A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Coverage The LGPMS was field-tested in 113 Local Governance Units in the Philippines, from February to October 2004. It is intended to cover all 79 Philippine provinces, 117 cities and 1,501 municipalities. Timeline Tested in 2004. Implemented from 2005. On-going. The process of data collection usually takes place during March – April of each year. Gender focus This initiative has a strong gender-focus in all its parts. For instance, it verifies the existence of a “gender and development code”within ordinances or resolutions in support of social development, economic development and environmental management; it assesses the quality of the gender and development plan; and it evaluate the gendersensitivity of human resource policies, plans and support materials. Poverty focus Not explicit. Strengths • Although the LGPMS can be an internet-based tool, a local government unit without an Internet connection may opt to use an “upload sheet” in MS Excel Format in order to use it. • The LGPMS provides practical benefits for all actors involved in local governance, such as information and benchmarks about local government performance, productivity and state of development, ways to improve the quality of services and better manage local concerns, the stimulation of transparency, accountability, equity and participation in local governance. Weaknesses Many stakeholders may not have the sufficient time or skills to appreciate and understand the value of the various LGPMS reports. For instance, the specific framework and performance level scheme of the standard on-line LGPMS reports may not be of common knowledge to all interested users. For this reason the interpretation and publication of results carry a great importance. Figure 5 Input (Performance) Municipality, Province, 2004 Legend Excellent Good Fair Bad Poor No Data Indicator Rating Services Area Average Rating Performance Area Average Rating Overall Input, Output, and Outcome Average Area Average Rating A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 133
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 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: Table 35: LGPMS - perfofrmance them
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?