A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 Measuring Municipal Performance MIDAMOS (Paraguay) Producer AlterVida/GEAM with support from USAID History In 2001, CIRD, (Centro de Información y Recursos para el Desarrollo), a Paraguayan non-profit, launched a programme aimed at strengthening democratic practices in Paraguay by strengthening Civil Society Organizations. To do this, the programme had for objectives to implement permanent mechanisms that increase citizen participation in the public decision-making process, and to provide civil society with tools to improve oversight of public institutions. One such tool to promote accountability and transparency at the local government level was promoted through the application of a local governance measurement tool, MIDAMOS, which was developed under USAID/Paraguay’s Local Governments Program. Objectives The goals of the scoring system MIDAMOS (“Let’s Measure”) include promoting good governance at the municipal level; encouraging citizens and civil society organizations to develop the capacity to understand and evaluate municipal administration; and supporting the perception amongst authorities and public officials that good governance practices are in their professional, political, and personal interests. Types and sources of data used Most data is obtained from objective sources, both quantitative and qualitative, such as municipal statistics and regulation, administrative data on population, budgets and procedures. Interviews with some key informants in the municipality and with citizens are suggested to complement or verify the objective data collected for some indicators. Methodology MIDAMOS is a set of 31 qualitative and quantitative indicators organised into 5 main themes of municipal management. For each indicator, an evaluation on a 1-5 scale and a relative weight are provided. Municipal performance is then calculated by adding up the weighted value of each indicator score (see table below). A specific “technical card” is established in order to score each indicator on a 1-to-5 scale. This card contains the description of indicators, the performance parameters, the applicable formula, the necessary documentation to assess the indicator’s value, and the relative weight of each indicator. Two examples of the scoring procedure are presented below: Once the assessment of each indicator and theme has been completed, this information collected by CSOs is presented to municipal officers and council members in order to share the results and include local governments’ comments in the assessment. In 2008, MIDAMOS turned to the use of the radio to talk about the performance of municipal governments where MIDAMOS was applied. The idea is to inform and raise awareness amongst citizens on the benefits of having objective indicators on municipal government performance. Key actors/stakeholders MIDAMOS is intended to benefit municipal officers, municipal council members, and municipal administrations. For its application, MIDAMOS relies on: • an Authorised Evaluation Agency – such as a research outfit or multi-stakeholder consultative bodies – serving as facilitator of the assessment process • a municipal officer with sufficient responsibility and authority to provide the AEA with all the necessary information and documentation for the assessment 86 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Table 15: MIDAMOS’s themes, indicators and weights Themes, Description, Relative Weights and Maximal Scores Indicators Indicators’ Weights Finances Aspects related to the administration of financial municipal resources relative weight: 20% maximal score: 1.00 1 operational financing 2% 2 capacity to invest own resources 2% 3 efficiency in estate tax collection 2% 4 social investment 2% 5 expenditure capacity through own resources 2% 6 process and emission of financial reports 2% 7 budget programming 2% 8 processes organising expenditure 2% 9 tax collection management 2% 10 cadaster management 2% Internal Administration Existence and extent of implementation and development of processes facilitating the achievements of institutional results relative weight: 16% maximal score: 0.80 1 efficiency of municipal officers 2% 2 flexibility of current expenditures 2% 3 technological capacity 2% 4 existence and extent of municipal planning 2% 5 existence and extent of human resources 3% 6 procedures for acquisitions 2% 7 planning and implementation of investments with royalties resources 3% Service Delivery Management Municipal administration capacity of providing basic services and sustaining processes for their improvements relative weight: 24% maximal score: 1.20 Democracy and Participation Municipal administration capacity to establish relationships with the civil society and other governmental organisations relative weight: 25% maximal score: 1.25 1 service delivery 7% 2 coverage of principal services 7% 3 quality of principal services 7% 4 environmental quality 3% 1 internal municipal participation and transparency 3% 2 mechanisms for citizens participation 6% 3 sustainability of citizens participations 2% 4 accountability and responsibility 4% 5 transparency towards community 5% 6 relationships amongst governments’ levels 3% 7 promotion of gender equality 2% Legislative Activity Extent of performance from the municipal legislative body to achieve municipal objectives relative weight: 15% maximal score: 0.75 1 legislative efficiency 5% 2 technical and operacional efficiency 5% 3 transparency and participation 5% A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 87
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 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: Where to find it The initiative is
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 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?