LGCDP M&E Framework

Ains
LocalGovernmentandCommunity
DevelopmentProgramme
MONITORINGAND
EVALUATION
FRAMEWORK
LocalGovernmentandCommunityDevelopmentProgramme
MinistryofLocalDevelopment
Lalitpur,Nepal
CONTENT
1. LGCDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
1.1. GOAL
1.2. PURPOSE
1.3. OUTCOMES
2. LGCDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
21
MONITORING
22
EVALUATION
23
REPORTING
24
MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
25
ANNEX 1: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
28
ANNEX 2: TEMPLATE FOR INDICATOR TRACKING SHEET
37
ANNEX 3: QUESTIONS FOR SAMPLE SURVEYS
38
1. LGCDP Monitoring and Evaluation

Framework
The development and refinement of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for LGCDP
followed a three-step sequence:
a) a careful, participatory analysis of the results statements,
b) an analysis which key aspects of the result statement should be covered
by indicators,
c) the development of indicators with indicator baselines, indicator targets,
means of verification, the frequency of collection and the responsible
person or unit for collecting the data.
These recommendations for a LGCDP M&E framework are the result of a broad, participatory
process. They emerged from three one-day workshops with key stakeholders from the MLD,
government agencies and development partners (DPs), individual meetings with key
partners, a de-briefing workshop and two rounds of written comments on indicators and the
draft framework.
1.1. GOAL
The overarching goal of LGCDP is to contribute towards poverty reduction through
inclusive responsive and accountable local governance and participatory
community-led development that will ensure increased involvement of women,
Dalits, Adibasi, Janajatis, Muslims Madhesis, disadvantaged groups in the local
governance process.
To keep the LGCDP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework simple, yet effective, it is
recommended to limit monitoring of the overall goal for two reasons:
An overall monitoring of national poverty reduction in Nepal is: (a) too ambitious
for LGCDP and the MLD, and (b) already done extensively by a number of other
actors in Nepal, including the National Planning Commission through its Poverty
Monitoring and Analysis System and the Central Bureau of Statistics.
The second half of the goal statement (through inclusive responsive and accountable
local governance and participatory community-led development that will ensure
increased involvement of women, Dalits, Adibasi, Janajatis, Muslims Madhesis,
disadvantaged groups in the local governance process) merely defines the means
used for poverty reduction. These means are already captured on the purpose and
outcome level and do not need to be monitored separately.
Instead of building a parallel (and redundant) poverty monitoring system to monitor LGCDPs
goal, it is recommended to make use of existing poverty monitoring systems like the
Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System (PMAS) of the National Planning Commission, the
District Monitoring Information System (DMIS), the Nepal Human Development Reports and
the Millennium Development Reports. If needed, LGCDP can provide specific support to
these poverty monitoring systems to obtain poverty data at a highly disaggregated level, for
example by supporting the District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System (DPMAS).
1.2. PURPOSE
The purpose of LGCDP is the "improved access to locally and inclusively prioritised
public goods and services".
Analysis of Outcome formulation:
One key aspect of the outcome refers to improved access. Access to public goods
and services is improved if citizens need less time to travel to the site where the
service is provided and if the service is delivered in less time.
Another key aspect of the outcome statement refers to the fact that access is locally
and inclusively prioritised. More in detail, this aspect refers to two concerns:
inclusively prioritised: public goods and services to be provided by the

DDCs, municipalities and VDCs are based on the demand of the local
communities, including women, the poor and the disadvantaged groups
locally prioritised: public goods and services to be provided by the DDCs,

municipalities and VDCs are agreed upon by representatives of the groups
from the area (rather than centrally), including women, the poor and the
disadvantaged groups.
Public goods refers to public infrastructure provided or supported by local

governments and line ministries at the local level. Based on consultations with key
stakeholders, public goods of DDCs and VDCs in the context of LGCDP refers mostly
to (ranked according to importance):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
road (earth roads)

drinking water (reservoirs, pipes)
education (school buildings, teacher salaries, primary & secondary schools)1
electricity (national grid, micro hydro)
health
Public services in the context of LGCDP refers to the timely availability of services
typically provided by DDCs, municipalities and VDCs like legal, registration and
community services (e.g. vital registration, paralegal services, mediation) and social
security (allowances for senior citizens, widows, disabled and single women, etc.).
locally and
inclusively prioritised
access
access to public goods

(especially roads, drinking water, education,
electricity, health)
access to public services (especially legal,

registration and community services as well as
social security)
These public goods can also be regarded as a public service.
Access to public goods/general

Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Average time for rural households to reach the nearest of 15 key facilities in
minutes and hours
The indicator provides a broad overview of changes in access to public goods. It is an
equally weighted average of 15 facilities (as tracked by the Nepal Living Standard Survey):
primary school, health post, bus stop, paved road, dirt road (vehicle passable and
impassable), local shop, haatbazar, market centre, agriculture centre, sajha/cooperatives,
commercial bank, source of water, post office, telephone booth.
The indicator refers only to rural households. The data for both rural and urban
together is currently not published.
Data for the indicator is very similar to the data for the poorest quintile of
households. The reason can be that poor households tend to live in rural areas.
The indicator needs to be manually calculated based on the data published in the
NLSS.
The interval between data collection of the Nepal Living Standard Survey is long
with seven years. The next Living Standard Survey is planned for 2010.
The data is taken from the cross section (rather than from the panel) because it is
available sooner.2
1 hour 59 minutes (2003/2004)
1 hour 30 minutes (2012)
Nepal Living Standard Survey (cross section)
every 7 years
Central Bureau of Statistics
Access to public goods/roads

Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of rural households which have access to a dirt road (vehicle passable) within
30 minutes
The construction of vehicle passable dirt roads is a typical service provided by local
governments through LGCDP. This indicator focuses on the rural areas, where the gap is
wider. The data refers to the time for one-way travel to the facility, irrespective of the
mode of transport.
The interval between data collection of the Nepal Living Standard Survey is long
with seven years. The next Living Standard Survey is planned for 2010.
To bridge the gap, the LGCDP Sample Surveys can collect data for this indicator
in-between NLSS cycles. However, the data collected through these two tools
might not be 100% comparable.
67.6% (2003/2004)
75% (2012)
Nepal Living Standard Survey (cross section) / LGCDP Sample Surveys
every 7 years / 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
Central Bureau of Statistics / M&E Section of MLD
Mean time taken by rural households to reach nearest dirt road (vehicle
passable) in hours and minutes
The construction of vehicle passable dirt roads is a typical services provided by local
governments through LGCDP. This indicator focuses on the rural areas, where the gap is
wider (for urban areas, the average time is only 3 minutes). The data refers to the time for
one-way travel to the facility, irrespective of the mode of transport.
see above
3 hours 7 minutes (2003/2004)
2 hours 30 minutes (2012)
Nepal Living Standard Survey (cross section) / LGCDP Sample Surveys
every 7 years / 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
Central Bureau of Statistics / M&E Section of MLD
Cross section Living Standard data is published sooner than the data from the household panel. The cross section data from
the NLSS 2003/2004, for example, was published in December 2004, while the analysis of panel households was published only
in March 2006.
Access to public goods/drinking water

Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of rural households with sustainable access to improved water source

Drinking water through reservoirs and pipes is a typical service provided by local
governments through LGCDP.
According to the Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys, improved source refers to piped
water into house/yard/plot, public tap/standpipe, tube well or borehole, protected dug,
protected spring and rainwater. Non-improved source include unprotected dug well,
unprotected spring, tanker truck, surface water.
80.2% (2006)
Target to be determined
Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys
not known
Population Division, Ministry of Health and Population
Access to public services

