A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 16: Examples of scoring procedure INDICATOR AND OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS RESULTS SOCIAL INVESTMENT (indicator 4 under “Finances”) It evaluates the ratio of municipal social investment against total municipal expenditures ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY (indicator 4 under “Democracy & Participation”) It identifies the mechanisms used by the municipality to explain and justify its decisions, policies and programmes The closer the ratio is to 0, the smaller is municipal social investment. 1 the municipality has a normative framework for management accountability 2 at least an accountability tool for the municipal general management has been implemented 3 there is a mechanism for the monitoring of public management 4 the mechanisms is publicised and easily accessible 5 the monitoring mechanisms registers community questions and the institutional answers 6 there is a procedure to channelling complaints and answers 7 documentation/reports on municipal accountability are distributed to citizens 8 the report is comprehensible and provide clear information 9 the report provides complementary information to understand the results 10 citizens can access accountability documents and get an answer to their questions 11. there is evidence of citizen participation in accountability procedures 12. there are other accountability mechanisms 5 points: more than 0.40 4 points: between 0.31 and 0.40 3 points: between 0.21 and 0.30 2 points: between 0.11 and 0.20 1 point: less than 0.11 5 points: more than 9 parameters applied 4 points: between 8 and 9 parameters applied 3 points: between 5 and 7 parameters applied 2 points: between 3 and 4 parameters applied 1 points: less than 3 parameters applied • in the case where a municipality is not willing to participate, a working group composed of experts and “well informed persons” on the management of the municipality • municipal officers, representatives of civil society organisations and citizens can be occasionally interviewed by the Evaluation Agency in order to complement or verify the objective data collected for some indicators (e.g. for indicators of “accountability and responsibility”, indicators of “transparency towards community”, etc.) Results reporting format Each municipality receives a “grade” between A and E, as indicating in Table 17. 88 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Table 17: Grading System Qualification A between 4,6 and 5 Very good performance Qualification B Between 3,6 and 4,5 Good performance with some shortcomings Qualification C Between 2,6 and 3,5 Difficulties in municipal managements, especially in some key indicators Qualification D Between 2 and 2,5 Severe administrative problems Qualification E less than 1,9 Very bad performance Gender focus A specific indicator is related to the promotion of gender equality based on the following elements: existence of a municipal officer dealing with gender issues; existence a municipal norm recognising – formally or informally – the participation of women associations; existence of municipal actions or programmes promoting the development of women associations; presence of at least 30% of women municipal officers; etc. Poverty focus Not explicit. Strengths • MIDAMOS is a comprehensive assessment covering both aspects of local democracy and aspects related to local government performance, such as service delivery and internal administration. • The tool’s methodology, drawing mainly from objective indicators, makes results “indisputable”. The MIDAMOS methodology is also very rigorous, offering precise scoring criteria for each indicator. Weaknesses MIDAMOS indicators rely mostly on objective data assessing the existence of municipal mechanisms, programmes, legislations or quotas. The marginal participation of citizens in the assessment process (i.e. as data sources) limits opportunities for also evaluating the quality of local governance mechanisms. Coverage As of October 2008, the assessment had been implemented in 150 municipalities in Paraguay. Timeline Started in 2006. On-going. Pilot projects realised in 2005-2006. Ongoing. Where to find it http://www.midamos.org.py/ Contact details MIDAMOS Mcal. López 2029 e/ Acá Caraya Asunción, Paraguay Teléfonos: (595 21) 212540/ 207373 midamos@cird.org.py www.midamos.org.py Supplementary tools/guidelines MIDAMOS manual: http://www.midamos.org.py/docs/MANUAL_MIDAMOS_version_1.2.pdf Power point presentation of the MIDAMOS initiative: http://www.intrac.org/docs.php/3362/Alvaro%20Caballero%20Paraguay%20PAIC%20INTRAC.ppt A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 89
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 and 94: Where to find it The initiative is
Page 95: Table 15: MIDAMOS’s themes, indic
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?