A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

Results reporting format
The data can be aggregated in one index score or
disaggregated into the seven principle-based
sub-indices, presented in a “dashboard” format
(Figure 2).
Coverage
The initiative has been developed for all subnational
governments in Afghanistan. However,
the GOFORGOLD is still under construction and
has not yet been rolled-out.
Timeline
Initiated in 2007. Currently being developed.
Gender focus
A few specific indicators on gender equality have
been included in GOFORGOLD. These include
“percentage of women councillors” (with a subindicator
assessing the proportion of positions
occupied by women which bear ‘real’ influence on
local decision-making processes) and “affirmative
action for women,” i.e. the existence of policies or
programmes that advocate for equal rights
between men and women, notably in employment
and training opportunities. In addition, wherever
possible, GOFORGOLD indicators are disaggregated
by sex (e.g. voter participation, number of civil
servants, etc.) Other indicators propose gendersensitive
sub-indicators on mechanisms/
procedures that are of particular interest to
women. For example, the indicator on “protection
against crime and violence”, measured in terms
of “the number of police staff per 100,000
population”, also has a sub-indicator assessing the
“existence of a policy protecting women against
violence”. Similarly, the indicator on “security of land
tenure and land use” also asks whether women’s
property rights are recognized.
Poverty focus
There is a specific indicator related to poverty
which aims to assess the existence of policies or
programmes which take into account the needs of
poor households, such as a pro-poor pricing policy
(e.g. subsidy or cross-subsidy). In addition, for some
indicators, results can be disaggregated by income
levels to provide information on the relationship
between poverty and local governance.
Strengths
The format of the reporting questionnaire is very
user-friendly, presenting each indicator based on
1) the good governance principles monitored by
this indicator; 2) its definition; 3) its significance
vis-à-vis the IDLG strategic framework, the national
development strategy, and the MDGs; and 4) its
methodology.
Each indicator is complemented by a number of
“operational questions”, thus allowing for a more
holistic assessment. For instance, the indicator
assessing the existence (yes/no) of a facility for
citizen complaints is complemented by questions
on whether any official has been appointed to
receive and respond to complaints (since the mere
existence of a facility is no guarantee that it is in
operation), and by another question on the
percentage of complaints filed which have been
addressed (since the mere existence of a facility is
no guarantee that it is taking action to redress
citizen grievances.) These operational questions
can easily be tailored to specific country contexts.
This methodology also has a distinctive section
assessing the principle of “security”, which will be
useful to other countries in post-war settings.
Indicators are proposed to measure the quality
of conflict resolution mechanisms, the level of
protection against crime and violence, and
security concerns related to territorial boundaries,
land use and land tenure.
Weaknesses
Not identified, as tool has not been piloted yet.
68 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre