A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

• Perception-based evidence: individual,
households, and other kinds of surveys; report
cards; etc.
• Mixed evidence: information from interviews,
focus groups and consultations; quality and
performance evaluation, etc.
In general though, local governance data, like
other governance data, can be obtained in two
ways – first-hand or primary data, which are
generated especially for the indicators developed
(through individual, family/household, or
institutional surveys, report cards, or focus
groups/community dialogues that discuss issues
such as participation, responsiveness and
accountability of local governments, for example);
and second-hand or secondary data, which utilize
already collected and published information (for
instance, those produced by various local
government departments, service providers such
as water supply boards, local NGOs, local arms of
national bodies such as the census office, the
election commission, etc.)
Most of the sources included in the Source Guide
utilize secondary data already available. However,
information on citizens’ attitudes and perceptions,
expectations, and levels of satisfaction and trust
may not be available from secondary sources. To
obtain these, well-designed focus groups or
community dialogues should be used, involving a
small number of representatives from the general
public and/or key informants who would come
together to discuss various issues. (UN-HABITAT
2007; UNDP and University of Essex 2007).
Participatory ways of collecting data are extremely
important for assessments of local governance. At
the same time, they pose enormous challenges for
local government officials and civil society
organizations, which may not have the requisite
skills for conducting such activities. To overcome
these constraints, International IDEA proposes that
small teams be established for their local
democracy assessment (see page 70), consisting of
a representative of the national association of local
municipalities, a member of the local authority,
an academic with an expertise in public
administration, and an individual from civil society.
UN-HABITAT also recommends the establishment
of a core group of individuals who would lead the
process of data collection, analysis and report
writing, comprising representatives of the
local government, civil society and research
organisations.
A major challenge is the lack of local capacity for
data production and collection. Beside weak
statistical systems, there is often a lack of
specialised capacity in conducting particular data
collection through surveys and facilitating focus
groups. When particular data is not available, there
are three possible remedies:
1 Introduce capacity development measures
prior to the implementation of the methodology
2 Adjust the initial methodology to the
possibilities for data collection – and modify
the expectations
3 Introduce new and innovative methods or
shortcuts in data collection. An example of
such a method is Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) 19
which consists of a series of techniques for
“quick and dirty” research that can generate
results of less apparent precision, but greater
evidential value, than classic quantitative
survey techniques. RRA activities can include
review of secondary sources, observation,
group interviews, workshops.
Box 9.
Examples of gender sensitive indicators in assessments
• Is gender sensitive budgeting practiced at local level?
• Are local civil servants and local government Ministers accountable to local assemblies/councils?
• How many local authorities had staff who undertook gender-sensitivity training in the last 12 months?
• Are pro-poor and gender sensitive non-governmental organizations active in the poorest districts?
• Are women adequately represented among members of local assemblies/ councils, senior office holders in local
government and the civil service at local level?
A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 17