1. Local Governance Performance Evaluations

In Bangladesh, the Union Parishad Performance Evaluation process, undertaken at six month intervals, makes Bangladesh’s local government councillors accountable for the commitments they made in public budget planning meetings and articulated in the UP’s five year plan. Councillors give themselves a green, yellow, or red card for each of a set of indicators in the Performance Evaluation. Separately, the Citizen’s Forum (a group of volunteer members of civil society), also give each councillor a coloured card, against the same indicators. In a public meeting, the 2 separate sets of cards are revealed and the differences between them are discussed.

Bangladesh Government Performance Evaluations.png
Union Parishad Performance Evaluations: Reflectionon mandated commitments and responsibilitiesin Bangladesh through JATRA project

Union Parishad Performance Evaluations: Local Government reflection on mandated commitments and responsibilities
The citizen-centric evaluation of UP members is based on Union Parishad performance indicators, and provides an opportunity for citizens to give feedback on the performance of elected individuals. Used in CARE’s JATRA project in Bangladesh, these exercises have led to enhanced positive competition amongst UP representatives, have developed positive mindsets among UP Chairpersons and council members to ensure greater accountability, and have fostered responsiveness, especially in encouraging the implementation of planned activities within the stipulated time.
In the fiscal year 2014-15, UPs covered by the JATRA project obtained basic block grants, but only six unions received the performance-based portion of the grant. Findings from the first round of UP performance evaluations revealed that citizens are not consulted on the development projects of UPs, beneficiaries of safety nets are not publicly disclosed, the poor and marginalized are not given adequate attention from their representatives, and citizens are not informed of UP decisions and projects in due time. After analyzing the gaps, a six-monthly improvement plan was developed by each of the evaluated elected bodies, with the aim of improving their performance. In the fiscal year 2015 – 16, ……..

See CARD 5 of project flash cards

2. Local Government Performance Assessment

[Insert GSAM info]

3. Participatory Governance Assessment (PGA) tool

In Nepal through the USAID-funded Hariyo Ban program, CARE focused on strengthening local governance of natural resource management groups, including building the capacity of Natural Resource Management (NRM) groups, community organizations, and increasing levels of meaningful participation by women and other marginalized groups. CARE employed approaches that support the Community Forestry Development Guidelines of 2009, including the Participatory Governance Assessment (PGA) tool, used to assess good governance practices in community groups. The PGA facilitates a group of selected participants to evaluate the extent to which the decision-making and management practices in a community leadership group comply with the four ‘pillars’ of good governance: transparency, participation, accountability and predictability. The assessment is guided by a set of sixteen governance indicators which participants rate as very good, good, moderate or poor. Responses are recorded on a matrix and later presented visually as a spider-web diagram. Based on this, a Governance Improvement Plan is formulated. The PGA tool helps to improve the overall functioning of a community group and its ability to manage natural resources in an equitable and sustainable manner.

Key governance results include:
Internal governance of 328 NRM groups strengthened.
• These CFUGs committed to annual PHPA to maintain transparency in fund mobilization; over 700,000 rupees in misappropriated funds have been recovered.
• Executive committees of CFUGs reformed to make them representative and inclusive, with women and marginalized groups in key positions as per CFDG 2009.
• CFUGs committed to allocating at least 35% of their total budget for livelihood improvement of the poor and ultra-poor; CFUGs disbursed over NRs. 8 million
• CFUGs providing timber, firewood and other forest products to ultra-poor people at a lower price than for others.


4. Institutional Maturity Index (IMI)

CARE Afghanistan uses the Institutional Maturity Index (IMI) with local Community Development Councils (CDCs) in their programme area. The IMI has two main objectives:

1- To create a process and method for CDC members to reflect on their own performance, and to discuss feedback on their performance from community members;

2- To help identify their needed skills and capacities, to help others provide targeted future support to CDCs on areas that are most needed, and to help the CDCs themselves plan for self-improvement in key areas.

The most important aspect of the IMI process is not even the score itself – what is most important is the CDC’s self-reflection and dialogue about its own performance, and the Action Plan the CDC prepares to work on its institutional strength. Having an honest conversation and planning for improvement is better than getting a high score!

Institutional Maturity Index (IMI) simplified form

IMI Action Plan template

IMI Facilitation Guidance