8: Report extract – The Social Audit of governance and public service delivery in Pakistan The following extract is taken from the report titled “Social audit of governance and delivery of public services” which shows the results – at the national level – for the social audit which took place in Pakistan in 2004-05.These results deal with the issue of “contacts with union council members” within the theme related to the “Opinions and use of local government”. “In 2002, we found a striking difference between male and female household respondents in reporting whether someone in the household had contacted a member of the union council.This was still present in 2004 (Figure 2) when 24.6% of male respondents and 12.5% of female respondents reported a household contact with a union council member in the last 12 months. The actual level of household contacts with union councillors is probably close to that reported by male household respondents; the under-reporting by women reflects their lack of involvement in interactions between the household and the local councillors.” Figure 3 Percent households with contact with a union councillor in last 12 months (male respondents) Sindh 25.1 23 B’stan NWFP 23.7 23 23.2 31.8 2004 2002 Punjab 24.3 21.1 Pakistan 25.2 21.7 0 10 20 30 40 Figure 2 Percent male and female respondents reporting households contact with a union councillor (2004) Sindh 11.8 25.1 B’stan NWFP 11.2 11.9 23 31.8 Women Men Punjab 13 24.3 Pakistan 12.5 24.6 0 10 20 30 40 Source: http://www.ciet.org/en/documents/projects_library_docs/2006224175348.pdf A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 113
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 and 118: Box 7: Sample indicators for Social
Page 119: 14 Social Audit of Governance and D
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?