Indicators:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of citizens that say that the services of DDCs are more accessible than
they were one year ago
% of citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more accessible than
they were one year ago
% of citizens that say that the services of municipalities are more

accessible than they were one year ago
Apart from access to infrastructure, this indicator captures changes in perceived
accessibility of public services delivered by the DDC, VDCs and municipalities. The indicator
generally captures access to services, which includes that the person providing the
service is available, accessible, able and capable of providing it. The indicator tracks
changes in perception over a one-year period rather than a static measure of client
satisfaction.
This indicator does not disaggregate the different types of services provided by
the DDCs/VDCs/municipalities, but gives an overall picture of changes in the
perceptions of citizens. The data is obviously subjective and influenced by many
external factors. However, at a highly aggregated level and tracked over
numerous years the data will be able to show trends and tendencies.
The one-year recall was chosen because changes in perception can be reasonably
expected within a year, and it is not too far for citizens to still be able to
remember the status 12 months ago.
To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009
To be determined after the LGCDP baseline survey
LGCDP sample surveys
every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)

M&E Section of MLD
1.3. OUTCOMES
OUTCOME 1
LGCDP Outcome 1: Citizens and Communities engaged actively with Local
Governments and hold them accountable
The outcome contains two separate but related elements: a) engagement with
local governments, and b) holding local governments accountable.
Although the outcome refers to both citizens as well as communities, the programme
implies that in many cases, citizens will engage with local governments through
community organizations.
Although not specifically mentioned in the outcome formulation, the logic of LGCDP
implies a particular emphasis on engaging those citizens who have previously not
been involved in community organizations and in local government. Many (but not
all) of these citizens will be members of a marginalized group and/or women.
Communities broadly refers to permanent and temporary communities and to

formal as well as informal communities.
Engaged refers to an involvement during planning, decision-making,

implementation and monitoring of local government activities. It refers to a
participatory approach and should result in a high degree of ownership.
Local governments refer to District Development Committees (DDCs), Village

Development Committees (VDC) and Municipalities.
Holding local governments accountable includes two key elements: a) being aware
and understanding what local government can/should do, b) transparency by being
able to ask questions to local governments on financial and other issues.
citizens and communities engaged actively with Local Governments and

hold them accountable
engagement
with local
governments
planning
implementation
representation
holding local
governments
accountable
inclusion
knowledge
transparency
a) ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Engaging with local governments, together with holding them accountable, is a key component of this outcome.
It refers to engagements in planning and implementation of local government activities and is based on an
inclusive process. Taking part in local government is the ultimate level of active engagement.
Indicators:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decisionmaking process of DDCs than one year ago
% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decisionmaking process of VDCs than one year ago
% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decisionmaking process of municipalities than one year ago
These three indicators track the level of satisfaction with being engaged in local
governance. It is based on the recall method and refers to one year.
These indicators are based on subjectively perceived levels of engagement as a proxy

for actual changes in engagement with local governments The data is obviously
subjective and influenced by external factors. However, at a highly aggregated level
and tracked over numerous years the data will be able to show trends and tendencies.
LGCDP Sample Surveys
every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
M&E Section of MLD
Planning
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of all ward committees which hold at least one planning meeting per year
This indicator broadly reflects the level of citizens engagement in the planning process at
local levels by tracking how many ward committees are functioning (defined as holding at
least one planning meeting per year). This indicator is supplemented by the indicator
below.
The % figure will initially be low due to the fact that the most of the wards
committees are currently not established and/or functional.
There are 9 wards in each of the 3,915 VDCs and 9 to 35 wards in a municipality,
resulting in approximately 36,000 wards.
currently not available; the data should be collected through two sources:
sample surveys conducted by MLD
collection of administrative data from VDCs, DDCs to MLD

Sample surveys can continue to collect this data for triangulation and quality control of
administrative data. An indicative target is 90%.
every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013 for sample survey) / annually (administrative data)
M&E Section of MLD (for both survey and administrative data)
Total number of citizens who participate in planning meeting at ward level per
year in Nepal
The overall number of participants at ward planning meetings over time is an additional,
broad measure of the changing levels of participation at the grass-root level. In addition,
the aggregation of data through administrative channels will be a major step constructing
information gathering channels through the MLD M&E Section. This indicator complements
the indicator above.
Not all wards will immediately have planning meetings in year one of LGCDP. The
numbers therefore only reflect those wards where planning meetings have taken
place.
see above
Indicators:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per year who
are Dalits (as proxy for all DAGs)
% of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per year who
are women
This data is a broad measure of the inclusiveness of the planning process at the grassroot level. It refers to Dalits as a proxy for all disadvantaged groups and to women as a
key disadvantaged group.
The correlation between Dalits and disadvantaged groups in general is reportedly

high. The first indicator is a simple proxy (indirect) indicator to measure the level
of participation of all disadvantaged groups (Dalits, Adibasi, Janajatis, Muslims,
Madhesis).

sample surveys can continue to collect this data for triangulation and quality control of
administrative data
% of project proposals submitted by womens groups in VDC annual plans
This indicator is a proxy for the capacity and skills of a key disadvantaged group, women,
to participate in local planning. The underlying assumption is that better knowledge,
abilities and skills in womens groups will translate into a higher percentage of projects
being funded.
This indicator tracks the % of projects proposed, but does not capture the extent
to which these proposals are actually funded. But because this indicator is a
proxy for changes in capacity and skills, this limit is intentional.
This indicator does not chapter change in capacity and skills of other
disadvantaged groups. The reason for this is that LGCDP does not want to
discourage mixed groups, which would make it difficult what constitutes a DAG
group and what not.

administrative data
Implementation
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of VDCs and municipality block grants spent on projects requested by

exclusively womens or disadvantaged groups through the ward committee (as
defined in the Interim Constitution)
This indicator is goes beyond participation and tracks the funds actually spent on
proposals by womens or disadvantaged groups
The local government guidelines stipulate that a minimum 15% of block grant from the
central government goes to women or members of DAGs. The LGCDP GE/SI strategy
suggests a minimum of 25%.
The indicator will therefore measure a) to what extent the guidelines are followed, and
b) if and to what extent local bodies go beyond the 15% minimum.
For the sake of simplicity, this indicator aggregates the data for both VDCs and
municipalities. However, arriving at this % figure implies that separate data also must
be available.
30% (2012)
Data should be collected through two sources:

administrative data
Representation
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicators:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Number of poor households (based on 8 indicators used in MLD DAG mapping) where
no member was previously engaged in any organization in the last 3 years, but
now is engaged in either school management committee, health management
committee or VDC
This indicator looks at the number of people who have been left out of the decisionmaking process at local level in the past but could be encouraged be become engaged
in some way.
This indicator tracks membership in three key organizations at the local level: the
school management committee, the health management committee and the Village
Development Committee) as a proxy for all organizations closely related to
participation in decision-making at the local level.
Data for this indicator is difficult to collect and based on a previous DAG mapping
exercise. However, this data is at the core LGCDP, therefore collecting data for it is
paramount.
To be determined after first data collection by social mobilizers
To be determined after
This data will need to be collected through administrative data from LGCDPs social
mobilizers. The details for this data collection exercise still need to be established.
annually
M&E Section of MLD through social mobilizsers
% of women in all Integrated Planning Committees at VDC level

% of members of disadvantaged groups in all Integrated Planning
Committees at VDC level
This indicator reflects the level of representation by women and disadvantaged groups
in the planning process at VDC, DDC and municipality level.
Currently, Integrated Planning Committees do not exist. The percentage figure

depends on the number of Integrated Planning Committees formed.
The first of these indicators tracks only the VDC level as a proxy for the DDC and the
municipality level. The underlying assumption is that clear changes at the VDC level
will most likely be reflected at the DDC and municipality level.
Data should be collected through two sources:

administrative data
Inclusion
Indicators:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of total budget of DDCs which explicitly targets women

% total budget of DDCs which explicitly targets members of disadvantaged
groups
These indicators go beyond block grants and track inclusiveness by looking at the
overall share of the DDC budget which is spent on women and members of
disadvantaged groups
The difficulty will be to determine objectively if funds are explicitly target women
and/or disadvantaged groups or if they only implicitly effect them (but many others as
well). The definitions will need be clearly laid out in the Gender and DAG Budget Audit
guidelines.
Data should be collected through three sources:
LGCDP Sample Surveys,
Gender Budget Audits
Sample DAG Budget Audits

