A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

Figure 4:
Risk Comparison Report.
Actual average performance levels are represented by the points on the blue polygon. Mximum possible performance levels,
i.e., value of 5, are indicated by the points on the green polygon, and benchmarks, i.e., with a median value of 3, are represented
by the points on the red polygon.
Input (Performance) City A, 2003
Governance
(5.00)
6
4
Administration
(4.63)
2
Environmental Management
(4.17)
Social Services
(2.60)
Economic Development
(3.38)
Sources: Local Governance Performance Management System Users’ Guide
better appreciation of LGU strengths and weaknesses in
service delivery. Data and information useful in the
identification of priority areas for improvement are also made
available to enable them to plan and implement appropriate
strategies and action plans for their constituents.
Secondary stakeholders refer to organizations, institutions,
sectors and individuals outside of the local government
system yet interested in knowing the internal capacity and
service delivery of a local government and the state of
development in a particular locality. These include citizens
and civil society organisations, national policy-makers and
planners, private sector organisations and international
development agencies.
Key actors in the implementation of the LGPMS at the local
level are the Local Chief Executives and the LGPMS LG teams,
with the latter primarily responsible for data collection, data
validation, data entry, report generation and communication
of results. In addition, an advisory or technical assistance role
is provided by officers dealing with city or municipal
local government operations, by provincial and regional
LGPMS focal persons, and by the PGPMS national project
management team.
Results reporting format
My LGU Single-Year Reports is a web-based platform that
provides summaries, in tabular and graphical formats, of
LGPMS data for a particular LGU in a given profile year. Upon
completion of the data entry, different types of reports are
automatically generated by the system. They are: Display
Data, Risk Comparison, State Comparison, Service Mission
Attainment and Benchmark Summary Table. In figure 4,
there is an example of a Risk Comparison Report shown by a
spider-web type graph where the performance of the
local government is plotted against the maximum level
performance and the benchmark. Each level of the report,
that is, Input, Output and Outcome, is presented separately in
a graph and a State Comparison Report (representing
the input, output or outcome performance levels of all
performance areas, including their underlying service areas
and indicators) is shown through a colour wheel diagram
(figure 5).
The LGPMS Users’ Guide provides indications in order to
interpret these reports and thus obtain an understanding of
the situation in a selected locality. Results from the LGPMS
are supposed to be published and disseminated by local
government units, not only through the Local Governance
Reports, but also through formal and written performance
area – or service area-themed reports, oral reports, articles
and papers.
132 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre