Ðåãèñòðàöèÿ / Î ïðîåêòå
Âû çäåñü: ÑÒÀÒÜÈ / Analytics / Local Governance Assessment in Kyrgyzstan (2005)

ßíäåêñ öèòèðîâàíèÿ

Kyrgyzstan Review, 10 years ago

2 Local Governance Assessment Matrix

A. Goal (overall) 
Expected changes
Change of the situation (Country level) 
Better local governments and citizens participation in the decision making process
1.    Local governments have the capacity to conduct effective budgetary process
- Minimum 75% of the AOs assessed had demonstrated sound capacities in conducting the budgetary processes
-If the LGs have enough capacities to do effective budgeting?
Analyses of the field survey results, country governance assistance strategy, decentralization reports on Kyrgyzstan./ Primary Stakeholders:
Project staff, PRSC, VIP, ARIS, ministries
2.    Citizens actively participate and voice their priorities in local budgetary decisions
- Minimum 75% of the AOs assessed had demonstrate a high participation of all  target community members in both planning and implementation of the budgets
-If the citizens have access to participate in  the local budgetary process?
B. LG Performance Components
Outcome/Impact indicators
Output indicators (AO level) 
I. AO leader and staff have capacity to perform their role effectively  
1.1 The extent to which AO leader and staff understand  and implement the basic budget legislation
-% of AO staff  that score ‘satisfactory’ the level of understanding the basic budget legislation
-% of them say using this knowledge in daily activity;
- Which legislative documentation do the AO leader and staff  know about?
- Which of these documents do they use to perform the tasks?
- How many of AO staff have used legislation documents in daily work?
- What rules or guidelines they are not using? Why?
AO Leader, staff /
Ind. questionnaire and focus group discussions (FGD)
1.2  The extend to which they have skills in basic budgetary process*
- % of the AO staff, which participated/s in any budget-related skill building trainings;
- % of the AO staff which have skills in basic budgetary process, measured by knowledge of:
a.       accounting and book keeping
b.      budget planning and reporting
c.       public resource management
-% of AO staff acknowledge using of this skills during budget preparation or implementation. 
- % of AO staff which consider that  “successfully” developed/implemented budget.
- What is the role of each AO staff member in the budget process? Who makes decisions about allocation of public resources and other budget-related issues?
- What training has been provided to AO leader and staff? Which of them has been the most useful and why?
- Do they have a budget forecast? Do they write a budget? Do they match expenditures with resources?  What records do they keep?
- What is the proportion of AO staff consider that “successfully” develop/implement the budget?
- What do they know about: accounting/book keeping, budget planning/reporting and public resource management?  Which of these or other skills do they need to develop?
AO Leaders, staff /
Ind. Questionnaire, FGD
II. Citizen participate  in budget decision-making process and have a voice over  decisions
2.1 Citizens regularly participate in local budget decision-making meetings
-# of the decision making meetings over period of a year;
-# of them with citizens’ participation
-average# of meeting participants :
     - % of participants are women;
     -% of participants are youth under age of 18.
-% of the respondents who know their right to participate in decision making process
- What information do the citizen have about the local budget decision making meetings? How often these meetings are conducted? How many were conducted in total this year?
- Who usually takes part in this meetings? What is the average number of participants in these meetings? How many of them are women and youth under the age of 18 (if any)?
- Do the citizens know about their rights to participate in decision making process?
AO leader, ordinary citizens, women, AK/
Document review, FGD, Citizens report cards (CRC)
2.2 Citizens can control the local budgets implementation
-# of key decisions which take into account the citizen input;
-# of citizens who regularly take part in monitoring of AO decisions over budgets thru public and budget hearings,
-% of them are youth;
-% of them are women;
- Who is responsible for taking up a decisions on budget implementation? Who else takes part in such decisions? Are there any external participants ? If yes, who are they?
- Who is usually having the ‘last word” in the decisions? Describe any evidence or facts, when ordinary people have influenced on the decisions? If applicable, how many of such cases had happen when people influence on the budget decisions?
- What percentage of decisions are adopted and implemented?
- How often public and budgetary hearings is held?
- How are citizen representatives selected for participation in every public or budget hearing event?
-  Do the citizens participate in any monitoring activities?
- How many of citizen representatives are usually take part in the public or budget hearings? What proportion of them are women? And youth? What is the role of participants in this meetings?
- How do they know about government expenditures and spending?
AO leader, AK members, ordinary citizens/
 Ind. questionnaire,  FGD, case studies, CRC
2.3 Participation mechanisms exist and meaningful
-# of citizen-AO joint  commissions established and active
-other types of participation mechanisms identified as ‘effective’ by the citizens
-# of coordinative meetings held
-# of consultations that AO  leader or staff regularly provide to the citizens
-    What mechanisms of the citizens’ participation on making decisions on budget are used in the present AO? Which of them is most effective?
-    Are decisions made by participation of the citizens implemented by the AO?  If so, how are citizens made aware that their decisions are implemented?
-    (If not mentioned earlier) Is there any joint citizen-AO commissions established? Are they active? How often do the commission members meet? How many of these meetings have already been conducted?
-    (If not mentioned earlier) Were any requests made by citizen to AO leader or staff to provide with information about budget? If so, what happened? How many of them were responded?
AO leader,
AK members, ordinary citizens/
Ind. questionnaire, FGD, CRC
III. Interaction with state authorities is effective
3.1 AO manages its budget independently from the district finance department 
-# of key budgetary decisions have taken by AO independently within the year
-# of new revenue raising sources available which are not being controlled by district finance department.
-    What type of relations does the AO maintain with district authorities? Were there any significant decisions on the budget made independently? If so, how many of them were made during a year?
-    Have the AO got any new revenue raising sources in the recent time? Which of them are not being controlled by the district authorities?
-    To what extent is an AO leader independent on managing the funds under a special account?
AO staff, district finance dept. employees/
Documents review, Ind. Questionnaire.
3.2 Reallocation of roles and responsibilities between AO, rayon and oblast finance departments is set in place and equipped by  relevant documents (resolutions, decree)
AO staff operates efficiently in accordance with the responsibilities :
-          reports are made is in time and regularly
-          the payments are scheduled and regular
-    How does AO maintain relations with the district authorities? Is there any document or procedure available, which outlines the role and responsibilities of AO?
-    How efficient AO implements the responsibilities/ obligations before state authorities? Does it manage to report in time and on regular basis?
-     Does it have a schedule of the payments for main infrastructure services and follow it regularly?
IV. The AO body is more transparent and accountable
4.1 The extent to which  citizens have access to AO information and are aware about key decisions on the budget allocation/ expenses 
-average # of visits/claims to budget files recorded by the log-book during a year;
-% of the responded citizens which aware of the document(s) on budget allocation/expenses;
-  Have citizens made requests to access budget information from the AO? If yes, how these requests been recorded? How many claims or requests were made during a year period? What were this claims mainly about?
-   (if not mentioned earlier) Does AO have the visits/claims log-book? How efficiently it has been used?
-  Do the questioned citizens know about the key documents on budget allocation/expenses? How many of them are aware about the key documents on budget allocation/expenses?  
-  What other mechanisms of transparency are implemented in this AO? 
Citizens, AK, AO staff/
Log-book review,
4.2 Information dissemination channels are working and effective
-# public and budget hearings conducted during a year;
-Public Information Boards reflect the results of the most recent budgetary decisions;
-AO disseminates the budgetary information thru ‘user friendly’ informational channels  (for ex. press, publications, leaflets, visual illustrations, other)
-% of respondents says “satisfied” with AO information on key budgetary decisions  (in terms of accuracy and sufficiency)
-  Does the AO regularly organize public or budget hearings? If so how many of them where conducted during a year?
-  How is the information disseminated among citizens? Which are the most efficient ways of them?
-  (if not mentioned) Does the AO have the Public Information Boards? How regular the information is being posted on them? Do they reflect the results of the most recent budgetary decisions?
-  How often do the citizens receive the budgetary information? What proportion of the questioned citizens believe that they have adequate information? How many of them are satisfied with the quality of  information (in terms of accuracy and sufficiency)?
AO staff, ordinary citizens/
Documents review, observation, Ind. Questionnaire, FGD, CRC
4.3 AK and community members hold AO accountable
-# of AK members say they can  question the decisions of AO staff;
-AK set up and use the standing committee to question decisions;
-#of joint commissions used by citizens or AK or NGOs to hold AO accountable;
-  What do people understand as the role of AK member? What do the AK member understand as their own roles? How they are prepared to fulfill this role?  Does AK members have enough capacity to question the decisions made by AO leader or staff? 
-  Are there any alternative opportunities which allow AK members, citizens or NGOs to discuss and question decisions of AO? If yes, how many of them works efficiently?
-  Does the format of budget presentation satisfy the citizens?
-  Who usually initiates the presentation of the budget? (ordinary people, AK, AO leader)
-  Do the citizens impact on AK disputes on making decisions on local budgets?
Citizens, AK members, AO staff
Document review Ind. questionnaire, FGD, CRC
4.4 Internal audits had taken regularly and results are transparent
-# of internal audits have taken during a budgetary  year.
-# of AK members had participated in the internal audit process
-results of the audit commission are open to public
-# of recommendations from the audit process are implemented
-  Does the AO initiates the internal auditing process? How regularly it is conducted? Who mainly participates in the auditing process? Does AK members are also take part in it?
How openly the audit information is disclosed? In which ways it is usually accessible? What were the recommendations of the latest auditing? How many of them have been already  implemented?
AK members, AK, citizens/
Ind. questionnaire, FGD
*basic budget process – consist of the assessing the knowledge of: accounting, public resource management, budget planning and reporting, book keeping.