A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 33: Tanzania – Calculation method for the size of the local government Capacity Building Grant Performance “rating” Acceptable performance (Complied with Minimum Conditions and attained minimum score in all functional areas to receive basic allocation) Very good performance (Complied with Minimum Conditions and attained scores in all functional areas above the stated minimum for a bonus) Poor Performance (Complied with Minimum Conditions but in one or more functional area scored below the minimum to receive basic) Non-compliance with Minimum Conditions for access to CDG Compliance with Minimum Conditions to access CBG Non – Compliance with Minimum Conditions to access CBG Reward/Sanction Receives basic Capital Development Gants (CDG) allocation for next financial year (FY) + 20% CDG allocation for next FY - 20% CDG allocation for next FY No CDG Receives Capacity Building Grants (CBG) No CBG Results for both the assessments may be obtained through the evaluation of the fulfilment of existing statutory requirements/legal frameworks to promote local government compliance and/or the comparison with realistic benchmarks for good institutional performance, good governance and accountability. In order to allocate funds, a clear formula is often applied in order to define the amount of the transfer, which also takes into account some characteristics of local governments, such as population, size of the local government, number of people below the poverty line, human development index. Minimum Criteria and Performance Measures are assessed against the above criteria that are generally defined in country based manuals, providing the explanation of these indicators, the guidelines for their measurement, the scoring system and a detailed outline of the entire assessment process. With respect to the PMs, there exist two levels for each functional area, a minimum score that must be attained to attract a performance bonus and the minimum score below which a local government attracts a penalty for poor performance. To qualify for a bonus a council must score higher than the minimum mark for a performance bonus in all functional areas.Table 33 summarises the scheme applied in the assessment to determine the size of the grant to be received in the ensuing financial year in Tanzania. Key actors/stakeholders PBGS are usually managed and overseen by a central government ministry or department, such as the Department of Finance or Local Government, or a sector ministry if the assessments are sector oriented. Performance grants can also be carried out through an external assessment (contracting out solely or combined with stakeholders from various places co-opted in the teams), self-assessment by the local governments in dialogue with the citizens (social audit) or combined external and internal participatory assessment (external agency + local self-assessment). Results reporting format Minimum Conditions have usually to be fulfilled 100% in order to be eligible for grants (on/off conditions), while Performance Measures are more qualitative measures of local government performance (scoring values). It is recommended that results be published – through radio, newspapers and workshops – and discussed. Table 34 shows a summary of the status of Minimum Conditions and the level of Performance Measure for 20 districts in Nepal for 2006. Coverage Examples of how these systems have been tested and applied in recent years are available for some Asian and African countries, such as Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Bangladesh and Nepal. 126 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Table 34: Nepal – Summary of the status of Minimum Conditions and the level of Performance Measure for 20 districts, 2006 No. District Minimum conditions Performance Previous Status Met/Unmet Status Average Score Minimum and above in all indicators Less than Minimum in some indicators Status 2006 2005 2004 1 Achham M q 51 ̌ s p p 2 Bajhang M q 52 ̌ s b p 3 Baitadi M q 48 ̌ s p p 4 Darchula M q 51 ̌ s p p 5 Kailali M q 57 ̌ s p p 6 Jumla M q 39 ̌ p p p 7 Humla M q 46 ̌ p p p 8 Mugu NM dq 33 ̌ p p p 9 Rukum M q 57 ̌ s p p 10 Jajarkot M q 62 ̌ b p p 11 Salyan M q 68 ̌ b s p 12 Rupandehi M q 65 ̌ b p p 13 Dolakha NM dq 54 ̌ p p p 14 Dhanusha M q 50 ̌ s p p 15 Kaski M q 56 ̌ p p p 16 Kavre M q 66 ̌ b p p 17 Udayapur M q 57 ̌ s s p 18 Tehrathum M q 64 ̌ b s p 19 Taplejung M q 56 ̌ s p p 20 Solukhumbu M q 58 ̌ s p s Note:“q”= qualify for grants,“dq”= disqualify for grants “M”= Met “NM” = Not Met “p”= Penalty,“s”= Static,“b”= Bonus Timeline By way of example, these systems were applied as follows: in Uganda starting in 1997 as a pilot test in a few districts and then nationwide from 2003; in Kenya from 2000/2001; in Tanzania from 2004 and covering all local governments by 2005; and in Nepal starting from 2004/2005 and extended to all local governments by 2008. The assessments related to performance based grant systems should be carried out regularly, possibly on an annual basis, as grants are usually disbursed on annual basis. Gender focus In countries such as Uganda, Nepal and Tanzania, gender is considered as one of the areas for performance measurement. For instance, in Tanzania, gender is one of the issues that needs to be integrated in planning and budgeting; in Uganda, a specific performance area is related to “Gender Mainstreaming Performance”, addressing the gender disaggregation of budgets, strategies and planning in local government; in Nepal, it is requested that the annual plan, the annual accounts and the budgets duly considers the need and concerns of women, children, adults, ethnic groups, disabled and old people. A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 127
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 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: Table 32: PBGS in Uganda, Tanzania
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?