M&E Section of MLD / GESI Section of MLD
10
b) ACCOUNTABILITY
The following indicators refer to knowledge rather than directly accountability. The reason for it is that knowledge
is a prerequisite for asking questions to local governments. Without knowing key information, asking questions on
financial issues is difficult. These indicators are more sensitive to change than direct indicators on accountability
and serve as an indirect proxy for the process leading to accountability.
Municipalities
Indicators:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities

of the municipality in the past 12 months
% of citizens who can approximately identify the total annual budget of

municipalities during the current year (+/-20%)
Knowledge is a prerequisite for accountability and transparency. These indicators track the
level of knowledge on the activities by municipalities and their approximate annual budget.
These indicators track changes in knowledge over time.
The sample survey must be conducted to exclude activities by NGOs and focus merely
on activities by municipalities.
Every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
M&E Section of MLD
VDCs
Indicators:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility

of the VDC in the past 12 months
% of citizens who can approximately identify the total annual budget of the
VDCs during the current year(+/-20%)
see above
see above

Every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
M&E Section of MLD
DDCs
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
see above
see above

of the DDC in the past 12 months

Every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
M&E Section of MLD
11
OUTCOME 2
LGCDP Outcome 2: Increased capacity of local governments to manage resources
and deliver basic services in an inclusive and equitable manner
The outcome primarily refers to the capacity of the three entities of local
governments: DDCs, municipalities and VDCs.
The outcome explicitly refers to two types of capacity: a) the capacity to manage
resources, and b) the capacity to deliver basic social services.
The capacity to manage resources implies planning, implementing, monitoring and

reporting on resources.
The delivery of basic social services refers to those basic services which are
typically provided by DDCs, municipalities, and VDCs.
While not explicit, the outcome also contains the perspective of a sustainable
increase in local resources. A key element of sustainability is the increasing
mobilization of internal revenues.
In addition, the outcome refers to the fact that both the management of resources
and delivery of basic social services should be done in an inclusive and equitable
manner.
Outcome Indicators
Capacity of
DDCs, municipalities and VDCs to manage
resources and deliver basic services in an inclusive
an equitable manner
manage resources
deliver basic social services
12
a.) MANAGING RESOURCES

DDCs
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of all 75 DDCs that meet all 15 minimum Conditions (as defined in 12/2008
by MLD based on LSGA 1999) per fiscal year
This indicator broadly reflects the extent to which DDCs fulfil the minimum requirements
for managing resources as defined in the Local Self-Government Act 1999.
Currently, only 12 of a total of 15 indicators are in use due to the absence of local
elections. Until local elections are held, DDCs are assessed based on 12 instead of
15 indicators.
63% (06/2008)
100% (12/2012)
National Synthesis Report by the Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC)
annually
Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC)
% of all 75 DDCs that score above 50 point in all 62 performance measurements

and meet minimum score in all 8 functional areas per fiscal year
This composite, qualitative indicator broadly reflects the performance of DDCs in managing
resources. Performance is measured through a score card with up to 100 points, including
8 topics: planning and programme management performance, budget management,
financial management performance, fiscal resource mobilization capacity, budget release
and programme execution, communication and transparency, monitoring and evaluation,
organization, service delivery and property management
Currently, only 57 out of 62 performance measurement criteria can be used due
to the absence of elected local bodies.
For the baseline data collection in 2008, a slightly revised indicator framework was
used then for the assessment in 2009. Slight modifications in this composite
qualitative indicator can also be expected in the future, but should not effect the
overall picture provided by this indicator.
41% (06/2008)
90% (12/2012)
annually
% of all 75 DDCs that spend more than 80% of planned capital development
budget per year
This indicator refers to the capacity of DDCs to make use of earmarked funding. Planned
capital development budget refers to budget line 6.4., 6.5., and 6.6.
An analysis of LBFC financial records needs to be done to calculate a baseline
figure. The documentation required for such an analysis is reportedly available.
To be determined by analyzing LBFC financial records in 2009
To be determined after analyzing LBFC financial records in 2009
Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC) financial records
annually
13
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of all 75 DDCs that spend more than 10% of internal income explicitly on
women, children, DAGs, ethnic groups, disabled and old people per fiscal year
This indicator measures the extent to which DDCs spend their own resources at least
partially on marginalized groups.
The indicator does only count DDCs that spend more than 10% of internal resources
on marginalized groups. It does not capture the how much more DDCs spend above
10% of internal income.
The indicator lumps together a diverse and large group of marginalized people.
However, better and more disaggregated is currently not collected through the MC/PM
system of MLD.
29% (06/2008)
75% (12/2012)
Annual MC/PM assessment report for DDCs
annually
% of all 75 DDCs that have less then 2% irregular expenditure (Beruju)

This indicator measures the extent to which DDCs are following financial rules and
regulations.
In this indicator, irregular expenditure (Beruju) is defined as per audit reports.
The indicator does only count those DDCs that have less than 2% irregular
expenditures. It does not capture the extent to which DDCs approach 0% irregular
expenditures or surpass the 2% threshold.
9% (06/2008)
80% (2012)
annually
Municipalities
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of all 58 municipalities that meet the Minimum Conditions (as defined by

MLD) per year
This indicator broadly reflects the extent to which municipalities fulfil the minimum
requirements for managing resources as defined in the Local Self-Government Act 1999.
not available yet; first assessment of municipalities will be done in June 2009
100% (2012)
annually
Indicator(s) on performance measurements to be defined pending the finalization of the municipality MC/PM
guidelines
14
VDCs
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of all 3915 VDCs that meet the Minimum Conditions (as defined by MLD)
This indicator broadly reflects the extent to which VDCs fulfil the minimum requirements for
managing resources as defined in the Local Self-Government Act 1999.
For the baseline, only 900 VDCs will be assessed in June 2009. The number will
gradually be increased to include all 3915 VDCs. Therefore, the % figure in the
indicator will refer to a changing total of VDCs.
not available yet; will be collected through a VDC assessment for initially 900 VDCs in June
2009
100% (2012)
annually
MONITORING AND REPORTING

Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of LGCDP outcome indicators (for which data supposed to be available) are

updated per year
This indicator broadly reflects the ability of local bodies and the Ministry of Local
Development to obtain, enter, process and aggregate data, including administrative data
collected directly by the MLD from the local level.
The M&E framework for LGCDP is limited to key data and refers specifically to
LGCDP. However, this indicator can serve as a proxy for the overall capacity to
streamline data collection and aggregation from VDCs to DDCs, and thereby to
MLD.
The indicator only refers to the outcome level, since purpose indicators will not be
updated every year.
not available; will be collected once the performance monitoring framework of LGCDP is
finalized;
100% (2012)
LGCDP indicator tracking sheets
annually
M&E Section of MLD
% of DDCs that submit to MLD an annual report (based on a template designed

by the MLD which includes a synthesized report on VDCs) within 15th August
This indicator broadly reflects the ability of DDCs to obtain key data from VDCs.
A new reporting template still needs to be designed by MLD.
not available; will be collected during the first year when the new template is available
100% (2012)
Reports from DDCs submitted to MLD
annually
M&E Section of MLD
15
b) BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES

Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of citizens who say that the infrastructure (roads, drinking water, electricity)
offered by the local governments better meet their needs than last year
This indicator reflects the perception of citizens that basic social services by local
governments in general (DDCs, VCDs and municipalities) has improved over the past year.
This indicator also serves as a very indirect proxy of client satisfaction for other services
provided by local governments.
The indicator relies on proper questioning and a recall technique.
Sample surveys by MLD
Every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
M&E Section of MLD
% of DDCs which increase their internal revenues (excluding central grants) by

at least 15% compared to the previous fiscal year
This indicator reflects the extent to which DDCs manage to increase internal revenue
collection. The indicator is:
a proxy indicator for an increase in management capacity of DDC staff
a indicator for sustainability of local governance, since internal revenues can
become a cornerstone of financing social services on the district level;
The indicator does not reflect the extent to which individual DDCs exceed a
15% increase.
To be determined after the baseline survey
Sample Surveys by MLD
Every two years (2009, 2011, 2013)
M&E Section of MLD
Number of LGCDP pilot projects which were scaled up with government or

development partner funds outside the LGCDP budget
This indicator reflects the extent to which pilot projects initiated by the LGCDP has been
successful and are regarded as promising initiatives worth further, external funding.
The indicator is based on the assumption that if pilots are proven to be
successful, additional funding is available to scale up these interventions.
0 (4/2009)
3 (04/2012)
MLD reports
annually
M&E Section of MLD
16
OUTCOME 3
LGCDP Outcome 3: Strengthened policy and national institutional framework for
devolution and local self-governance
The outcome refers to two broad issues: a) policies and b) the institutional
framework for devolution.
Policies refers to laws passed by the parliament and regulations and guidelines
produced by the cabinet and by ministries. Although the constitution is not a policy, it
plays a significant role for setting policies in the current context for devolution in
Nepal. Equally, strategies refer to the implementation of policies.
The national institutional framework refers to institutions beyond the Ministry

of Local Development.
Devolution and local self-governance are similar concepts, but devolution is

more concrete in further defining a certain type of local self-governance.
Outcome 3
policy for devolution is stronger (staffing

policies, Sector-Wide Approach, sector
devolution)
national institutional framework is stronger (Local

Bodies Fiscal Commission, DMIS)
17
SECTOR WIDE APPROACH

Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Number of development partners that sign a Joint Financial Agreement

This indicator reflects the extent to which Nepal is moving towards a Sector-Wide Approach
in Decentralization and Devolution. The Joint Financial Agreement is an important step
towards a Sector-Wide Approach, which will realistically not be fully realized until 2012.
The assumption for this indicator is that the more development partners join
the Joint Financial Agreement, the more a SWAp is perceived by development
partners as a viable path to support the Government of Nepal.
0 (4/2009)
10 (2012)
Joint Financial Agreement document
trimesterely
LGCDP PCU
Total funds paid into Joint Financial Agreement basket in million USD
This indicator complements the indicator above by adding total funds to the number of
development partners. Only the two indicators together provide a complete picture of
progress towards a SWAp.
see above
0m (4/2009)
400m (2012)
LGCDP financial records
trimesterely
LGCDP PCU
SECTOR DEVOLUTION
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Number of Secretary-level meetings, participated in by at least five line

ministries that explicitly include agenda on decentralization, held per year
This indicator is an indirect proxy indicator for the level of coordination and importance of
decentralization in key sectors. As a proxy indicator, it does not imply that LGCDP aims at
increasing the number of Secretary-level meetings, but serves as an indication of
decentralization is taking on a more prominent role in Nepal.
The number of meetings itself does not reflect sector devolution, but can
serve as a valid proxy in the absence of a more direct indicator. The
underlying assumption is that a significant increase over time in discussions
on decentralization at the level of Secretaries indicates a change in the level
of coordination and importance of Decentralization
0 (2008)
3 (2012)
Meeting agenda of MLD
annually
Policy Coordination Committee/Decentralization Section at MLD
18
STAFFING POLICIES
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Local Service Commission Act passed to regularize local recruitment

The Local Service Commission Act is a key element to improve staffing policies.
The act itself does not indicate changes in staffing itself, but is an indicator
for staffing policies. The effect on staffing itself is captured by additional
indicators.
No (2009)
Yes (2012)
Local Service Commission Act
annually
M&E Section of MLD
% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are women
With the staffing policies in place, changes in staff composition are to be expected over
time. Women are a key target group of LGCDP and are therefore captured through this
indicator.
This indicator does not distinguish between different levels of local
government adminstrations. However, at an aggregated level it provides an
indication of change over the years.
The indicator aggregates data for DDCs, municipalities and VDCs, thereby
potentially blurring differences between the three levels of local governance
in Nepal.
Data should be collected through the LGCDP sample surveys and
administrative data through the MLD. Sample surveys can continue to collect
this data for triangulation and quality control of administrative data.
33% (2012)
LGCDP Sample survey / administrative data
Every 2 years / annually
MLD M&E Section / MLD Personnel Administration Section
% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are Dalits (as
proxy for all disadvantaged groups)
With the staffing policies in place, changes in staff composition are to be expected over
time. Dalits serve as a proxy for all disadvantaged groups.
Given the difficulty in clearly defining and identifying who belongs to a
disadvantaged group, Dalits serve as a proxy for all disadvantaged groups.
The underlying assumption is that changes in the staffing level of Dalits are
likely to indicate changes in the staffing level for other disadvantaged groups.
The indicator aggregates data for DDCs, municipalities and VDCs, thereby
potentially blurring differences between the three levels of local governance
in Nepal.
Data should be collected through the LGCDP sample surveys and
administrative data through the MLD.
Sample surveys can continue to collect this data for triangulation and quality
control of administrative data.
LGCDP Sample survey / administrative data
Every 2 years / annually
MLD M&E Section / MLD Personnel Administration Section
19
LOCAL BODIES FISCAL COMMISSION / DMIS

Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Mov
Frequency
Responsibility
LBFC database contains data on internal and external revenue generation

disaggregated by all DDCs, all VDCs and all municipalities
Strengthened policies and institutional frameworks require reliable data for decisionmaking. A key function of the Local Bodies Fiscal Commission is the collection and analysis
of data from DDCs, VDCs and municipalities.
The indicator is not registering partial progress, but is only registering
progress if data by all three levels of local governance are available.
No (2009)
Yes (2012)
LBFC database
annually
LGCDP PCU
Number of unique visitors on DMIS section in MLD website per trimester
This proxy indicator tracks both the availability and quality of data collected by the Local
Bodies Fiscal Commission. The underlying assumption is that the number of users
accessing data from DMIS will only increase and remain at a high level if a) sufficient data
is publicly and easily available and b) this data is of sufficient quality. This data can be
easily collected using free online tools like Google Analysis.
The indicator only captures web-based access to data from the data base.
The underlying assumption is that changes in web-based access correspond
with the overall use of the data.
By tracking unique visitors, the same visitors accessing data on different
days are counted multiple times.
0 (2009)
To be determined
MLD website
annually
M&E Section of MLD
LOCAL BODIES ASSOCIATIONS

Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Mov
Frequency
Responsibility
% of LDOs in DDCs who think that ADDCN is performing better now then one
year ago
This indicator tracks the perception of changes in ADDCN performance and the satisfaction
of its main clients over time. It serves as a proxy for changes in the performance of this
Local Body.
The indicator tracks perceptions rather than actual changes. The underlying
assumption is that significant improvements in performance will over time
be reflected by changes in the perception of its key clients.
Every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
M&E Section of MLD
% of Executive Officers in municipalities who think that MuAN is performing
better now then one year ago
This indicator tracks the perception of changes in MuAN performance and the satisfaction
Local Body.
see above

Every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
M&E Section of MLD
20
Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of VDC Secretaries who think that NAVIN is performing better now then one
year ago
This indicator tracks the perception of changes in NAVINs performance and the satisfaction
Local Body.
see above

Every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)
M&E Section of MLD
MAINSTREAMING GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION

Indicator:
Rationale:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Responsibility
% of DDCs that conduct GE/SI audit per year (proxy for implementation of
GE/SI strategy)
This indicator is a proxy for the extent the GE/SI is implemented.
The proxy indicator does not track implementation per se, but a key aspect of
the implementation of the GE/SI strategy.
The indicator does not capture the extent to which audit results are acted
upon.
0 (04/2009)
50% (2012)
MLD administrative data
annually
M&E Section of MLD
CHILD-FRIENDLY LOCAL GOVERNANCE

Outcome
Indicator:
Rational:
Limits:
Baseline:
Target:
Means of
Verification
Frequency
Number of local bodies (VDC, Municipalities and district) that have adopted
child-friendly local governance (CFLG)
Child-Friendly Local Governance is reflected in the TYIP and NPC annual
planning guidelines.
There is a provision for allocating 25% of VDC block grant for CFLG VDCs in
the approved VDC block grant guidelines.
The child-friendly approach is accepted as key principles of local governance
in the LGCDP programme document.
Just adoption may not ensure that local bodies have agreed to implement the CFLG
framework and guidelines
0 (2008)
Four districts, one Municipality and 6 VDCs have initiated CFLG.
122 (2012)
75 VDCs, 37 districts and 10 Municipality
MLD annual reports
Annual
21
2. LGCDP Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

MONITORING
We propose to build LGCDPs performance monitoring system around four pillars:
MC/PM Assessments (annually)

MLD administrative data (ongoing)
LGCDP Sample Surveys (every two years)
Indicator tracking (trimesterely)
MC/PM Assessments of DDCs, municipalities and VDCs are a convenient,

meaningful and already existing data collection mechanism (for DDCs). To monitor
LGCDP, MC/PM assessments can provide a) information on overall progress through
highly aggregated, qualitative indicator using a scorecard approach, and b)
disaggregated information on detailed progress in fields of particular interest to
LGCDP (for example inclusive decision-making or financial irregularities). MC/PM
assessments for DDCs, municipalities and VDCs need to be done during the 3rd
trimester before the Nepal fiscal year begins on July 15th.
Recommendation:
make extensive but selective use of aggregated and disaggregated
MC/PM Assessment data for monitoring progress of LGCDP
Administrative data from MLD is currently only collected with regard to financial
and physical progress. Over time, however, MLD should be increasingly able to
collect, aggregate and analyze key administrative data from VDCs through DDCs. To
be able to do that, MLD especially its M&E Section - will need substantive support
through LGCDP.
Recommendation:
start improving the capacity of MLD with a focus on collecting, entering,
aggregating and analyzing readily available administrative data (e.g.
number of participants at DDC planning meeting, degree of participation of
DAGs)
immediately increase the capacity of the M&E section of the MLD by hiring
a DMIS/data analysis staff to aggregate already existing data
22
LGCDP Sample Surveys do complement the MC/PM assessments and

administrative data in two important ways: First, sample surveys can directly address
the citizens. Second, sample surveys can provide at least initially administrative
data from VDCs on a sample basis before the MLD is able to set up a comprehensive
data collection system.
Recommendation:
conduct a sample survey every 2 years: more often will not add much
value to the information gathered, less often is too late to inform decisionmaking for LGCDP; include the questions from the LGCDP M&E framework
in all surveys (see Annex 3)
make use of external quality control for sample surveys; sample
surveys are expensive and methodologically challenging; if the sampling
methodology is not sound (and not perceived as being sound), the
credibility of LGCDPs entire monitoring system is at stake
even if more administrative data is collected from DDCs and municipalities,
continue using sample surveys for at least 6 more years to provide quality
control and triangulation to data obtained through administrative
channels
Indicator tracking combines key data from the MC/PM Assessment, the sample
surveys and additional data from the MLD and other external resources. The
indicator data will be updated on a trimesterely basis, since monthly data collection
would be cumbersome without adding much value. Performance indicator tracking
will be done using the indicator tracking sheets described in Annex 2.
Recommendation:
update indicator tracking sheets described
trimesterely as simple key tool for tracking indicators
in
Annex
The LGCDP programme document does currently not define risks at any level, with
the only exception of fiduciary risks. Before a system can be set up to monitor risks,
these risks need to be clearly defined.
Recommendation:
clearly define risks for LGCDP at at least two levels (output to
outcome, outcome to purpose) as a first step to monitor risks
23
EVALUATION
Given the potentially powerful monitoring tools of LGCDP (sample surveys, MC/PM
assessments), evaluations can be kept to a minimum to not unduly overburden
programme management.
Recommendation:
commission two external evaluations (2010 and 2013) and conduct
two internal reviews (2009 and 2011)
The first external evaluation, a mid-term evaluation, focuses on implementation
issues of LGCDP. The emphasis is put on activities, the delivery of outputs and initial
indications on progress towards the three LGCDP outcomes. The mid-term evaluation
will inform the MLD and its development partners if and how the design of the
programme needs to be adjusted.
The second external evaluation, a final evaluation, focuses on results. The key
question to be answered by the evaluation is: Have the outputs delivered by LGCDP
over the past years resulted in clear and evident progress towards the three LGCDP
outcomes? The final evaluation also focuses on possible changes on the purpose
level and analyzes lessons learned from the programme.
Alternating with the evaluations are internal reviews by the Government of Nepal
and its development partners. Internal reviews are defined in the LGCDP programme
document as mechanism for proposing changes in the programme document and the
implementation modalities.
REPORTING
Keeping reporting requirements light but meaningful is paramount, given the high
amount of monitoring reports and evaluations produced by the M&E system (sample
survey reports, MC/PM assessment reports, evaluation reports, internal review
reports, etc.).
Recommendation:
keep monthly progress reports light, activity and output focused and
for MLD-internal use only
focus on trimester progress reports and annual reports based on the
fiscal year for a broader audience
use indicator tracking sheets as key mandatory reporting tool for
trimesterely and annual reports
focus reports which are for LGCDP management on outcomes
24
LGCDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

MONITORING
2066
EVALUATION
1st Trimester:
Indicator framework
M&E Plan
2nd Trimester:
2067
2nd Trimester:
Sample Survey I (Baseline Survey)

MC/PM Assessment DDCs
MC/PM Assessment Municipalities
MC/PM Assessment VDCs
Indicator tracking update
3rd Trimester:
3rd Trimester:
Internal Review (Joint Annual Review)
1st Trimester:
2068
3rd Trimester:
External Mid-Term Evaluation (Mid-Term

Review)
2nd Trimester:
LGCDP Trimesterly Report

LGCDP Annual Report (fiscal year)

3rd Trimester:

1st Trimester:
2nd Trimester:
Sample Survey II
MC/PM Assessment VCDs
3rd Trimester:
1st Trimester:
3rd Trimester:
2nd Trimester:

3rd Trimester:
1st Trimester:
2nd Trimester:
REPORTING
3rd Trimester:
Internal Review (Joint Annual Review)
3rd Trimester:
25
of GoN and DPs
26
2069
1st Trimester:
1st Trimester:
2nd Trimester:
2nd Trimester:

2070
1st Trimester:
2nd Trimester:
Sample Survey III

rd
3 Trimester:
3rd Trimester:
3rd Trimester:
1st Trimester:
Final Evaluation (External Review)

1st Trimester:
2nd Trimester:
3rd Trimester:

27
ANNEX 1: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
28
Indicators
Indicator Baseline
Indicator Target
Means of Verification
Responsibility
Frequency
Goal: Contribute towards poverty reduction through inclusive responsive and accountable local governance and participatory community-led
development
see PMAS, Nepal Human Development Report Nepal MDG reports
Purpose: Improved access to locally and inclusively prioritized public goods and services
a) ACCESS TO PUBLIC GOODS
Average time for rural households to reach the nearest of 15 key

facilities3 in minutes and hours
ROADS
1 h 59 m
(2003/4)
1 h 30 m
(2012)
% of rural households that have access to a dirt road (vehicle

passable) within 30 minutes
67.6%
(2003/4)
Mean time taken by rural households to reach nearest dirt road

(vehicle passable) in hours and minutes
DRINKING WATER
% of rural households with sustainable access to improved

water source
b) ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES
NLSS (cross section)
CBS
7 years
75%
(2012)
NLSS (cross section) / LGCDP

Sample Surveys
CBS / MLD
M&E Section
7 years / 2 years (2009,

2011, 2013)
3h7m
(2003/4)
2 h 30 m
(2012)
NLSS (cross section) / LGCDP

Sample Surveys
CBS / MLD
M&E Section
7 years / 2 years (2009,

2011, 2013)
80.2 %
(2006)
To be determined
(TBD)
Nepal Demographic and Health

Surveys
MHP
not known
% of citizens that say that the services of DDCs are more

TBD by LGCDP BLS

2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD M&E
Section
2 years (2009, 2013,

2011)
% of citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more

TBD by LGCDP BLS

2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD M&E
Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)
% of citizens that say that the services of municipalities are

more accessible that they were one year ago
TBD by LGCDP BLS

2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD M&E
Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)
The 15 key facilities tracked by the Nepal Living Standard Survey are: primary school, health post, bus stop, paved road, dirt road (vehicle passable), dirt road (vehicle impassable), local shop, haat
bazaar, market centre, Krishi Kendra, Sajha, commercial bank, source of drinking water, post office, telephone boot
29
Indicators
Indicator Baseline
Indicator Target
Responsibility
Frequency
Outcome 1:
Citizens and communities engaged actively with local governments and hold them accountable (15.7m USD)
a) ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the
decision-making process of DDCs than one year ago
TBD by LGCDP BLS

2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD Sample Surveys
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)
decision-making process of VDCs than one year ago
TBD by LGCDP BLS

2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD Sample Surveys
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)
TBD by LGCDP BLS

2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD Sample Surveys
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 1)
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 1)
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 1)
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 1)
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 1)
90%
(12/2012)
Sample Surveys /
administrative data4
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013) / annually
900,000
(12/2012)
Sample Surveys /
administrative data
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013) / annually
TBD after the

LGCDP Sample
Survey
TBD after the
LGCDP Sample
Survey
TBD after the
LGCDP Sample
Survey
Sample Surveys /
administrative data
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013) / annually
Sample Surveys /
administrative data
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013) / annually
Sample Surveys /
administrative data
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013) / annually
decision-making process of municipalities than one year ago
PLANNING
% of all ward committees of VDCs and municipalities which hold

at least one planning meeting per year
Total number of citizens who participate in planning meeting at

ward level per year in Nepal
% of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per

year who are Dalits (as proxy for all DAGs)
% of participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per

year who are women
% of project proposals submitted by womens groups in VDC

annual plans
IMPLEMENTATION
% of VDCs and municipality block grants spent on projects

requested by womens or disadvantaged groups through
the ward committee (as defined in the Interim Constitution)
REPRESENTATION
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 1)
30% (12/2012)
Sample Surveys /
administrative data
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013) / annually
Number of poor households (based on 8 indicators used in MLD

DAG mapping) where no member was previously engaged in
any organization in the last 3 years, but now is engaged in
either school management committee, health management
committee or VDC
% of women in all Integrated Planning Committees at VDC
level
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 2)
TBD after the

LGCDP Sample
Survey
Performance system of
LGCDP social mobilizers
MLD M&E Section

through social
mobilizers
annually
Sample survey/
administrative records
MLD M&E Section
Annually
Sample survey/
administrative records
MLD M&E Section
Annually
% of members of disadvantaged groups in all Integrated Planning

Committees at VDC level
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 3)
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 3)
TBD after the

LGCDP Sample
Survey
TBD after the
LGCDP Sample
Survey
The data will first be collected exclusively through sample surveys. When MLD has established a system to collect administrative data, the means of verification will bet he administrative data by the
M&E Section in the MLD. However, sample surveys will continue to be conducted a) as a quality control to administrative data and b) for triangulation.
30
INCLUSION
% total budget of DDCs which explicitly targets women (as

defined in the Gender Budget Audit guidelines)
15% (12/2012)
Sample DAG Budget Audits
% total budget of DDCs which explicitly targets members of
disadvantaged groups (as defined in the DAG Budget
Audits)
Note 1: This will be determined only after Ward Committees are set up
Note 2: This number will be 0 initially
Note 3: This will be determined after Integrated Planning Committees at VDC, DDC and municipality level have been set up
Note 4: This will be determined after first Gender Budget Audits and DAG Budget Audits are conducted
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 4)
TBD by LGCDP
Sample Survey
(See Note 4)
15% (12/2012)
Gender Budget Audits
GESI Section of MLD
Annually
GESI Section of MLD
Annually
b) ACCOUNTABILITY
MUNICIPALITY
% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed

activities of the municipality in the past 12 months
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD Sample Surveys
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)
% of citizens who can approximately identify current year total

annual budget of the municipality (+/- 20%)
VDCs
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD Sample Surveys
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)

activities of the VDC in the past 12 months
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD Sample Surveys
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)
% of citizens who can approximately identify current year total

annual budget of the VDC (+/- 20%)
DDCs
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD Sample Surveys
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)

activities of the DDC in the past 12 months
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
MLD Sample Surveys
MLD M&E Section
2 years (2009, 2011,

2013)
to be finalized: one or two indicators on the level of activities and effectiveness of evaluation societies
31
Indicators
Indicator Baseline
Indicator Target
Output 1:
Communities and community organizations participate actively in local governance processes (17.0m USD)
No
Yes
Social Mobilization
Social Mobilization Guidelines drafted
(04/2009)
(2010)
Guidelines
No
Yes
DAG mapping report
DAG mapping by households completed
(04/2009)
(2010)
0
3,915
LGCDP administrative
No. of VCDs covered by social mobilization through LGCDP
(04/2009)
(2012)
records
0
58
No. of municipalities covered by social mobilization through LGCDP
(04/2009)
(2012)
records
No
Yes
Performance system
Performance system for social mobilizers in place
(04/2009)
(2010)
guidelines
Social Mobilizers
pending design
pending design of
% of citizens who say that they are satisfied with the performance of
performance
Performance system
of performance
the local social mobilizer
system
system
Responsibility
Frequency
M&E Section of MLD
One-off
M&E Section of MLD
One-off
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
One-off
LGCDP PCU
annually
% of citizens from DAG households who say that they are satisfied
with the performance of the local social mobilizer
pending design
of performance
system
Pending first PM
TBD after sample
survey
Social Mobilizers
Performance system
LGCDP PCU
annually
Number of Ward Citizens Committees meetings functional in

VDCs and municipalities (at least 2 meetings per year)
pending first
data collection
pending first data

collection
Administrative data in MLD
M&E Section in MLD
annually
Number of Integrated Planning Formulation Committees

(IPFC) (at least 1 meeting(s) per year)
pending first
data collection
pending first data

collection
M&E Section in MLD
annually
% of 75 DDCs that conduct a Public/community Audit per year
pending first
data collection
pending first data

collection
M&E Section in MLD
annually
% of 75 DDCs that conduct a Social Audit per year
pending first
data collection
pending first data

collection
M&E Section in MLD
annually
Output 2:
Increased capacity of citizens, communities and marginalized groups to assert their rights and hold local governments accountable (8.7m USD)
indicators to be defined once key activities are better defined (e.g. information, education and communication activities; Local Governance and Accountability Facility)
32
Indicators
Indicator Baseline
Indicator Target
Responsibility
Frequency
Outcome 2:
Increased capacity of Local Governments to manage resources and deliver basic services in an inclusive and equitable manner (150.8m)
a.) MANAGING RESOURCES (DDCs)
% of all 75 DDCs that meet all 155 minimum conditions (as

defined in 12/2008 by the MLD based on LSGA 1999) per fiscal year
% of DDCs that score above 50 points in all 626 performance

measurements and meet the minimum score in all 8 functional
areas
% of all 75 DDCs that spend more than 80% of planned capital

development budget7 per year
% of all 75 DDCs that spend more than 10% of internal income

explicitly on women, children, DAGs, disabled and old people
per fiscal year
% of all 75 DDCs that have less then 2% irregular expenditure8
MANAGING RESOURCES (MUNICIPALITIES)
% of all 58 municipalities that meet the Minimum Conditions (as
defined by MLD based on LSGA in 1999) per fiscal year
63%
(06/2008)
41%
(06/2008)
100%
(12/2012)
90%
(12/2012)
TBD after
analysis of LBFC
financial records
in 2009
29%
(06/2008)
TBD after
analysis of LBFC
financial records
in 2009
75%
(12/2012)
9%
(06/2008)
80%
(12/2012)
MC/PM
assessment.2009
100%
(2012)
National Synthesis Report by LBFC
LBFC
annually
LBFC
annually
LBFC financial records
LBFC
annually
Annual MC/PM assessment report

for DDCs
LBFC
annually
Annual MC/PM assessment report

for DDCs
LBFC
annually
National Synthesis Report LBFC
LBFC
annually
Indicator(s) on performance measurements to be defined pending the finalization of the municipality MC/PM guidelines
MANAGING RESOURCES (VDCs)

% of all 3915 VDCs that meet the Minimum Conditions (as defined
by MLD based on LSGA in 1999)
MONITORING AND REPORTING
% of outcome indicators for which data supposed to be available
are updated per year
% of DDCs that submit to MLD an annual report based on a

template designed by MLD which includes a synthesized report on
VDCs within August 15th
b.) BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES
% of citizens who say that the infrastructure (roads, drinking

water, electricity) offered by the local governments better meet their
needs than last year
% of DDCs which increase their internal revenues (excludes

revenue sharing and central grants) by at least 15% compared to the
previous fiscal year
Number of LGCDP pilot projects which were scaled up with

government or development partner funds outside the LGCDP budget
5
6
7
8
MC/PM
assessment 2009
100% (2012)
LBFC
annually
TBD after
assessment in
2009
template not yet
designed
100% (2012)
LGCDP indicator tracking sheets
M&E Section of
MLD
annually
100% (2012)
Reports from DDCs submitted to

MLD
M&E Section of
MLD
annually
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
Sample surveys
M&E Section of
MLD
annually
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
Financial records of LBFC
LBFC
annually
0
(04/2009)
3
(04/2012)
MLD reports
M&E Section of
MLD
annually
currently only 12 out of 15 minimum conditions are in use

currently only 57 out of 62 performance measurements are in use
this refers to budget line 6.4., 6.5., 6.6.
as defined by the final audit report per fiscal year
33
Indicators
Indicator Baseline
Indicator Target
Output 3:
Local governments gain access to greater fiscal resources in equitable and appropriate ways (121.0m USD)
75
75
Annual MC/PM Assessment for
Number of DDCs assessed on MC/PM by MLD on MC/PM per fiscal

(06/2008)
(2012)
DDCs
year
0
58
Annual MC/PM Assessment for
Number of municipalities assessed by MLD on MC/PM per fiscal

(04/2009)
(2010)
municipalities
year
0
3915
DDC Assessment Compilation
Number of VDCs assessed by DDCs through out contracting per

(04/2009)
(07/2009)
report
fiscal year
8.2m
11.25m
LGCDP financial records (block
Block grand funds disbursed through LGCDP to DDCs in million

(2008/9)
(2012/13)
grant allocation)
USD per fiscal year
0m
2.5m
Block grand funds disbursed to Municipalities in million USD per

(2008/9)
(2012/13)
grant allocation)
fiscal year
0m
29m
Block grand funds disbursed to VCDs in million USD per fiscal year
(2008/9)
(2012/13)
grant allocation)
Output 4:
Appropriate capacity building services passed on to all levels of the local government service delivery system (26.4m USD)
0% (4/2009)
100% (2012)
% of DDCs and municipalities that receive capacity development

grants through LGCDP per fiscal year
0m
3m
Funds of capacity development grants disbursed per fiscal year

(4/2009)
(2012)
in million USD to DDCs and municipalities
1
12
LGCDP Trimesterly reports
Number of guidelines and operational manuals produced

(04/2009)
(2012)
through LGCDP
0
75
Number of procurement plans by DDCs produced with LGCDP

(04/2012)
support per fiscal year
(04/2009)
TBD by LGCDP
75
Number of DDCs having Capacity Development Plan

BLS 2009
(04/2012)
Output 5:
Local governments service delivery mechanisms and processes fine-tuned (3.4m USD)
0
2
Number of decentralization pilots funded through LGCDP

(03/2009)
(2012)
Responsibility
Frequency
LBFC
annually
LBFC
annually
LBFC
annually
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
34
Indicators
Indicator Baseline
Indicator Target
Responsibility
Frequency
Outcome 3:
Strengthened policy and national institutional framework for devolution and local self-governance (5.8m USD)
SECTOR-WIDE APPROACH
Number of development partners (DPs) that sign Joint Financial

Agreement
Total funds paid into Joint Financial Agreement basket in

million USD
SECTOR DEVOLUTION
Number of secretary-level meetings, participated in by at

least five line ministries that explicitly includes agenda on
decentralization, held per year
STAFFING POLICIES
Local Service Commission Act passed to regularize local

recruitment
% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs)

that are women
% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs)

that are Dalits (as proxy for all disadvantaged groups)
LOCAL BODIES FISCAL COMMISSION / DMIS
LBFC database contains data on internal and external revenue

generation disaggregated by all DDCs, all VDCs and all
municipalities
Number of unique visitors on DMIS website per Trimester

LOCAL BODIES ASSOCIATIONS
% of LDOs of DDCs who think that ADDCN is performing better

now then one year ago
% of Executive Officers of municipalities who think that MuAN is

performing better now then one year ago
% of VDC Secretaries who think that NAVIN is performing better

now then one year ago
MAINSTREAMING GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSING
% of DDCs that conduct GE/SI audit per year (proxy for

implementation of GE/SI strategy)
CHILD-FRIENDLY LOCAL GOVERNANCE
Number of local bodies (VDCs, municipalities and DDCs) that have

adopted child-friendly local governance
0
(04/2009)
0
(04/2009)
10
(2012)
600 million
(2012)
Joint Financial Agreement
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
LGCDP PCU
Trimesterly
0
(2008)
3
(2012)
Meeting minutes
Policy Coordination
Committee/Decentralization
Section at MLD
annually
No
(04/2009)
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
Yes
(2012)
33%
(2012)
TBD after LGCDP
BLS
Local Service Commission

Act
Sample survey /
administrative data
Sample survey /
administrative data
MLD M&E Section
one-off
MLD Personnel
Administration Section
MLD Personnel
Administration Section
2 years / annually
No
(04/2009)
Yes
(2012)
LBFC database
LGCDP PCU
one-off
0
(04/2009)
TBD
MLD website
MLD M&E Section
Trimesterly
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD by LGCDP
BLS 2009
TBD after LGCDP

BLS
TBD after LGCDP
BLS
TBD after LGCDP
BLS
MLD M&E Section
2 years
MLD M&E Section
2 years
MLD M&E Section
2 years
0
(04/2009)
50%
(2012)
MLD administrative data
MLD M&E Section
annually
0
(04/2009)
122
(2012)
MLD annual reports
MLD M&E Section
annually
2 years / annually
35
Indicators
Indicator Baseline
Indicator Target
Responsibility
Output 6:
Policy framework for decentralization promoted a more enabling environment for effective, transparent and accountable local governance (1.5m USD)
No
Yes
Review document
LGCDP PCU
Review of decentralization and sector devolution policy drafted

(04/2009)
(2012)
No
Yes
Approved document from
LGCDP PCU
Child-friendly national framework and guidelines developed

(04/2009)
(2012)
MLD
No
Yes
Guideline document
LGCDP PCU
Sector devolution guideline published

(04/2009)
(2012)
SWAP framework document drafted

No
Yes
SWAP framework
LGCDP PCU
(04/2009)
(2012)
document
0
1
Review documents
LGCDP PCU
Number of reviews of lessons learned on demand side of local

(2009)
(2012)
governance linked to LGCDP
No
Yes
LSCA draft document
LGCDP PCU
Local Service Commission Act drafted

(04/2009)
(2012)
No
Yes
Strategy document
LGCDP PCU
National Capacity Development Strategy drafted

(04/2009)
(2012)
0
1
Study documents
LGCDP PCU
Number of outcome and impact studies published under LGCDP

(04/2009)
(2012)
Output 7:
Capacity of central government and national non-government institutions strengthened to provide appropriate support to local governments is enhanced (2.0m USD)
0 (2008)
48 (2012)
Journal Swashasan at
MLD Information and
Number of new articles on policy analysis published by MLD in

http://mld.gov.np
Publication Unit
Journal of Local Governance
No (04/2009)
Yes (2012)
Formula document
LGCDP PCU
Formula for intergovernment fiscal transfers revised

No (04/2009)
Yes (2012)
Roadmap document
LGCDP PCU
Fiscal Decentralization Roadmap updated

0 (2008)
3 (2012)
Study documents
LGCDP PCU
Number of Revenue Potential Studies of VDCs, DDCs and

municipalities conducted by LBFC
No (04/2009)
Yes (2012)
Capacity Assessment
LGCDP PCU
Capacity assessment of all three LB associations (ADDCN, MuAN,

NAVIN) published
documents
No (04/2009)
Yes (2012)
Observation of office
LGCDP PCU
All three Local Bodies associations (ADDCN, MuAN, NAVIN) have

buildings
a furnished office building
No (04/2009)
Yes (2012)
DMIS website
LGCDP PCU
DMIS data is available online

0 (04/2009)
TBD
LGCDP PCU
Number of senior Local Government staff trained on Gender

records
Equality / Social Inclusion under LGCDP
0 (04/2009)
TBD
LGCDP PCU
Number of decentralization focal points of line ministries trained in

records
decentralization under LGCDP
Output 8:
Support provided for programme implementation (2.3m USD)
TBD
2.3m
LGCDP PCU
Total funds in million USD dollars spent on pilots (output 8)

(2009)
(2012)
Frequency
One-off
One-off
One-off
One-off
Trimesterly
One-off
One-off
Trimesterly
Trimesterly
One-off
One-off
Trimesterly
One-off
One-off
One-off
Trimesterly
Trimesterly
Trimesterly
36
ANNEX 2: TEMPLATE FOR INDICATOR TRACKING SHEET

LGCDP Results
(Outputs, Outcome,
Purpose)
Indicators
Baseline
(2008)
1st
Trimester
2st
Trimester
3rd
Trimester
1st
Trimester
2nd
Trimester
etc.
Target
(2012)
OUTCOME 2:
Increase capacity of local
governments to manage
resources and deliver
basic services in an
inclusive and equitable
way
% of DDCs that initiate

MC/PM reporting on their
own
15%
(01/2009)
15%
15%
24%
24%
24%
.......
95%
(12/2012)
% increase of local
revenues compared to
2007
5%
(2007)
5%
5%
16%
16%
16%
.......
50%
(12/2012)
Roles of central
government and local
bodies delineated
no
(01/2009)
no
no
no
yes
yes
.......
yes
(12/2010)
37
ANNEX 3: DATA REQUIREMENT FOR

LGCDP SAMPLE SURVEYS
38
HOUSEHOLD / CITIZEN LEVEL

% of rural households that have access to a dirt road (vehicle passable) within 20 minutes (PURPOSE)
Mean time taken by rural households to reach nearest dirt road (vehicle passable) in hours and minutes (PURPOSE)
% of citizens that say that the services of DDCs are more accessible than they were one year ago (PURPOSE)
% of citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more accessible than they were one year ago
% of citizens that say that the services of municipalities are more accessible that they were one year ago
% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decision process by DDCs than one year ago (OUTCOME 1)
% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decision process by VDCs than one year ago (OUTCOME 1)
% of citizens that think that they are now more involved in the decision process by municipalities than one year ago
(OUTCOME 1)
Number of citizens who participate in planning meeting at ward level per year in Nepal (OUTCOME 1)
% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities of the municipality in the past 12 months
(OUTCOME 1)
% of citizens who can approximately identify the latest annual budget of the municipalities (+/- 20%) (OUTCOME 1)
% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities of the VDC in the past 12 months (OUTCOME
1)
% of citizens who can approximately identify the latest annual budget of the VDC (+/- 20%) (OUTCOME 1)
% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities of the DDC in the past 12 months (OUTCOME
1)
% of citizens who say that the infrastructure (roads, drinking water, electricity) offered by the local governments better
meet their needs than last year (OUTCOME 2)
% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are women (OUTCOME 3)
% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are Dalits (proxy for all Digs) (OUTCOME 3)
MUNICIPALITIES
% of all ward committees of VDCs and municipalities which hold at least one planning meeting per year (OUTCOME 1)
% of VDCs and municipality block grants spent on projects requested by womens or disadvantaged groups through
the ward committee (OUTCOME 1)
% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are Dalits (as proxy for all disadvantaged groups)
% of Executive Officers who think that MuAN is performing better now then one year ago (OUTCOME 3)
DDCs
% of local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are Dalits (as proxy for all disadvantaged groups)
% of DDC LDOs who think that ADDCN is performing better now then one year ago (OUTCOME 3)
VDCs
%
%
%
%
%
of
of
of
of
of
%
%
%
%
%
of
of
of
of
of
all ward committees of VDCs and municipalities which hold at least one planning meeting per year (OUTCOME 1)
participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per year who are Dalits (as proxy for all DAGs) (OUTCOME 1)
participants at all ward level planning meetings in Nepal per year who are women (OUTCOME 1)
VDC project proposals submitted by womens groups in VDC annual plans
VDCs and municipality block grants spent on projects requested by womens or disadvantaged groups through
the ward committee (OUTCOME 1)
women in all Integrated Planning Committees at VDC level (OUTCOME 1)
members of disadvantaged groups in all Integrated Planning Committees at VDC level (OUTCOME 1)
local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are women (OUTCOME 3)
local government staff (DDCs, municipalities and VDCs) that are Dalits (as proxy for all disadvantaged groups)
VDC secretaries who think that NAVIN is performing better now then one year ago
39

LGCDP M&amp;E Framework

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LGCDP M&amp;E Framework

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ains

2. LGCDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

ANNEX 1: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

ANNEX 2: TEMPLATE FOR INDICATOR TRACKING SHEET

ANNEX 3: QUESTIONS FOR SAMPLE SURVEYS

1. LGCDP Monitoring and Evaluation

inclusively prioritised: public goods and services to be provided by the

locally prioritised: public goods and services to be provided by the DDCs,

Public goods refers to public infrastructure provided or supported by local

road (earth roads)

access to public goods

access to public services (especially legal,

These public goods can also be regarded as a public service.

Access to public goods/general

Access to public goods/roads

Access to public goods/drinking water

% of rural households with sustainable access to improved water source

Access to public services

% of citizens that say that the services of municipalities are more

every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013)

Communities broadly refers to permanent and temporary communities and to

Engaged refers to an involvement during planning, decision-making,

Local governments refer to District Development Committees (DDCs), Village

citizens and communities engaged actively with Local Governments and

a) ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

These indicators are based on subjectively perceived levels of engagement as a proxy

sample surveys conducted by MLD

collection of administrative data from VDCs, DDCs to MLD

The correlation between Dalits and disadvantaged groups in general is reportedly

sample surveys conducted by MLD

collection of administrative data from VDCs, DDCs to MLD

sample surveys conducted by MLD

collection of administrative data from VDCs, DDCs to MLD

% of VDCs and municipality block grants spent on projects requested by

sample surveys conducted by MLD

collection of administrative data from VDCs, DDCs to MLD

% of women in all Integrated Planning Committees at VDC level

Currently, Integrated Planning Committees do not exist. The percentage figure

sample surveys conducted by MLD

collection of administrative data from VDCs, DDCs to MLD

% of total budget of DDCs which explicitly targets women

LGCDP Sample Surveys,

Gender Budget Audits

Sample DAG Budget Audits

% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities

% of citizens who can approximately identify the total annual budget of

These indicators track changes in knowledge over time.

% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities

To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009

% of citizens who can identify at least three concrete, completed activities

To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009

The capacity to manage resources implies planning, implementing, monitoring and

deliver basic social services

a.) MANAGING RESOURCES

% of all 75 DDCs that score above 50 point in all 62 performance measurements

% of all 75 DDCs that have less then 2% irregular expenditure (Beruju)

% of all 58 municipalities that meet the Minimum Conditions (as defined by

MONITORING AND REPORTING

% of LGCDP outcome indicators (for which data supposed to be available) are

% of DDCs that submit to MLD an annual report (based on a template designed

b) BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES

% of DDCs which increase their internal revenues (excluding central grants) by

Number of LGCDP pilot projects which were scaled up with government or

LGCDP M&E Framework

LGCDP M&E Framework