Introduction

Good Urban Governance The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) defines governance as:
The exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a countrys affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.

There are four aspects of key importance in the above definition: First, governance is conceptually broader than government. It recognizes that power exists inside and outside the formal authority and institutions of government. At the local level, these groups can include: representations of central government, state or provincial government (where applicable), local authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community-based organisations (CBOs), and the private sector. In general, local stakeholders can be divided into three major groups whose interaction in the political, economic and administrative domain cumulatively impact on the lifestyles and living standards of citizens.

Table 1: Major stakeholders in governance include1 : Stakeholder The State (government) Their Role Creates conducive political and legal environments through: Maintaining the rule of law Regulating socio-economic standards Developing social and physical infrastructure And ensuring social safety-nets and citizen protection They include Executive Legislative Judiciary

Private sector

Provides the foundation for economic growth and development through: Employment generation, Production and trade, Human resource development Service delivery and Upgrading of corporate standards

Small, medium and large enterprises Trade and investment associations Chambers of commerce Producers groups

Civil Society

Facilitates social and political interaction through: Organizing and educating communities Mobilizing groups Supporting solidarity actions and check-and-balance functions, Fostering civic consciousness and community-based cultural development

NGOs, CBOs. issuebased organisations Civic organizations Academia, research and development groups Religious groups Cultural groups The media

Second, governance involves more than just management, which focuses primarily on the implementation and administrative functions of government. Good urban governance is not only concerned with the management functions of a local government but also the governance environment in which management decisions are taken and implemented. This brings us to the third point, which is that governance emphasizes process. Governance decisions are often made based on the complex relationship between many actors with differing interests. Finally, governance in itself is a neutral concept. The actors, mechanisms, processes and institutions can interact to produce either positive or negative results. Thus the need for good urban governance, which represents governance in its most positive, productive and creative form. Around the world, various initiatives have been developed to support the growth of good urban governance. Each of these initiatives promotes a different, though at times overlapping, set of characteristics of good governance. In June 2001, an Inter-Agency Meeting on the Norms of Good Urban Governance, under the framework of the Global Campaign on Urban Governance, distilled the various characteristics that were in use and came out with a system that focused on just five norms of good governance. National agencies also created localized versions of the characteristics of good governance that were most relevant to them and their target communities. Some examples of the characteristics that have been developed within these various streams are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Principles, Characteristics and Norms of Good Governance The United Nations InterAgency Meeting on the Norms of Good Urban Governance - Equity - Effectiveness - Accountability - Participation - Security

TUGIs 9 Core Characteristics of Good Urban Governance

Participation Rule of Law Transparency Responsiveness Consensus Orientation

- Equity - Effectiveness and Efficiency - Accountability - Strategic Vision

UN-Habitats 7 Principles for the Global Campaign on Urban Governance

Sustainability Subsidiarity Equity Efficiency

- Transparency and Accountability - Civic Engagement - Security

The 7 Good Urban Governance Norms of the Philippine Urban Forum

- Equity - Civic Engagement and Citizenship - Security - Sustainability

- Accountability and Transparency - Decentralization - Efficiency

The 10 Principles of the Indonesian Campaign for Good Governance

Participation Rule of Law Transparency Responsiveness Equity

- Strategic Vision - Effectiveness and Efficiency - Professionalism - Accountability - Supervision

Measuring Good Urban Governance The policies of local authorities are aimed at facilitating development priorities towards a more suitable and improved living environment. However, the lack of information and the reduced capacity for conducting a systematic appraisal of urban problems often hampers the emergence of an effective urban governance. The decision-makers generally rely on disaggregated data that in their raw form are of little value in devising policy. Even though statistics may be based on data that have been verified, their relationship to policy outcomes may still be difficult to understand and apply. The process of developing policies aimed at improving local governance is reliant on verifiable data related to the kind of local government service being provided, including the scope of coverage, the efficiency of the service, revenue sources, resource mobilization and resource expenditure. However, aspects that are more qualitative in nature such as civic engagement, accountability and transparency are not as easy to assess based on hard data that is completely objective in nature. As a result, various tools have been developed to undertake qualitative assessments of city performance and the practice of good governance. However the drawback has been that often, such tools are complicated instruments that require a certain amount of training and expertise in order to use. In response to this challenge, The Urban Governance Initiative produced the TUGI Report Cards as a simple and flexible performance assessment tool in order to enable users to take the first step towards effectively measuring the governance process. The tool enables a process that looks at more than just the performance of local government alone, and instead looks at governance in the city or town, as a whole. The Report Cards are definitely not the only performance assessment tool in the governance tool-shed, and in fact need to be used in conjunction with many other governance management methods in order to create a form of holistic governance. However, they are an effective place to start, and certainly fill the role of bridging the communication gap between local government institutions and their civil society and corporate sector partners, towards creating common solutions.

This Manual This manual has been prepared to assist those who would like to use the TUGI Report Cards to review local governance performance. In Chapter Two of this manual, a general background on local government performance measurement is provided, and interwoven with the concept of good urban governance. Chapter Three discusses the TUGI Report Cards as a tool for public participation in local decision-making and provides a general introduction to the Report Cards. In Chapter Four, a step-by-step guide is provided for implementing and adapting the TUGI Report Cards to local needs. Chapter Five depicts two case studies of using the TUGI Report Cards. The first is from the SEVANATHA Urban Resource Centre, based on their use of the Report Card on Shelter and Housing in Colombo, Sri Lanka, which eventually resulted in the creation of an extensive poverty mapping database of urban poor areas in the city. The second case study is from Lihok Pilipina, a community-based organisation which used the Gender and Development Report Card in Cebu City to expand the access of women to local resources and decision-making. Annex 1 provides a review of the main terms used in the manual. Annex 2 comprises the standard format for the TUGI Report Cards, and Annex 3 includes the training design which was developed and used at the Philippines Report Card Implementers Training that was held in Manila in March 2003. Finally, Annex 4 provides some contact details of persons or organisations that have experience with the report card methodology.
1

Adapted from Urban Governance: A Source Book on Indicators, The Urban Governance Initiative.

Local Governance Performance Measurement

An Introduction to Performance Indicators

he crisis of governance poses itself to those who manage cities in a multitude of forms, including the provision of adequate urban services and amenities, the alleviation of urban poverty, the designing of new infrastructure, establishing systems of governance, and revitalizing slum neighbourhoods. A serious obstacle in addressing these challenges continues to be the lack of appropriate data to support the decision-making process. In some cases, huge investments in generating statistical data is not efficiently translated into actual policy due to a limitation in funds or of technical knowledge. Local government performance measurement systems have been one way in which to improve the situation by providing a mechanism to monitor service provision, develop targets and assess the capacity to effectively address local governance-related problems. A systematic and periodic measurement system will also create the database and information monitoring system that would inform governance decisions. Indicators are at the core of any performance measurement system. An indicator is a measure that summarizes information about a particular subject. It provides a reasonable response to questions of specific need and channels relevant information to policy- and decision-makers. An indicator tells us that certain conditions exist or dont exist, or whether certain results have been achieved or not. Performance measurement can be defined as the process of evaluating policy by using a set of indicators that are termed performance indicators. These indicators would measure the performance of a municipality with regards a specific issue, which are benchmarked against set targets. In this way, performance measurement gives information about where we stand, which way we are going and how far we have moved towards where we want to be. Performance can be measured over a period of time (e.g. comparing the quality of service of an organization between various years) or compared with existing standards (absolute comparison), or against the performance of other local authority institutions (relative comparison). The aim of using indicators could include the following: Providing information to support policy dialogue and increase efficiency in resource use; Providing a system of early warning; Quantifying a situation, highlighting its significance and monitoring progress and trends; Simplifying data and presenting it in a form directly relevant to the problem at hand, and to the people handling the problem; Enabling evaluation and assessing the impact of policy decisions; and Facilitate external monitoring, thus ensuring transparency and accountability.

What makes a good indicator?1

A good indicator must be:

Resonant: clear and easy to interpret and within the sphere of understanding and relevance of the user (national or local government, communities, organizations or individuals). Valid: the data from which the indicator is drawn needs to be as comprehensive and credible as possible (while noting that it should be easily accessible, and inexpensive to develop or obtain), and the method used to develop the indicator must be as transparent as possible. Motivational: reflecting issues that are within the sphere of influence of the user, so provoking and inspiring change. This should include the capacity to link to targets, show trends over time and cover issues that are deemed to be significant.

Besides the above issues, there are several important aspects to be reviewed when developing indicators 2 which include: a. The target audience and objectives; b. The type of indicators to be collected; c. The methodology and data quality.

Below each of these aspects are reviewed briefly. a. Target Audience and Objectives Indicator selection depends significantly on which of the three following broad categories of target audiences and purposes are most relevant:

Target Audience

Examples of Objective

Local authorities and their partners

Promoting policy dialogue and change

National governments & civil society

Accountability and efficiency in resource use

Development professionals/ academics

Advocacy and comparison

For each target audience and objective, different indicator systems can be designed which best fit the objective and target audience in terms of relevance and understandability. b. Type of Indicators Five types of indicator are commonly used to measure performance: a - Input indicators measure the resources required to produce outputs, and the institutional environment in which the organisation functions. These include such things as budget allocations, human resources, time required to produce outputs and institutional constraints. b - Process indicators include the actions necessary within an organisation to achieve the results. These can include the quality of administrative systems, procedures, policies and plans. c - Output indicators show the externally visible results of the inputs and processes. These include goods and services that satisfy citizen needs, for example, number of water stand-pipes installed, access to information counters, number of permits processed, etc. d - Outcome indicators measure the long-term goals or benefits derived from a process, usually in the form of satisfied needs or changes in behaviour. e - Impact indicators measure the impact of service delivery on the quality of life, economic and environmental conditions.

Figure 1: Input, Process, Output, Outcome and Impact indicators

INPUT

PROCESS

OUTPUT

OUTCOME
Effectiveness of Services

IMPACT

Local government efficiency Efficient use of Resources Policy effectiveness

Inputs the sources require to produce goods and services. Process - the way a Local Government manages its resources to produce goods and services. Outputs - the goods and services produced, the achievement of which are within the control of Local Governments. Outcomes -the service level reached. Impact the impacts of service delivery on Quality of Life, Economic and Environmental Conditions.

c. Methodology and Data Quality Data can be broadly divided into objective and subjective measures. Objective data are those generally collected by national statistics offices or by cities themselves to measure performance. Subjective data is usually obtained through either surveys or evaluations by the public or experts. Objective data makes comparison possible at the national, regional and global levels. Objective data can complement subjective surveys for self-assessment to be used at the city level. Although using objective data, comparability of data can still be an issue for example because different countries have different definitions of a city. The limited availability of data makes comparisons between cities difficult. This, combined with the fact that many governance issues are difficult to measure directly often implies that proxy indicators must be used. Proxy indicators are indicators for aspects of which no data are available. For example, when water quality data for a particular river is not available, proxy indicators such as water colour and turbidity and the presence of living organisms can be used as substitute measures to indicate water quality.

Performance Indicators for Good Urban Governance The schematic relationship between indicators and good governance is represented below in figure 2. Figure 2: Good Governance and Indicators

Good Governance Norms

Policy Objectives

Action Plans

Indicators The characteristics or norms of good governance as advocated by various agencies (please see Table 2, Chapter One) can be used to draw up a system of indicators which can measure progress towards institutional objectives. At the global level, UN-Habitat, through its Global Urban Observatory (GUO), has established a list of standardized urban indicators. While there are about 22 general or global indicators, the total number of detailed indicators is between 120-150 (depending on the particular version of the Urban Indicators System). These are only indicative in nature, although they can serve the purpose of providing a general overview of the performance of a city as a whole. The same indicators can also be used to characterize the performance of individual departments. The main categories of these indicators cover: a. Shelter b. Social development and the eradication of poverty c. Environmental Management d. Economic Development e. Governance. Within each of the above categories, the following aspects are considered: the level of decentralization; citizen involvement in major planning decisions; transparency and accountability; local government revenue and expenditures. In addition to this, UN-Habitat through its Global Campaign for Good Urban Governance is working on a Sourcebook for Urban Governance Indicators. The technique used to construct the Urban Governance Index (UGI) is similar to that used by UNDP for the Human Development Index. Separate sub-indices have been developed and these are combined to form a composite index.

The UGI is based on five sub-indices for each of which indicators have been defined. For each sub-index data is collected at city and country levels. The UGI is then calculated as a simple average of the dimension indices with equal weights. A low result close to 0 means very poor governance while a high result close to 1 means excellent performance and a good practice. Please see http://www.unhabitat.org/campaigns/governance/ for further information. The UN-Habitat Urban Governance Index

EFFECTIVENESS EVEN IF YOUR data is reliable, causality introduces yet another methodological problem. For example, does the existence of a disaster management plan lead to effective disaster management? Or, does a locally elected mayor increase accountability to civil society? Neither can be guaranteed. In the end, whatever data is collected, policies for the overall sustainability of human development will depend upon how we anticipate, recognize, measure and interpret the data.

1. Local government revenue per capita: Total local government revenue from all sources in US Dollars annually, both capital and recurrent, divided by population (3-year average). 2. Travel time to work: Average time in minutes for a work trip. 3. Expenditure on basic services: Percentage of local government expenditure on basic services. 4. Percentage of Transfers in total local government revenue: percentage of local government revenue originating from higher levels of government. This includes formula driven payments (such as repatriation of income tax), other grant donations from higher government levels including national or state governments and other types of transfers.
EQUITY

5. Households below local poverty line: Percentage of men- and women-headed households situated below the locally defined poverty line. 6. Households with access to water: Percentage of households having water located within 200 meters of the dwelling, whether through piped units or supplied from other households within the same neighbourhood, without being subjected to great effort to draw it. 7. Households with access to sanitation: Percentage of households, which have access to sanitary facilities within or outside the housing unit. 8. Percentage of women Councilors in local authorities: Percentage of women Councilors at the local authority level
PARTICIPATION

9. Adult literacy: The percentage of the adult population aged 15 years and over which can read and write a simple sentence with understanding 10. Voter participation by sex: The total percentage of male and female voters in elections relevant to the local authority level. 11. Civic associations per 10,000 population: The ratio of the number of civic associations to every 10,000 people within the local authoritys jurisdiction 12. Formal participation in projects and budgeting: Is the city involving the civil society in a formal participatory process before undertaking major public projects? Is the city involving the civil society in a formal budgeting process?
ACCOUNTABILITY

13. Control by higher levels of government - can higher levels of government: a) Close the local government? (Yes/No) b) Remove councilors from office (Yes/No) 14. Elected mayor: Is there a locally elected mayor (Yes/No) 15. Councilors per 10,000 population: The ratio of city councilors to every 10,000 people under the local authoritys jurisdiction. 16. Formal publication (contracts and tenders; budgets and accounts): Is there a formal publication of: Contracts and tenders (Yes/No), Budgets and accounts? (Yes/No)
SECURITY

17. Under Five Mortality: Percentage of male and female children who die before having attained their fifth birthday. Child mortality = Number of deaths for children below five years old during the year/average number of live births during the last five years. 18. Environmental action plan: Has the city established long-term strategic planning initiatives for sustainable development involving key partners? (Yes/No) 19. Crime prevention policy: (Yes/No): (1) Are there areas within the local authority jurisdiction that are considered inaccessible or dangerous by police? (2) Is there an official policy against domestic violence? (3) Is there a crime prevention policy? (4) Are there assistance programmes for victims of violence?

The Asian Development Bank has also developed a system of Urban Indicators for Managing Cities. Although predominantly focused on urban management issues, a few of the indicators consider urban governance in terms of functions of local government, voter participation, autonomy from central government, business and consumer satisfaction, reported crimes, access to information, contact with the public and existence of decentralized district units. In the Philippines, there are currently over 31 performance measurement initiatives pertaining good governance from which to choose. However, these have been rationalized by the Philippines Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) into the Local Productivity and Performance Measurement System (LPPMS) with elements of a Citizens Satisfaction Index System (CSIS) and a Local Development Watch (LDW).

Using Performance Indicators: Lessons Learned Since the integration of urban management indicators (indicators for service levels, service coverage, etc) and urban governance indicators (indicators for transparency, level of participation, etc) is still relatively new, many are still searching for the ideal system. Most of the performance measurement systems are generally based on a self-assessment by the local governments or internal auditors. Rarely do these performance measurement systems involve other stakeholders, except of course in the case of service provision surveys. Many of the systems which are available also tend to be quite complicated and expensive to implement. International experience suggests that there is a need for adequate time and hands-on experience before the benefits of an effective performance measurement system can be realized. There are also situations in which these systems can be combined with nationally derived minimum standards that are linked with financial incentives provided by national agencies to local governments. With regards such standards, there is the additional issue of ownership of process as countries which have introduced performance standards for certain sectors have required several years to achieve a broad acceptance of these across the country and through all institutional levels. As for performance-oriented financial incentives, these are in turn dependent on the existence of clear indicators that can be monitored without bias or vested interest. Hence, even though the introduction of performance measurement systems will take time, if this process is consensus-based and all relevant parties are participating, there are good chances for success. Capacity development within local governments to manage this performance will also be crucial. Another lesson learned is that developing an indicators system requires considerable time and effort. A major impediment to sustaining an effective urban indicators and performance measurement system in cities has been insufficient capacity and resources. It is therefore recommended that initiatives begin within one or two sectors where data collection and analysis are reasonably achievable and only then move on to more complex topics at a later stage. Once the system is in place, then it should be refined as an ongoing and continuously improving initiative.

Landry, Charles (2000). The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. Earthscan, United Kingdom. This section builds on the Urban Governance Indicators Source book, Draft 1, UN-Habitat Global Campaign on Urban Governance and Global Urban Observatory.
9

10

The TUGI Report Cards Local Governance

The TUGI Report Cards

AS A

Tool

FOR

he TUGI Report Cards provide a very simple approach to local government performance assessment. The tool is also in-built with a constructive and creative process for developing action plans.

The 15 TUGI report cards include: Children; Civil Society Participation; Corruption; Cultural Heritage; Elderly Citizens; Employment and Job Creation; Gender and Development; Health Services; HIV-AIDS; Physically and Mentally Challenged; Public Transportation and Traffic Congestion; Shelter and Housing; Solid Waste Collection and Disposal; The General Report Card; Urban Poverty; Water and Sanitation.

The tool currently covers fifteen different development issues but can easily be adapted to accommodate more topics. The Report Cards have the objective of promoting greater participation in the evaluation of city performance and increasing public ownership and responsibility of the governance process. The Report Cards can be used for the following purposes: They are a simple, low cost and flexible tool which enable the quantitative or qualitative assessment depending on the type of indicators used - of governance in the local context; Report Cards enable local government institutions and their civil society and corporate sector partners to collectively construct a framework for good governance; Report Cards provide a forum for stakeholders to voice their concerns and raise issues; By using the Report Cards, lack of trust among partners can be overcome and mutual respect gained; The Report Cards can be used to improve accountability and transparency; The Report Cards enable communities to come to a common understanding of what good governance means to them within the local context; The tool helps to build consensus towards creating partnerships for good governance. It must be mentioned here that the TUGI Report Cards do not necessarily give rise to a unity in methodology, unless expressly advocated by the local implementing agency. In fact, the tool inspires innovation, adaptability and user-friendliness in its application.

How it works In Chapter Four, a step-by-step guideline is provided on how to use the Report Cards. Briefly, however, the tool involves a process which begins with the selection of an urban issue, for example shelter and housing or HIV & AIDS, for which a governance performance review needs to be conducted. Then, identify the major interest groups concerned with this issue. Representatives from these various groups then sit down together in a stakeholders meeting which determines the objectives of using the Report Card, selects the characteristics of good governance with which to assess the particular issue and develops a set of indicators for each characteristic. Governance performance is then rated by the target sector or respondents of the Report Card, with each indicator receiving a score based on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). The rating process can reflect either subjective perceptions of governance performance or provide objective data if the scores of 1 to 5 have specific, verifiable values assigned to each number. For example, in a community or part of the city where treated water is supplied by water pipelines that extend out into individual homes, but where the flow of water may be intermittent, the indicator could be phrased as follows:

How good is your access to piped water for daily use?

11

A subjective set of responses would need a score sheet that reflects perceptual ratings of 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good), and all responses would be arbitrary based on individual experience. However, it is a good way of assessing public satisfaction levels of urban service delivery. The service provider will obtain indicative information about customer satisfaction within specific geographical areas, which could be linked with bill collection trends. An objective set of responses, on the other hand, would involve the respondent selecting, for example, one of the below ratings: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: Less than 2 hours of water flow per day. Water flow available between 2-4 hours per day Water flow available between 4-8 hours per day Water flow available between 8-12 hours per day Water flow available for more than 12 hours per day

The actual indicators or questions measuring a certain aspect of the urban issue can be made up of a mixture of input, process, output, outcome and impact indicators, as long as they meet the objectives devised by the stakeholders group. For more information on types of indicators, please refer to page 7, Types of Indicators. When the data obtained from such indicators is analysed, it will be possible to map the quality of service delivery, and target investments in service improvements in a much more effective manner. The data is also the basis for building a data bank on the urban quality of life, and can be used for planning and policy development. The summary, TUGI Report Cards can be used as a tool to initiate the following: - Public participation in local decision- making; - Collecting data and monitoring information towards creating a database on urban issues; - Planning and developing strategic policies; - Measuring impact and effectiveness of implementation; - Promoting accountability and transparency.

Example of Good Governance Report Card, n the issue of Water and Sanitation Good Governance Report Card on

Water and Sanitation

Issue: Water and Sanitation Characteristic: Efficiency Indicators (Questions or statements to measure performance related to the efficiency of service provided). Rating / Grade 1: Very Poor 2: Poor 3: Moderate 4: Good 5: Very Good

1) Indicator 1: How good is your access to piped water for daily use? 2) Indicator 2: How good is the quality of water that you receive? 3) Indicator 3: How willing are you to pay for the quality of services provided? 4) Indicator 4: How convenient is the timing of water flow to your home? Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%):

12

Steps

FOR

using

THE

TUGI Report Cards

n this chapter, we have presented a simple, step-by-step set of instructions for Report Cards implementers, which is not in any way set in stone. In fact, we encourage users to innovate, adapt and improve on the methodology, and would appreciate information and feedback from you with regards your experience. For comments or questions, please send an E-mail to tugi@undp.org.

What do you need to start?

A set of TUGI Report Cards; A group of motivated people who want to take the lead in using the Report Cards to achieve a particular objective; and The Report Card Users Manual

Figure 3: Steps for Using the Report Cards

1. Select an issue to be assessed

2. Convene a stakeholders meeting

3. Define the objective of using the RC

6. Develop the indicators

5. Select the characteristics of good governance

4. Select a target sector who will use the RC

7. Decide on the rating system

8. Compile data

9. Disseminate and discuss results

Step 1: Select an Issue of Concern The first step is to select an issue for which you would like to review local governance performance. TUGI has developed an example set of 15 Report Cards on various critical issues from which you can choose, although you can easily add new topics. Selection of the issue remains largely dependent on local conditions and priorities that are relevant to the citizens and needing additional investigation or appraisal. Following are a list of the available topics. Children; Civil Society Participation; Corruption; Cultural Heritage; Elderly Citizens; Employment and Job Creation; Gender and Development; Health Services; HIV-AIDS; Physically and Mentally Challenged; Public Transportation and Traffic Congestion; Shelter and Housing; Solid Waste Collection and Disposal; The General Report Card; Urban Poverty; Water and Sanitation.

TIP
During the field-testing in Cebu City, the Philippines, the Report Cards were used just a few months before local elections. This made the process of data-collection as well as interpretation very politicised. Timing of datacollection is crucial in order to ensure that the results will be taken seriously and follow-up will be done. If the Report Cards are used immediately following an election, the tool could help to develop participatory, strategic plans as well as determine development priorities for the city.

13

Step 2: Convene a Stakeholders Meeting and Obtain People-Will Anybody can take the initiative to start using the Report Cards. A local government unit, NGO or grassroots organisation can suggest the methodology and take the lead in implementing the assessment. Since it is a participatory tool, this step will determine the extent to which the tool will be effective in increasing participation, as well as encourage ownership of the actions that are planned as a result of the conclusions arising from the Report Card process. This stakeholders group will be mainly responsible for adapting the design of the Report Cards to the local situation, planning, selecting the indicators, organising the ranking and compilation of data and to present and facilitate discussion over the results.

TIP
The objective of the using the Report Cards should not only depend on how you would like to use the information collected but should also depend on the other performance measurements systems which are already available. Try to build on other experiences rather than develop a completely new performance measurement system. Remember each system has its own special niche, and the best results will come when you match the tool to its particular area of expertise!

Step 3: Define an Objective for the Use of the Report Cards As described in Chapter 3, The Report Cards can be used for the following purposes: For enabling the quantitative or qualitative assessment depending on the type of indicators used - of governance in the local context; Report Cards enable local government institutions and their civil society and corporate sector partners to collectively construct a framework for good governance; Report Cards provide a forum for stakeholders to voice their concerns and raise issues; By using the Report Cards, lack of trust among partners can be overcome and mutual respect gained; The Report Cards can be used to improve accountability and transparency; The Report Cards enable communities to come to a common understanding of what good governance means to them within the local context; The tool helps to build consensus towards creating partnerships for good governance. Although the Report Card can simultaneously serve a number of different objectives, it needs to be decided by the stakeholders group what the main objective will be. The decision on the objective for using the Report Cards will affect the way in which indicators have to be formulated and how data will be collected. When rating governance performance, a more subjective approach to performance measurement can be used by obtaining citizens opinions or gauging customer satisfaction. When using the Report Cards for data collection which will support policy-decisions, a more objective way of data collection needs to be ensured. A combination of the objective and subjective data collection techniques is also possible. In Figure 4 below, the main elements of the continuum of objective versus subjective data-collection are presented. Figure 4: Objective of Using the Report Cards

TIP
When using the Report Cards for subjective data collection, think about how the participants will later rate the indicators. Use words that people can understand. It will be important to make the indicators as clear as possible. Rating should allow for respondents to communicate their opinion on the performance of the city in all the aspects which the stakeholder group decides to include in the assessment.

Approach

Subjective

Objective To Collect data on a particular situation Implement a Report Card survey in which ratings have specific values assigned to each score Develop a scale which can be used to give value to information that is collected

Objective in Using To Survey Public Opinion/ the Report Cards: Satisfaction Data-collection method Have people give their opinion about the issue using the Report Cards like a questionnaire Have people rate certain question statements using their own experiences and views

Rating

14

Step 4: Select a Target Sector Decide on who will be the primary set of respondents in the Report Card survey, where the geographical position of the community is, how many people will be involved in the initial test run, and how many will be finally providing feedback in the actual implementation. Try and find out in advance some basic information about the conditions of the target sector, as well as what their needs and aspirations may be so that the results of the Report Card testing can galvanize the community into action on the issues of their concern.

Example of Indicators for Cultural Heritage:

In Penang, Malaysia, the Report Cards were used to measure the performance of the city in preserving Cultural Heritage. For the good governance principle of participation, the following indicators were used: 1. Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the private sector and the civil society groups for the conservation and promotion of cultural heritage. 2. Extent of NGO involvement in conservation education and promotion. 3. Extent of private sector involvement in the maintenance and conservation of heritage buildings, monuments and sites of cultural importance. 4. Extent of community mobilisation for the conservation of cultural heritage (e.g. religious organisations, urban villages, neighbourhoodlevel groups).

Step 5: Select the Characteristics of Good Governance The stakeholders group needs to select which set of characteristics it would like to use for the report cards. Various principles have already been developed by different agencies for differing purposes. This does not prevent you from designing your own and determining what you think to be the key characteristics of good governance. This step will also provide an opportunity to adapt the concept of good governance to your own local setting. One way of establishing your own list of characteristics of good governance is to ask everybody in the stakeholder group to write down what they think are the most important characteristics of good governance (one characteristic on one sheet of paper). To compare all these entries, group them and come out with one list of characteristics.

Step 6: Develop your own Indicators For each good governance principle, you will have to define indicators relevant to the issue and to your citys particular circumstances. The key to effectively using the TUGI Report Cards lies in developing your own set of indicators by working with the stakeholders group. The indicators that are developed in collaboration with the stakeholders will be far more effective as a tool for assessing public satisfaction than a prescriptive set of indicators developed by TUGI. Hence the examples given in the original Report Cards are for reference only. TUGI proposes, for ease of calculation, that for each characteristic chosen to analyse the issue, a set of FOUR indicators or question measuring a perception should be developed. For example, if your critical urban issue is Shelter and Housing and you have identified 5 good governance characteristics with which you would like to assess that particular service delivery, you will need to select 20 indicators (4 indicators for each characteristic). To select indicators of good governance: a. Select a focus group from the target sector, i.e. representatives from the community in which you want to use the Report Cards as a tool to assess public satisfaction of city performance in good governance. b. For each principle of good governance, develop a set of four indicators that would gauge public perception of a particular service or issue.

TIP
c. The recommended list of indicators provided at the bottom of every page in the Report Cards is mainly only to inspire you. You can work out new indicators in consultation with all participating stakeholders. When developing your own new indicators please keep in mind that the indicators should be: Relevant: they should serve an clearly defined purpose; Understandable: are easy to understand, even by people who are not specialists; Reliable: provide information you can trust; Attainable: use information that is available.
It is recommended that you start small. You should not cover too many issues the first time around, neither should your sample be too big. Start small with maybe the testing of the Report Cards you have designed in one area or only for a limited number of respondents.

15

Critique on the Scientific Value of the Report Card

The Report Card approach has often been critiqued for the fact that samples are often taken without proper statistical review and methodologies. To some extent this criticism is correct. The users of the data should understand that this is a very limited tool that is only as scientifically vigorous as the research methodology that you decide to use. The more complex the respondents sampling is done, the more valid your data will be. Conversely, the more complex the methodology, the harder it is for lay-people to own the process and the outcomes. The relative simplicity of the instrument is at the same time one of its strengths.

Step 7: Decide on the Rating System Depending on the objective of your review, data will be collected either on the opinions of citizens about a perceived situation (subjective) or information can be collected through field surveys of responses that have assigned values. For the subjective approach, you can provide the selected number of respondents with a number of statements which they have to rate, based on their own opinion. For the objective approach, a more structured data collection methodology should be developed to collect information on the actual situation. Conduct a test run of the indicators and the ratings amongst a smaller group of respondents so that adjustments and improvements can be made and absorbed before actual implementation.

Step 8: Compile data For the subjective approach, ask the target group to rate the performance of your city by giving scores to each indicator (1 point for very poor - 5 points for very good). Rating can be done by a simple survey (approaching a number of people and have them rate the indicators) or in consultation (e.g. through a workshop process where stakeholders sit together and jointly agree on the rating system). Based on the data collected, work out the percentage score from each respondent for each characteristic that you have selected (total points per respondent divided by maximum score possible1 , multiplied by 100%).

Example for Objective Data Collection Using the Report Cards

In Colombo Sri Lanka, a Poverty Profile was developed using the Report Cards. The urban poor communities were reviewed based on their current asset base and improvements in amenities of urban poor settlements as a whole (rather then the individual households).

For the objective approach, you will need to develop a rating system which is then linked to a value. In order to be able to compare data, you will need to agree which rate corresponds to what value. In Colombo, Sri Lanka, where a Poverty Profile was developed, the working group agreed on the rating system before sending the District Office Field staff to the various communities to collect data. The working group had developed 20 indicators which would help them define the poverty status of a particular community. Indicators ranged from the Land Ownership of the Settlement to the Level of Functioning of the Community Based Organisation. Each indicator was given a rating (1 being very poor, 5 being very good) based on a scale. For example for the indicators of the issue of Employment the following scale was agreed upon: Example rating of data-results in Colombo, Sri Lanka Type of employment Over 50% of the families have permanent employment Over 50% of the families are self-employed Over 50% of the families have no regular employment Over 50% of the families are unemployed Scale
5 4 3 1

District Office Field staff were trained in order to carry out the community surveys in a participatory way. The municipal staff used standard checklists which were completed based on the review of the situation in the selected areas. Random checks of areas surveyed were carried out to assure data reliability and verify data lists.
(see Chapter 5 for an extended write up on this case)

Score

For both the objective and subjective Approaches, the total score and percentage of your citys overall performance in good governance should be calculated by adding up the individual scores and divide this by the total possible score2 . Multiply this result with 100 and come to the percentage score.

Percentage score =

Total Score Total Possible Score

X 100%

16

Assess the effectiveness of your governance system based on the following suggested scale:
85%-100% 65%-84% 50%-64% 35%-49% Below 35% Very good. (Keep it up) Good. (But still room to improve) Fair. (Can do much better) Poor. (More commitment and effort needed) Very poor. (Something is drastically wrong)

TIP
In some cases cities chose to make the data and information available to all whom were involved in the Report Card process. Through this method you ensure that all stakeholders have the same information and knowledge about current problems. It is best if the Report Cards are translated into a language which is easily understood by the respondents.

Note: You may wish to choose your own comments for each score. It is best to be able to present the results on the same day as you do the evaluation in order to ensure that direct discussion and follow up can be arranged.

Step 9: Disseminate and Discuss Results After calculating the results, they should be put together in an understandable and clear format which will appeal to those you want to influence (e.g. city council, mayor, etc.) Publicize the results of the Report Card and any follow-up action through news releases, press conferences and media interviews to create public awareness and encourage wider participation. The Report Cards should form a starting point for discussions and action. The participants involved in rating may decide to form partnerships to address the problems and develop joint plans of action to improve the governance performance.

TIP
Besides calculating the overall score of performance of the cities for each of the principles of good governance, it is interesting to calculate the results per stakeholder group in order to identify any major differences in opinion between stakeholders. How do local government officials perceive the level of participation of civil organizations compared to the views of representatives of the private sector or NGOs?

TIP
When presenting the results of the Report Card, be prepared for questions on the methodology used and the limitations which the approach has. The Report Cards are not so much a scientific tool as they are a process tool for bringing together stakeholders and encouraging ownership of the governance process, which in itself is almost as important as the actual scores achieved.
2

In case you have 4 indicators and the maximum score for each of the indicators is 5 (very good), the total maximum score is 4 x 5 = 20

17

18

Examples

OF

Using

THE

TUGI Report Cards

he TUGI Report Cards have been field-tested in over 22 cities on 9 urban issues. They have been localized and translated into 7 different languages, and used with target sectors that range from children to women employed in the informal economy.

In this chapter, two specific and successful experiences of using the Report Cards are described. These include: The use of Report Cards to develop a Poverty Reduction Strategy in Colombo, Sri Lanka; The use of Report Cards in promoting Women in Local Decision-making in Cebu, the Philippines. Other field-testing reports available from TUGI include the following: Solid Waste Collection and Disposal in Bangalore and Guntur, India Cultural Heritage in Medan, Indonesia and Penang, Malaysia Urban Poverty in Calcutta and Delhi, India Shelter and Housing in Colombo and Kandy, Sri Lanka Water Supply and Sanitation in Karachi and Gharo, Pakistan Civil Society Participation in Butwal and Lalitpur, Nepal Employment and Job Creation in Cebu and Pasig City, Philippines The General Report Card on Good Urban Governance, Kathmandu, Nepal

Report Cards for Developing a Poverty Reduction Strategy in Sri Lanka

Introduction
Sri Lanka has been a test bed for a number of innovative approaches aimed at solving the urban housing problem as well as improving urban livelihoods in general. Most of these programmes were implemented by central government agencies, and there was little, if any, integration of the initiatives into the local government system. For example in the city of Colombo, urban development projects are often formulated on assumptions that are unsupported by baseline data, and without a holistic analysis of the situation of urban poverty. The determination of poverty levels was also not based on a comprehensive set of indicators. One predominant view concerning poverty in Colombo was that families who were living in informal settlements were one and the same as urban poor population who constituted over one half of the total city population. Urban poverty was at that time defined based on the physical condition of houses and the services available to the people. The preparation of a Poverty Profile for the City of Colombo was one of the major activities of the United Kingdoms Department for International Development (DFID)- funded and Urban Management Programme (UMP)/UN-HABITAT executed Urban Poverty Reduction Project that had been in operation in Colombo Municipality during the period of 2001 2003. The project was the first ever city-level effort to identify the issues and strategies to reduce urban poverty in Colombo. The significance of this project lay in its focus on reducing urban poverty through a community empowerment process. The Poverty Profile of Colombo City was the result of an intensive cooperative effort of several actors involved in urban development. It included urban poor communities, NGOs, municipal officers and other stakeholders who contributed to identifying the key issues, and the appropriate perspectives, strategies and actions for reducing urban poverty.
19

The preparation of a poverty profile was a city-wide task assigned to SEVANATHA Urban Resource Centre, a leading urban-based NGO in Sri Lanka. Sevanatha was also the partner organization of the DFID- and UN Habitat-assisted urban poverty reduction project in Colombo municipality. SEVANATHA had tested the TUGI Report Cards in Colombo as well as Kandy municipality a year prior to the preparation of the poverty profile. Having gained the experience in using the Report Cards as a method in improving municipal management, SEVANATHA managed to apply the tool very successfully in preparing the poverty profile and for the development of a strategy for poverty reduction in Colombo. This section within Chapter 5 presents an explanation on how the TUGI Report Card method was used in preparing the Poverty Profile of Colombo City, as well as provide an analysis of its impact on urban development in Sri Lanka.

Assumptions The SEVANATHA Urban Resource Centre is a member of the Working Group (WG) of the Poverty Reduction Project, and had been appointed to the task by the City Mayor. The development of the Poverty Profile was discussed in WG meetings which considered and reviewed some of the following key assumptions in developing a poverty profile: Poverty in Colombo is mainly an issue of urban low-income settlements. However, no in-depth study had been carried out to justify this assumption; A large number of programs and projects have been implemented to improve the physical, social and environmental conditions of the urban low income settlements in Colombo in the past two to three decades. However, no proper investigation was made to identify the impacts of such development interventions. As a result, public funds continue to be spent in these communities without proper understanding of community needs and aspirations; Urban poor communities in Colombo who have been the beneficiaries of government or formal sector development initiatives have had no real opportunity to understand their own position in the city, their resource capabilities, strengths as well as their rights. Hence they became mainly a group of passive recipients of government assistance.

Key Principles considered in carrying out a new survey through a participatory process Based on the above assumptions, the Working Group agreed on a number of key principles for creating the poverty profile: Understanding the urban poor communities should be based on understanding their current asset base (assets as defined under the DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework); Make as much use as possible of available data and do not recreate the available information by carrying out expensive baseline surveys; Accessing the levels of access to amenities by urban poor settlements should be based on a review of the entire community unit rather than considering individual households; The entire study should be based on a consultative process involving the relevant stakeholder groups at different level of operation; The urban poor communities should not be assumed to be confined geographically within poor settlements but should be considered as being an active segment of the overall city that contributes to keep the city a livable place.

Method for the Poverty Survey Based on the above, the Working Group wanted to use a participatory tool that was appropriate for collecting accurate data in interaction with communities and which would involve district level municipal staff at every step of the preparation of poverty profile.
20

After review of various tools, Colombo Municipality and SEVANATHA selected the TUGI Report Cards for the poverty survey because: It was simple and flexible; It could brings all stakeholders together in designing as well as implementing the survey. It was a technique which enabled the groups interested in municipal management to assess the performance of the programs being implemented by different agencies within the municipality. It was a tool that provides the community as well as stakeholders with a good set of indicators as well as a participatory methodology for them to assess the situation for themselves.

Key Steps of the Study Process

Step
Step One Introduce the Project to the Mayor and the Staff of Colombo Municipal Council (CMC)

Activity
1.1 Project briefing to the Mayor

Participants
UMP South Asia Regional Office Representatives Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Professional Services) SEVANATHA Staff Mayor Commissioner Deputy Municipal Commissioner (PS) Heads of Departments CMC SEVANATHA Staff Mayor Commissioner Deputy Municipal Commissioner Heads of Departments of CMC District Office Senior Staff Working Group Members CMC SEVANATHA Staff

Output
Official approval by the Mayor Agree on appointing three Project Coordinators

1.2 Project Presentation to Heads of Departments at an Institutional Development Meeting

Project awareness by Heads of Departments Identify and appoint members to the Project Working Group (WG)

1.3 Project Presentation to District Level Staff of CMC

Project awareness among district level officials Commitment for project activities at district level

Step Two Develop Criteria to Assess Poverty in Low Income Communities

2.1 Collection and Review of Literature 2.2 Prepare Draft List of Indicators 2.3 Obtain Comments of Working Group Members & Relevant Stakeholders on the Draft Indicator List 2.4 Consultation on Improved Draft List of Indicators

SEVANATHA Staff Working Group - CMC SEVANATHA Staff Working Group - CMC Working Groups - CMC Professionals Municipal Staff Community Leaders SEVANATHA Staff

Gather relevant information Draft list of indicators prepared Improved draft list of indicators

District level Staff of CMC Working Group Members CMC Deputy Municipal Commissioner SEVANATHA Staff

Agreed on a final list of indicators

21

Step
Step Three Training of Municipal Staff to Carry out the Participatory Survey Using the Indicator List

Activity
3.1 Two Days Training Sessions by SEVANATHA for District Office Field Staff held (each day, the morning was devoted to understanding the use of indicators, while the afternoon session was given to the field testing process and obtaining feedback)

Participants
Health Instructors (HIs) Technical Officers (TOs) Senior District Office Staff Working Group Members SEVANATHA Staff

Output
Familiarization of the use of indicators in community survey Understanding participatory techniques in field work Team spirit building among the field staff of Public Health Department (HIs) and the Engineering Department (TOs)

Step Four Carrying out the Community Survey

4.1 Updating the List of Low Income Communities in Colombo 4.2 Allocate Communities to be Surveyed among HIs and TOs at Municipal Ward Level

Public Health Department GIS Unit of CMC SEVANATHA Staff District MOH District Engineer and other Staff Chief Health Education Officer (CHEO) Assistant Chief Health Education Officer (ACHEO) HIs & TOs Community Leaders SEVANATHA Staff Assistant Chief Health Education Officer (ACHEO) District Engineers SEVANATHA Staff

Updated community list

Agreed on work allocation

4.3 Carrying out Participatory Survey in Communities 4.4 Random check of Surveyed /Completed Indicator List

One completed indicator list for each community

Assured reliability of the data and verified data lists

Step Five Analysis of Survey Data

5.1 Categorization of Data Sheets on Ward and District Basis

ACHEOs CHEO District Engineers HIs & TOs SEVANATHA Staff

Ward and district level data files prepared

5.2 Computer Processing of Data

SEVANATHA Staff

Analytical data on communities Categories of communities based on levels of development identified

Step Six Sharing the Preliminary Survey Findings with the Communities

6.1 Sharing of Information at Community Meetings

Community Members (men, women, children) HIs & TOs ACHEOs Local Politicians SEVANATHA Staff Community Leaders HIs & TOs District Level Municipal Officials Heads of Municipal Departments Working Group Members UMP Regional Office Representative SEVANATHA Staff

Verified the information on communities Identified issues of poverty and possible strategies

6.2 Sharing Information at a Mini Consultation (city level)

Reached community agreement on survey findings in Districts 3 & 4 Community views on poverty reduction strategies discussed

22

Step
Step Seven Dissemination of Study Findings

Activity
7.1 Preparation of the Poverty Profile 7.2 Preparation of a Video Documentary of the Study Process 7.3 Colombo City Consultation

Participants
CMC SEVANATHA Staff CMC SEVANATHA Staff

Output
Draft Poverty Profile of Colombo Video documentary

Community Municipal Councilors CMC Staff Representatives of National Level Agencies Professionals Donor Community Reps NGOs Private Sector SEVANATHA Staff

Final version of the City Profile

Step Eight Poverty Strategy, Action Plan and Demonstration Projects

8.1 Poverty Strategy for Colombo

Community CMC SEVANATHA Staff Relevant Stakeholders Community CMC SEVANATHA Staff Stakeholders Community CMC SEVANATHA Staff Stakeholders UMP Funding Agencies Community CMC SEVANATHA Staff UMP

Poverty Strategy developed

8.2 Develop Action Plan and Demo Projects

Local area Action Plans prepared

8.3 Implement Demo Projects

Community-based demonstration projects prepared and implemented

8.4 Monitor, Document & Disseminate Project Experiences

Best practices disseminated Print and electronic documents distributed City wide benefits to urban poor

Impact
Using the TUGI Report Card system to develop the Urban Poverty Profile for Colombo City resulted in the following positive outcomes: A database on low income settlements in Colombo Municipality as been developed in which the poorest settlements in the city have been identified in terms of: number of residents; geographical distribution/locations in wards; settlements are grouped into issues like land tenure problems, service deficiencies, eviction threats, non-availability of CBOs. The Council has realized the magnitude of the problem and has taken the initiative to assist very poor settlements not only from DFID and UN Habitat funds but also from council resources and from other external sources; People in the very poor settlements are aware that their settlements are comparatively the worst off in the city and are getting organized to get the attention of council members and mobilize their own resources to rectify the situation; After people realized that their neighbourhoods were the poorest in the city, the municipality as well as NGOs found that community organization has been easier as people had a common cause.
23

 Because of the vested interest of local politicians, it had always been a problem to select settlements for livelihood improvement programs. Due to the local level influences, relatively well-off communities were often selected for support. The TUGI Report Card method was a useful instrument for the local authority and planning agencies in making accurate selections of communities for support or intervention. As it has created a sound database at local authority level, prevents the selection of the same communities for several programs and avoids the inadvertent exclusion of very poor and disorganized communities from development programs. Councilors and officers now refer to the poverty profile when they take decisions in allocation of funds in the annual budget and in carrying out municipal service delivery functions. They are interested to know whether there are any improvements in the livelihoods of the people in very poor settlements, as had been identified in the poverty profile. After realizing the actual description of the poverty situation in the city, Colombo Municipal Council has taken actions to improve good urban governance practices in municipal management. For example it has decentralized some service delivery functions to district level and formalized civil society involvement in poverty reduction activities of the municipality.

Report Cards for Gender in Cebu CITY, THE PHILIPPINES

Active civil society participation in city governance has gained wide recognition locally as a necessary and important step towards achieving good governance in Cebu City, the Philippines. Since the 1990s NGOs in the city have changed their stance from one of confrontation to critical collaboration with the city government. Since then they have been intensifying their political engagement beyond advocacy and service delivery by participating in policy legislation or reformulation, city planning, programme planning, implementation and monitoring as well as conflict management and resolution. One of the more prominent NGOs in Cebu, Lihok Pilipina, was established by women for women and their concerns. The organisation had the objective of creating self-sufficient groups that could sustain independent initiatives in addressing issues affecting women. It also aimed to expand acceptance and influence of womens perspectives and enhance their involvement in creating social transformation. Lihok Pilipina learned of the TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance in July of 2000 and volunteered to field test the Report Card on Gender and Development. Below is a report on their experiences, and the unexpected benefits derived from the initiative.

The Process
A Technical Working Group was formed with one representative each from the NGO, academia, women, and a lawyers group. The Team Leader briefed the members on the TUGI Good Urban Governance Report Card and the Terms of Reference for Field Testing. # of Indicators Characteristics Participation Rule of Law Transparency Responsiveness Consensus Orientation Equity Effectiveness and Efficiency Accountability General 9 5 3 5 4 4 10 6 GAD 8 5 6 5 5 6 4 4 The TUGI Report Cards (the General Report Card and the Report Card on Gender and Development, GAD) were reviewed and revised to situate them in the local context. 47 indicators were agreed upon for the Gender and Development Issue Report Card and 50 indicators for the General Report Card. It was agreed to revise the formulation into question form and to translate the report card into Cebuano, the local dialect.

24

The project organized the Local Steering Committee meeting at the start of project implementation. Representatives from the media, business, academia and the mayors office were briefed about the project and were consulted regarding its implementation. With their inputs, the bilingual questionnaire, the major interest groups and list of participants were finalized. It was agreed that an equal number of participants will be invited per sector and that the report card will be printed in English with the Cebuano translation below it in italics. For the rating, the percentage scores used in most schools were adopted.
85%-100% 65%-84% 50%-64% 35%-49% Below 35% Very good. (Keep it up) Good. (But still room to improve) Fair. (Can do much better) Poor. (More commitment and effort needed) Very poor. (Something is drastically wrong)

The ranking
A total of eighty-five (85) representatives (30 male and 55 female) participated in the consultation which was held in November, 2000. The government sector was represented by city and barangay (urban poor community) officials (4), representatives of the justice system (2), and the City Health Office (3). The 59 private sector and civil society participants came from different sectors: business (1), cooperatives (3), vendors (2), labour (2), farmers (3), urban poor (4), NGOs (4), religious (1), academia (3), students (24), children (3), elderly (7), and the media (2).

Results
The overall result of the General Report Card indicated that the city performed fairly in terms of achieving good urban governance. The government sector rated Cebu Citys performance as good with an average of 67.83% while the civil society representatives including the students gave a lower rating at an average of 54.91% or fair. Of the nine characteristics, transparency, participation and responsiveness received the highest rating amongst local government officials, private sector and civil society respectively, with participation having an overall highest score. This was analysed to be a result of Cebu Citys previous track record of government-non-governmental partnership. However, all sectors gave the lowest score to equity. The local government officials rating on city performance in the Gender and Development (GAD) report card was again higher (68.11 or good) compared to that of civil society (57.38 or fair). With the creation of the womens desk in police stations and the Women and Family Affairs Commission by the city government, the local government officials perceived the city to be strong in participation. In contrast, the private sector and civil society rated efficiency and effectiveness and accountability respectively as the highest of the nine characteristics. As in the General Report Card, equity received the lowest rating in the GAD Report Card from the all the local government, private sector and civil society respondents. The results were tabulated for the participants to see. Their recommendations and comments on the tool were also presented. An Open Forum followed the presentation. A number of participants also requested for copies of the Report Card results. In the Open Forum, it was requested by the public attending that the monitoring be more regular. In reaction to some gender issues raised, the representative from the City Government informed the group that an Ordinance on the Gender and Development Code was being prepared. With this, the women insisted that they should be able to review the proposed provisions and provide inputs.

25

Action areas identified in the General Report Card and the Issue Report Card on Gender and Development in Cebu:
Need for representation (without discrimination in term of age, gender and others, in the city council, special bodies, and administration and in barangay mechanisms Need for consultation in affairs through regular dialogues, and identification of vision and priorities. Need for enforcement and implementation of existing laws and modifications of irrelevant provisions: Among these are laws on littering, tax collection, pornography, traffic, GAD budget, etc. Delivery of basic services like health, housing, and road repairs, elderly benefits and improvement of drainage, garbage collection, etc. Provision of jobs, employment and assistance for livelihood and entrepreneurship Mechanisms against corruption such as competency tests, monitoring agencies, grievance networks, etc. Morality is suggested as basis for selection of officials. Peace and order and security against crime and violence Free education and provision of scholarship and educational assistance Need for information and education for the public and suggested use of mass media to achieve the outreach

Follow-up
Two focus group discussions were conducted: one with the womens groups and one with academia on November 29, 2000. There were 20 participants from the womens groups (19 female and 1 male) and 10 from the academeia (9 female and 1 male). Both groups discussed only the Report Card on Gender and Development. Some of the participants however also filled up the General Report Card Form. The womens group rated the city as being fair (61.27%) with the high score on accountability and low score on equity. The academia gave the city a poor rating (47.7%) with a high score on accountability and a low score on effectiveness and efficiency. In the discussion with the women sector it was pointed out that they had given a higher rating to the city compared with the rating given by the multi-sectoral group. The women present argued that they are involved in various initiatives and activities that support gender empowerment, and that they were aware of the things being done for them and by them. Some who were not familiar with gender issues may not be aware of the things that are being done. This observation however, also means more needs to be done in terms of information and education for the public, so that assessment of the city as a whole is taken informatively into account, instead of seeing all responsibility for improving governance processes to lie only with the local authority. Much of the discussion centred on the need to implement the Gender and Development Budget as well as the need for more womens representation in the Legislative Councils and Special Bodies. While they see the need to be involved in the formal decision making process, they are adamant against joining politics. The have also proposed affirmative action for gender concerns.

Challenges and Opportunities

Local Government Representation and Feedback The project was implemented in the last quarter of 2000, a few months before the election campaign period (one of the most fought-over in the city). While the Mayor was open to the idea of the Report Card, he had designated as representative a City Councillor who in turn designated one of his staff to represent him in all the meetings. The summary of the results was finalized at the time of the election campaign. There was no opportunity to feedback the results formally to the administration. The then Mayor lost in the election that was eventually held in the early part of 2001. A copy of the results of the field testing was provided to the new administration in January 2002. Direct feedback to the administrations representatives was done only in the first week of March, 2003.
26

However, the previous governments initial commitment to enact the Gender Code was seen through. The Gender Code was passed during the election campaign period in 2001.

Data Base
It was seen that, without data as basis for the rating, the rating would be subjective. A staff that assisted the Technical Working Group prepared some profiles of the city in terms of population, health, education, composition of voters, and others. Much of the data was not disaggregated in terms of gender. Some of the summaries were made available during the consultation and posted on the walls, but most of the participants rated from their own experience. This gap was noticed by the respondents who opined that future exercises should be based on objective data in order to gauge the progress in performance.

Unequal representation
Summary scores per sector were posted on the walls. Since attendance from the various sectors was quite uneven, it was seen that some sectors with few representatives should have equal weight in their scoring compared to those who have more representatives. It was decided later that the final tabulation of the score would be divided by the total number of respondents and not summarized by sectors. The summary by sector would still be presented to gauge sectoral sentiments.

Impact:
Impact on the participants Participants to the multi-sectoral and the focus group discussions welcomed the use of the Report Card as follows:

..(The Report Cards) are an impressive, effective, commendable, informative and interesting way in which to measure effectiveness of services. It can be a guide to improve delivery of services, and participation. The consultation is empowering for it provided a venue for stakeholders to express their perceptions and opinion on governance. The consultation is a good indication that governance is working and that civil society is taking on an active role to promote the well-being of the community.

Impact on the Administration In its tendency to sensationalize information, the local daily wrote a report one day after the consultation which read, Alvin (the then Mayor.) fails Good Governance Report Card. What the effect may have been on the administration in the face of upcoming elections, it is difficult to gauge. However, the passage of the Gender Code was obviously fast tracked by an administration that was committed to getting it through. By December 2000 the womens groups were invited by the City Council to prepare suggestions and attend the public hearing. A series of discussions took place in January 2001. By March 14 the City Council enacted the Code, the first in the country, and the Mayor approved it on April 25, 2001, a few weeks before the election.
27

Impact on the womens groups:

The Gender Code Cebu: of Cebu

The Code includes provisions on gender sensitivity training of city hall officials and other groups, education, technology, environment and housing, responses to vulnerable sectors, research and others. The womens groups through the Cebu Womens Coalition outlined proposals for the implementation of the code as well as its corresponding budget.

The multi-sectoral consultation did not directly elicit concrete and timely responses from the city government on womens concerns. Improvement in the womens sector is rather the result of sustained advocacy by active womens groups. Despite this matter, the consultation created the opportunity for womens groups to assess the status of their demands vis-a-vis the city government response. Recognizing the gaps has heightened their advocacy efforts in order to attain their agenda. (Etemadi 2002)

Potentials/Opportunities
In the Philippines, various institutions have developed indicators and standards of performance for local government. Among these are the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), the Associates in Rural Development of the Governance and Local Democracy Project (GOLD), and the Development Academy of the Philippines (Etemadi 2002). However, monitoring of local governance that is undertaken by groups in civil society is still very limited. The TUGI Report Card provides an opportunity for Civil Society or private sector initiatives to monitor local performance in governance. A few months after the TUGI field testing, a number of womens groups undertook a monitoring of several government agencies of their compliance to the RA 6713 (Cebu Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Government Employees) using the Peoples Efficiency and Transparency (PEAT) Campaign Checklist prepared by the Solidarity for Justice Coalition. The result had been fed back to the agencies concerned through an integrity forum. A number of agencies responded positively to the issues raised. Recently, the TUGI Report Card Field Testing Results and the Bantay Banay Volunteers PEAT Monitoring results were presented to the representatives of the city government agencies, in the presence of the City Administrator and the City Planning Officer. It was recognized that just as there is a need for external audit in finance matters, the public could provide the external audit for the citys performance in good governance The possibility of integrating the Report Cards and the monitoring system in the Local Development Council (LDC) activities led by civil society was bought up. Lihok Pilipina was requested to submit an estimate of the budget to the City Planning committee. This will be studied for possible inclusion in the LDC Budget.

In Conclusion
The Urban Governance Initiatives Report Cards are a very good innovation. The Report Cards can be used by local government units, civil society and the private sector to regularly assess the citys performance in addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the citys political and administrative mechanisms; ensure the measurement of the impact of policies on good urban governance and look into the need to use appropriate and adaptable methodologies such as the Report Cards to develop locally-owned and defined indicators.

28

29

30

Annex 1:

Glossary OF Terms Used

Forums:
Forums bring together key stakeholders in a city and provide the opportunity for consultation on urban issues. City forums can either be general or can have a thematic focus, such as education, the environment, public transport, etc.

City Profile:
Basic information about the city, carefully structured to informatively share descriptions of current conditions or issues and to support prioritisation of these issues by policy-makers and stakeholders alike.

City Consultations:
City consultations bring together local authorities, the private sector, community representatives and other stakeholders within a city to discuss specific issues and solutions to key urban problems. They are a continuous process of dialogue among stakeholders and the city government. While there are differences in the city consultation process from region to region and even from city to city, an important outcome of this dialogue is an action plan that has citywide support.

Community Based Organisation (CBO):

These are normally private, charitable (non-profit) organisations based in one or more local communities and run by and for the local community. Typically, they are created in response to some particular local need or situation - often related to the local environment - and they usually support a variety of specific local improvement actions, for instance, environmental upgrading, youth education, employment promotion, etc. CBOs are usually important stakeholders and should be represented within stakeholder groups and encouraged to participate actively in local decision-making processes.

Facilitators:
A person trained or experienced in facilitating to lead group discussions, consultations, and meetings. He/she would have the skills to apply the various techniques and tools that make joint activities more efficient and more participatory. City facilitators have a role to encourage citizens to speak out and to moderate consultations between citizens groups and local authorities.

Characteristics:
Guiding elements which are key to the dissemination and localization of good governance concepts. Various agencies use differing terms (characteristics/norms/principles) that include a list of elements such as equity, consensus orientation, participation, etc.

Good Urban Governance:

Urban governance refers to the exercise of political, economic, social, and administrative authority in the management of a citys affairs. It comprises the mechanisms, traditions, processes, and institutions (whether formal or informal) through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights, meet their obligations, and mediate their differences. It is thus a broader concept than government, which refers only to the formal and legally established organs of the political structure.

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO):

The term NGO is applied to a wide range of organisations which are not established by or operated by government. NGOs are usually private, non-profit organisations which are run by their members. Typically, an NGO is concerned with one particular area of activity, for example womens rights, education, environmental protection, small-scale employment, etc. Most NGOs are local in scope, but some are regional or international, with active local branches. NGOs often acquire considerable expertise and experience in their particular areas of activity, and employ professionals or specialists to develop programmes and conduct research. It is normal practice to ensure NGO representation within decision-making structures in order to better capture the views of groups that are normally under-represented. NGOs have an important role to play in institutionalizing the participatory process, building capacities on the ground for civic consciousness and promoting democracy.
31

Performance indicators:
A measure that summarizes information about a particular subject. Indicators can measure the performance of a local body or community in a particular subject area. Performance can be measured over a period of time or can be a comparative performance measurement, which may be either absolute (comparison with standards) or relative (comparing within other local authorities) on quantitative and qualitative data. If monitored over time, indicators can reflect trends in development and assess the impact of policies implemented.

Report Cards:
A simple, flexible and participatory tool that can easily be adapted by users in order to measure the performance of good governance in a city as well as form a basis for planning and monitoring policies.

Stakeholders:
Groups, organisations and individuals who have an important stake in the process of urban management and governance - regardless of what their particular stake may be. Equally, the term stakeholders includes both formal and informal organisations and groups, from within the public sector or the private sector and from the community itself. Stakeholders are also sometimes referred to as actors within the process.

Stakeholder Group:
A stakeholder group is a small body of issue-specific stakeholder representatives who come together to address common concerns. The members possess mutually complementing information, expertise, policy and implementation instruments and resources, which they bring together and use in collaboration within the framework of the participatory process.

32

33

Annex 2:

Standard Templates FOR THE TUGI Report Cards

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

The General Report Card

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

Why good governance?

he pace of economic growth in the Asia Pacific region over the past two decades has resulted in rapid urbanisation. By the year 2010, Asia is expected to produce 45% of the worlds GDP growth and be home to 4.2 billion of the worlds 7 billion people, 43% of whom will reside in cities. But despite impressive GDP growth, these economic gains have not benefited everyone. Real incomes of most workers in many countries have fallen substantially, disparities between rich and poor have increased and almost a third of the population in developing countries some 1.3 billion people still live in poverty. Because the regions rapid economic growth has largely taken place in urban centres, the capacity of a nation to pursue its economic goals becomes contingent on its ability to govern its cities. Urban governance has, therefore, assumed increasing importance as a means to ensure that economic growth is equitable, sustainable and improves the human condition. In this context, good governance has become central to sustainable human development.

empowerment by expanding peoples capabilities and choices co-operation by encouraging better ways in which individuals cooperate and interact equity in terms of income, capabilities and opportunities sustainability by meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to be free from poverty and deprivation security particularly security of livelihood, where citizens are free from threats such as disease, repression or sudden harmful dislocations in their daily lives In order to ensure that economic growth is a means to these ends, the UN has focussed on four critical elements of sustainable human development. 2 To achieve sustainable development, good governance must take into account: eliminating poverty creating jobs and sustaining livelihoods protecting and regenerating the environment advancing women

What is sustainable human development?

UNDP defines human development as a process of enlarging the choices for all people in society. Sustainable human development places people at the centre of the development process and makes the central purpose of development as creating an enabling environment in which all people can enjoy a long, healthy and creative life.1 It is pro-people, pro-jobs and pro-nature, and gives the highest priority to poverty reduction, productive employment, social integration, and environmental regeneration. Sustainable human development should be able to meet the needs of this present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. It seeks to ensure that everyone, particularly the poor and vulnerable, benefit from economic growth through promoting:

What is good governance?

Governance can be seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a countrys affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.

1 2

Human Development Report, UNDP 1994 Governance For Sustainable Human Development, UNDP 1997

Good governance is, among other things, participatory, transparent and accountable. It is also effective and equitable, and promotes the rule of law fairly. Good governance ensures that the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable are heard in decision-making over the allocation of development resources, and that political, social and economic priorities are based on broad consensus among the three stakeholders the state, private sector and civil society. 3 All three stakeholders are critical for sustaining human development: the state creates a conducive political and legal environment; the private sector generates jobs and income; and civil society facilitates political and social interaction. With the advent of globalisation and the integration of economies, the states task is also to find a balance between taking advantage of emerging market opportunities and providing a secure and stable social and economic environment domestically. In its book Governance For Sustainable Human Development,* UNDP identifies nine core characteristics covering eight key urban issues which measure good governance.

7) Effectiveness and efficiency Processes and institutions produce results that meet needs while making the best use of resources 8) Accountability Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society organisations are accountable to the public, as well as to institutional stakeholders. This accountability differs depending on the organisation and whether the decision is internal or external to an organisation 9) Strategic vision Leaders and the public have a broad and long-term perspective on good governance and human development, along with a sense of what is needed for such development. There is also an understanding of the historical, cultural and social complexities in which that perspective is grounded

Key urban issues in good governance

The 1997 the UNDP Mayors survey identified and ranked eight most important quality-of-life issues. These key urban issues cannot be effectively addressed without good governance. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Employment/job creation Solid waste collection and disposal Urban poverty Shelter and housing Water and sanitation Public transport and traffic Health services Civil society participation

Core characteristics of good governance

1) Participation All men and women should have a voice in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to participate constructively 2) Rule of law Legal frameworks should be fair and enforced impartially, particularly the laws on human rights 3) Transparency Transparency is built on the free flow of information. Processes, institutions and information are directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough information is provided to understand and monitor them 4) Responsiveness Institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders 5) Consensus orientation Good governance mediates differing interests to reach a broad consensus on what is in the best interest of the group and, where possible, on policies and procedures 6) Equity All men and women have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being

Governance For Sustainable Human Development, UNDP 1997

The Good Governance Report Card Users Guide

Getting involved
The Good Governance Report Card is one way for you to participate in and improve the governance of your city. Good governance, amongst other things, contributes to sustainable human development. Empowerment and participation are also key elements in good governance and sustainable human development.

Understand: The Report Card is aimed at encouraging and assisting urban local government institutions and their civil society and corporate sector partners in understanding and appreciating the need for: good governance regular assessment of their performance to determine and address the strengths and weaknesses of the citys political and administrative mechanisms good methodologies and indicators for selfassessment

Who can and should use it?

The Report Card is aimed at: local authorities, specifically mayors, governors and city administrators regional associations of cities or municipalities and relevant training and research institutes relevant members of civil society relevant institutions of the central government and the private sector international development agencies Promote: By coming up with solutions and actions which involve all three stakeholders state, private business and civil society the Report Card can encourage greater participation, responsiveness and accountability, which is itself conducive to a healthier city. Good governance promotes: a novel urban partnership culture that respects the needs and responsibility of each other to keep an adequate cooperative tab on the processes of city planning, administration and governance a readily available and regularly updated, comprehensive database to measure the status and trends of the citys governance and its impact a constantly improving city governance which is responsive, responsible and accountable

What can I achieve?

Evaluate: The Good Governance Report Card is a simple and flexible tool which will enable you to measure: the performance of the political and administrative institutions of the city, problems that stress them, and the effectiveness of their responses the direction of local urban governance the impact of such governance in the short run the degree of democratic participation in local governance

How to use the Good Governance Report Card

To start off the process, you will need to identify the major interest groups concerned about city governance (e.g. elected municipal Councilors, senior municipal officials, NGOs, civil society groups, private businesses, religious organisations). Once you have done this, the following steps should be taken:
1) Select an issue that you would like to address or improve using the TUGI Report Cards. 2) Convene a stakeholders meeting that consists of representatives from the major interest groups involved in the issue, and bring them together to form a stakeholders group. 3) Together with the stakeholders group, decide on the objectives of using the Report Cards why have you chosen this tool, and what do you hope to achieve by implementing the Report Cards? 4) Decide on who will use the Report Cards in other words, what is your target sector? You need to determine the area, number of people and the general description of the people who will be the respondents of the Report Cards. 5) Select as many characteristics from the core characteristics of good governance as you would like to use to assess the issue at hand. Groups which have used the tool before have selected anywhere from between 3 to 9 characteristics, but this all depends on the scope, depth and capacity of the implementing agency. 6) For each characteristic, develop a set of four indicators or questions to measure peoples responses on the issue being assessed. 7) Decide on what kind of rating system you will use to analyse the answers. Will it be a subjective score of between 1 for very poor to 5 very good? Will each score in the rating system have an assigned value? These are things that the stakeholders group needs to decide upon. 8) Finally, implement the Report Card as a test within a small group, before final implementation, and absorb any relevant changes to the indicators. Compile and analyse the data from the final implementation. 9) Disseminate and discuss the results on how to utilise the information to achieve the broader objectives within that issue area.

Calculate the percentage score from each respondent (total points per respondent divided by maximum score possible [20], multiplied by 100%) for each core characteristic, for example, participation, equity, transparency, accountability, etc. Work out the total score to get a percentage of your citys overall performance in good governance of the issue concerned. Assess your local governance system based on the following scale:

85%-100% 65%-84% 50%-64% 35%-49% Below 35%

Very good. (Keep it up) Good. (But still room to improve) Fair. (Can do much better) Poor. (More commitment and effort needed) Very poor. (Something is drastically wrong)

Note: You may wish to choose your own comments for each score.

What can you do after evaluation?

Here are some of the things that can be done at the city and national levels after completing the Report Card: Initiate a self evaluation by all stakeholders city council and relevant government departments, private businesses and civil society groups Form discussion groups within each stake-holder group Forge partnerships between all three stake-holders to formulate ideas and a joint plan of action Publicise the results of the Report Cards and any follow-up action through news releases, press conferences and media interviews to create public awareness and encourage wider participation Share your results with other city councils to encourage good governance

The Good Governance General Report Card:

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Womens representation in the city administration. Incentives for private sector participation in the city economy. Private sector participation in the provision of urban basic services and in environmental programmes. Civil society and NGO participation in municipal programmes. Degree of municipal decentralisation.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance General Report Card:

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Adequacy of rules and regulations. Fair, effective and impartial enforcement of existing laws. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws. Effectiveness of anti-corruption measures. Vigilance and action against crime and violence in the city. Legislative quality of environment care.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance General Report Card:

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparency of budget formulation, revenue and expenditure. Transparency of staff selection and promotion. Transparency in awarding of contracts. Community access to information and processes. Participation of urban poor in poverty eradication programme.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance General Report Card:

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanisms to determine the needs and aspirations of residents. Mechanisms to address public grievances and views. Programmes to address children and disadvantaged groups. Quality of municipality roads, road safety and public transport. Staff training to generate responsiveness and efficiency. Adequacy of budget allocations for basic services.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance General Report Card:

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all-party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions. Use of mass media for public consensus building. Institutional mechanisms to consult civil society partners. Promotion of issue-based discussions among senior municipal officials before major council debate.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance General Report Card:

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Equal access to primary health, education, sanitation and basic infrastructure. Rate of unemployment. Incidence of poverty. Women representation in senior municipal position.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance General Report Card:

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Use of modern management techniques and tools for city administration. Degree of city administrative and procedural reforms. Collection of taxes, revenues and service charges. Public access to basic education, primary health care, potable water, safe sanitation and sewerage services.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance General Report Card:

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
Degree of decentralisation and delegation of authority. Quality of human resource management and monitoring the implementation of delegated tasks. Extent to which grievances and complaints are entertained by city administration. Legal provisions for compensation for damage to private and public property due to third party negligence. City administration attention on recycling waste.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance General Report Card:

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Overall strategic vision for city development. Overall strategic vision for poverty reduction and other priority areas. Availability of sectoral development strategy. Availability of strategic vision of any nature.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance General Report Card:

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Children

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Policies and programmes of local government to encourage participation of all citizens (including children) on children related issues. Policies and programmes of local government to encourage the participation of children as main stakeholders of the city. Frequency of consultation with children pertaining to their needs and aspirations. The extent of participation of children in the process of the development of the city. Sensitivity of local government towards the participation of children in the development process of the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Adequacy of rules and regulations particularly focusing on issues pertaining children (child labour, sexual/ physical abuse and access to basic amenities etc.). Fair, effective and impartial enforcement of existing laws. Trend of crime and violence against children (child labour, sexual exploitation and trafficking) Action taken or initiated upon public grievances within the framework of existing laws. Vigilance and action against crime and violence against children in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparency of the policies and programmes of the local government related to issues of children and their development. Easy access to information for all stakeholders including children on child rights and other activities of the local authorities linked with children. Access to information and processes for citizens without discrimination on age, sex, language and r eligion etc.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanisms to determine the needs and aspirations of all children irrespective of their age, sex, economic condition, language and religion. Mechanisms to accommodate public grievances and views related to childrens issues and concerns. Municipal programmes to address childrens welfare. Friendliness of municipal services towards children. Staff/councillors training to generate awareness to be responsiveness towards minor citizens.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Institutional mechanisms to consult communities or civil societies representing community and target group interests. Use of mass media for public consensus building on the issues of children. Practice of all-target group (including children) consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to childrens issues. Frequency of consultation with different target groups for consensus orientation including children. Promotion of issue-based discussions among senior municipal officials before major council debates.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Access to primary health, education, sanitation and basic infrastructure for children irrespective of their sex, age, economic and physical condition, language and religion etc. Existence of municipal programmes that are focused on childrens welfare. Gap between demand and supply of orphanages. Advocacy on child rights, crime and violence against children and child welfare by local government institutions. Advocacy on child rights, crime and violence against children and child welfare by civil societies (NGOs, research institutions and the media)

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Maximum utilisation of childrens potentials (irrespective of their sex, age, economic and physical condition, language and religion etc.) in the development process of the city. Degree of city administrative and procedural reforms to make the city more child- friendly. Realisation of the contribution that children can make towards effective and efficient local government. Access to basic education, primary health care, potable water, sanitation services and shelter for children.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
Existence of advocacy/support groups related to childrens issues in the city. Organisation of training workshops and seminars on the issues of children, development and accountability. Media mobilisation for advocacy on childrens issues. Extent to which grievances and complaints related to children (including by children) are entertained by city administration.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Overall vision of the local government towards city development with children in mind. Overall strategic vision to enhance the participation of children in the development process of the city. Existence of a development strategy for children in particular. Existence of a strategic vision of any nature where all stakeholders can participate for the benefit of children. Availability of statistical information regarding the situation of children in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CHILDREN

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Civil Society Participation

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the civil society in the development process of the city. Situation of the local government and the civil society partnership programmes in the development of the city. Level of engagement of the civil society in the development process of the city. Level of awareness among municipal staff and councillors on the importance of civil society participation in the development process of the city. Gender sensitiveness in the participation process.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to partnership with civil societies. Fair and impartial enforcement of the existing rules and regulations in dealing with the civil societies. To what extent the concerned parties (civil society and the local government) adhere to the rules and regulations. Concern shown by local authorities to take action against civil societies for violating rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Level of transparency on the allocated budget and procedures for partnership with civil societies. Access to information and processes for civil societies to participate in the development process in the city. Transparency on selecting civil societies for partnerships. Transparency in assigning contract/work to civil societies.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanism to ascertain the capacities of the various civil societies and enter upon partnerships or involve accordingly. Easy access for all civil societies operating in the city to work with local authorities. Opportunities for civil society to take active part in the development process of the city. Accommodating various categories and sizes of civil societies. Gender sensitiveness of the local authorities in dealing with civil societies.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice for all categories of civil society consensus on major, important and strategic decisions. Institutional mechanism to consult civil societies. Gender sensitiveness in consensus orientation. Involvement of the key civil societies in decision making. Execution of the joint decisions.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Priority of municipal investment to mobilise civil societies and work in partnership and collaboration with them. Opportunity for civil societies of all category to contribute and work freely. Concern shown by civil societies to respect and network among each other irrespective of their size and capacity. Extent of gender sensitiveness in mobilising and working in partnership with civil societies. Dealing of the local authorities with civil society of various categories including CBOs.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Extent of mobilisation of involvement of civil societies for the development of the city. Situation of the partnership and collaboration between the local authority and the civil societies. Networking and collaboration among civil societies. Extent of mobilisation of the resources from the civil societies. Cost effectiveness in the activities undertaken by civil societies.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the local authorities realise they are accountable for what they do. To what extent the civil societies realise they are accountable for what they do. To what extent the grievances and complains are entertained by the municipal authority. Legal provisions for compensation for damage of private and public property due to negligence. Examples of demonstrating accountability by the local authority.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long-term or mid term programme and policy to mobilise and work in collaboration with civil societies. Reflection of the partnership programme with the civil societies in the annual development programme and budget of the local authority. Availability of statistical information or profile of civil societies in the city. Regular updating of the information on civil societies Evaluation of the performance of the civil societies.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Corruption

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the civil society in reducing corruption. Situation of the local government and the civil society/private sector partnership in dealing with corruption. Extent of civil society and private sector involvement for reducing corruption practices in the city. Mechanism to involve private sector and civil societies in decision making for anti-corruption drive. Participatory mechanisms to expose corrupt individual/organisations and corruption practices.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence of adequate and strict rules and regulations to stop corrupt practices. Loop holes on the rules and regulations. Situation of the enforcement of anti-corruption rules and regulations by the local authorities. Fair and impartial enforcement of the existing rules and regulations related to corruption. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws, by laws, rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparency on the reward and punishment to municipal staff and councillors. Transparency on the reward and punishment to city dwellers. Access to information and processes for city dwellers in relation to the corruption practices (dos and donts) Transparency on, awarding contracts, partnership arrangements and hiring municipal staff. Transparency in allocation of public spaces for informal sector.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanism to ascertain the need and aspirations of the stakeholders (especially poor and disadvantaged) to avoid harassment due to corrupt practices. Mechanisms to listen address and act on public grievances and views. Situation of action taken on public grievances by local authorities. Situation of anti corruption campaign/drive. System of reward and punishment.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all political party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to corruption practices. Institutional mechanism to consult civil societies and private sector for anti corruption drive. Effort to prevent corruption practices (consumer education etc.). Use of mass media for consensus building. Execution of the decisions from consultation.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Concern of the Local government to address the issue of corruption practices. Concern of the Local government to avoid harassment especially to disadvantaged groups. Concern shown by NGOs, CBOs, communities and private sector for corrupt practices. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of corruption.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Leakage of the municipal resources in development activities. Leakage in collection of taxes, revenues and service charges. Level of efficiency of services provided by the city authority. Effectiveness of anti corruption drives. Overall trend of corruption practices.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the municipal staff and councillors realise they have stop corruption practices. To what extent the grievances and complains are entertained by the municipal authority. Legal provisions for compensation for damage of private and public property due to negligence. Realisation of the accountability on the part of NGOs and private sector (not to promote corruption). Realisation on the part of the citizens (not to promote corruption).

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long term programme and policy on stopping or minimising corruption practices. Short-term measures based on the long-term vision. Vision of civil societies on corruption practices. Vision of private sector on corruption practices. Vision among city dwellers on corruption practices.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CORRUPTION

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Cultural Heritage

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the private sector and the civil societies for the conservation and promotion of cultural heritage. Situation of the local government and the civil society/private sector partnership programmes for the conservation of cultural heritage in the city. Extent of civil society involvement in the maintenance and conservation of monuments and sites of cultural importance. Extent of private sector involvement in the maintenance and conservation of monuments and sites of cultural importance. Extent of community mobilisation for the conservation of the cultural heritage.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to conservation of the monuments and sites of cultural importance. Fair and impartial enforcement of the existing rules and regulations. Situation of adherence to the rules and regulations by the concerned institutions. Situation of adherence to the rules and regulations by the concerned citizens. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws, by laws, rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparency on the municipal revenue and expenditures from monuments and sites of cultural importance. Transparency on municipal spending on the repair, maintenance and conservation of monuments and sites of cultural importance. Access to information and processes related to maintenance and conservation of cultural heritage for city dwellers. Transparency on staff recruitment, awarding contracts and budget allocation. Frequency of communication and information sharing with the residents.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanism to ascertain the need and aspirations of the stakeholders of the city on cultural heritage. Mechanisms to listen address and act on public grievances and views. Coverage of the monuments and sites (actions) of cultural importance by city administration. Preparation of inventory and classification of the monuments and sites according to their importance. Priority given to the task of heritage conservation.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all political party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to heritage conservation. Institutional mechanism to consult civil societies and private sector. Institutional mechanism to consult individuals and institutions directly affected. Use of mass media for public awareness, support and consensus building. Frequency of consultation with different stakeholders.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Coverage of the monuments and sites in totality. Concern shown by NGOs, CBOs, communities and private sector for heritage conservation. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of heritage conservation. Level of support provided to individuals. Level of support provided to institutions.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Proper utilisation of the scarce municipal resources for heritage conservation activities. (Cost effectiveness with no compromise on quality) Collection of taxes, revenues and service charges from monuments and sites of cultural importance. Over all level of care for monuments and sites of cultural importance. Mobilisation of internal resources from private sector, civil societies and individuals. Mobilisation of external resources from institutions, individuals and tourists.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the municipal staff and councillors realise they are accountable for the consequences of what they do and dont do? To what extent the grievances and complains are entertained by the municipal authority. Legal provisions for compensation for damage of private and public property due to third party negligence. The level of awareness of the councillors and municipal staff on heritage conservation. The level of awareness among the citizens on importance of the cultural heritage.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long term programme and policy on heritage conservation. Annuals plan and programmes on heritage conservation. Longer-term vision of any other organisations involved in heritage conservation. Level of visionary among municipal staff and councillors on heritage conservation. Level of visionary among NGOs, CBOs, communities and private sector on heritage conservation.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: CULTURAL HERITAGE

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Elderly Citizens

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Policies and programmes of local government to encourage participation of elderly citizens on related issues. Frequency of consultation with elderly citizens pertaining to their needs and aspirations. Extent of participation of elderly citizens irrespective of their age, sex, economic condition, language and religion in the process of the development of the city. Sensitiveness of the local government towards the importance of the participation of the elderly in the development process of the city. The rate of participation of elderly citizens within civil society organisations, and the existence of non-governmental organisations or societies for the elderly.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Adequacy of rules and regulations. Fair, effective and impartial enforcement of existing laws. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws. Effectiveness of anti-corruption measures. Vigilance and action against crime and violence in the city. Legislative quality of environment care.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparency of the policies and programmes of the local government related to issues of elderly citizens and their welfare. Easy access to information pertaining activities of the local authorities that affect the elderly. Access to information and processes by elderly citizens without discrimination on age, sex, language and religion etc. Access to information and processes by civil society organisations (media, NGOs, research institutes etc.) regarding municipal activities that effect elderly citizens.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanisms to determine the needs and aspirations of all elderly citizens irrespective of their age, sex, economic condition, language and religion. Mechanisms to accommodate public grievances and views related to elderly citizens issues and concerns. Municipal programmes to address elderly citizens welfare (especially disadvantaged groups). Friendliness of municipal services towards elderly (shelter, public transportation, parks and recreational facilities, hospitals and clinics and elderly homes etc.) Staff/councillors training to generate awareness so that they can be responsiveness towards elderly citizens.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Institutional mechanisms to consult communities (especially elderly citizens) or legitimate civil societies that represent community or target group interest in general and elderly citizens in particular. Use of mass media for public consensus building on the issues of elderly citizens. Practice of all-target group consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to elderly citizens issues. Frequency of consultation with different target groups for consensus orientation including elderly citizens. Promotion of issue-based discussions among senior municipal officials before major council debates.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Access to primary health care, continuing education, sanitation and basic infrastructure for elderly citizens irrespective of their sex, age, economic and physical condition, language and religion etc. Existence of municipal programmes that focus on elderly citizens welfare. Gap between demand and supply of homes for the elderly. Action by local authorities on crime and violence against elderly citizens. Advocacy on crime and violence against elderly citizens and the launching of elderly welfare programmes by civil societies (NGOs, Research Institutions and Media).

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Maximum utilisation of the potentials of elderly citizens (irrespective of their sex, age, economic and physical condition, language and religion etc.) in the development process of the city. Implement city administrative and procedural reforms that make the city more elderly citizens friendly. Acknowledge the contribution that the elderly can make towards effective and efficient local government. Ensuring access to basic facilities such as primary health care, potable water, sanitation services and shelter for elderly citizens.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
Existence of advocacy groups related to elderly citizens issues in the city. The holding of training workshops and seminars on the issues of elderly citizens, focusing on accountability on the part of local authorities, civil societies and the private sector. Media mobilisation for advocacy on elderly citizens issues. Extent to which grievances and complaints related to elderly citizens are entertained by city administration. Legal provisions for compensation of damage to elderly citizens property due to third party negligence.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Overall vision of the local government for city development with the needs of elderly citizens in mind. Overall strategic vision to enhance the participation of elderly citizens in the development process of the city. Existence of development strategies for elderly citizens in particular. Existence of a strategic vision in which all the stakeholders can participate for the benefit of elderly citizens. Availability of statistical information regarding the situation of elderly citizens and corresponding welfare programmes in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: ELDERLY CITIZENS

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Employment

AND

Job Creation

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the civil society and the private sector on employment and job creation. Situation of the local government and the civil society/private sector partnership projects. Extent of civil society and private sector involvement for increasing employment opportunities in the city. Mechanism to involve informal sector in decision making. Participatory mechanism to match between demand and supply.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequate and favourable rules and regulations for the promotion of private sector investment. Rule of law that provides opportunity for informal sector participation. with confidence. Regulatory provisions which promotes self-employment opportunities. Fair and impartial enforcement of the existing rules and regulations. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws, by laws, rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparent on the municipal revenue and expenditures on income and other taxes. Access to information and processes for city dwellers in relation to the employment opportunities. Transparency on, awarding contracts, partnership arrangements and hiring municipal staff. Transparency in allocation of public spaces for informal sector. Transparency on rewards and punishments.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanism to ascertain the need and aspirations of the stakeholders of the city on employment and job creation and address accordingly. Mechanisms to listen address and act on public grievances and views. Promotion of vocational training, saving and credit and co-operative schemes. Existence of projects which promotes self-employment for the urban poor community. Provision to create jobs for fresh graduates.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all political party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to employment and job creation. Institutional mechanism to consult civil societies and private sector. Institutional mechanism to consult urban poor communities. Institutional mechanism to consult job seekers. Use of mass media to for public consensus building.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Concern of the Local government to address the issue of employment and job creation in general. Concern of the Local government to address the issue of employment and job creation for urban poor in particular. Concern of the Local government to address the issue of employment and job creation for destitute women. Concern shown by NGOs, CBOs, communities and private sector for poverty alleviation. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of employment and job creation.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Proper utilisation of the scarce municipal resources to increase employment opportunities. Collection of taxes, revenues and service charges. The level of employment in the city. Creation of jobs. Management of the informal sector in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the municipal staff and councillors realise they are accountable for what they do. To what extent the grievances and complains are entertained by the municipal authority. Legal provisions for compensation for damage of private and public property due to third party negligence. Realisation of the accountability on the part of NGOs and private sector. Realisation of the accountability on the part of the citizens.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long term programme and policy on employment and job creation. Institutionalisation of the issue of employment and job creation within the municipal structure and programme. Vision of NGOs on employment and job creation. Vision of private sector on employment and job creation. Vision among job seekers on self employment.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Gender

AND

Development

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Policies and programmes of local government to encourage the participation of all citizens irrespective of their age, sex, language, economic condition, and religion. Extent of participation of men and women in the process of the development of the city. Womens representation in the city council. Womens representation in the city administration. Sensitivity of local government towards the importance of participation in general and from within a gender perspective in particular.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Adequacy of rules and regulations particularly focusing on the issue of gender. Fair, effective and impartial enforcement of existing laws and by laws. Trend of crime and violence against women in the city. Action taken or initiated on womens grievances within the framework of existing laws. Vigilance and action against crime and violence (especially on women) in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparency of the policies and programmes of the local government related to issues of gender and development. Transparency in staff selection and promotion without gender discrimination. Transparency in assigning projects and awarding contracts without gender discrimination. Access to information and processes to citizens without discrimination on age, sex, language and religion etc. Access to information and processes of media

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanisms to determine the needs and aspirations of all city dwellers irrespective of their age, sex, language and religion. Mechanisms to address public grievances and views in general and that of women in particular. Municipal programmes to address womens needs. Friendliness of municipal services towards women. Staff/councillors training to generate responsiveness and efficiency with gender awareness.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Institutional mechanisms to consult communities or civil societies representing community and target group interests. Use of mass media for public consensus building. Practice of all-target group consensus on major, important and strategic decisions. Frequency of consultation with womens and other target groups for consensus orientation. Promotion of issue-based discussions among senior municipal officials before major council debates.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Access to primary health, education, sanitation and basic infrastructure for women irrespective of their economic and physical condition, language and religion etc. Rate of unemployment among women. Incidence of poverty. Womens representation in senior municipal positions. Womens representation in municipal council. Womens access to information technology, on-the-job training involving skills upgrading, tertiary education and other human resource development opportunities.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Utilisation of the potential of women in the development process of the city. Degree of city administrative and procedural reforms towards making them more gender sensitive. Public access to basic education, primary health care, potable water, safe sanitation and sewerage services without gender discrimination. Average service response time of local government services for grievance reports lodged by the target group (women).

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
Existence of gender advocacy/support groups in the city. Organisation of training workshops and seminars on the issue of gender, development and accountability. Media mobilisation for advocacy on gender and development. Extent to which grievances and complaints are entertained by city administration without gender bias. Legal provisions for compensation for damage (property, etc) to individuals due to third party negligence without gender bias.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Overall vision of the local government for city development with a gender perspective. Overall strategic vision to enhance the principles of gender and development. Existence of development strategies for women. Existence of strategic vision in which women can participate and benefit.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Health Services

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the private sector to provide health services. Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the civil society to provide health services. Situation of the local government and the civil society/private sector partnership programmes on health services. Extent of private sector involvement in the area of health services. Extent of civil society and community involvement in the area of health services.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to health. Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to health services. Fair and impartial enforcement of the existing rules and regulations. Respect to the rules and regulation related to health and safe health services. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws, by laws, rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Level of transparency on the municipal expenditures on health services. Access to information and processes for city dwellers on health and health services. Transparency on awarding contracts and budget allocation linked with health services. Use of media for information dissemination. Level of transparency on the process for service delivery on health and health services to the citizens.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Proportion of investment of the local authority on the health care services. Easy and affordable access to primary health care facilities. Easy and affordable access safe food water and other facilities, etc. Healthcare facilities for poor and disadvantaged groups. Action taken against negligence and violation of rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all political party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to health services. Institutional mechanism to consult private sector to deal with health services. Institutional mechanism to consult civil societies to deal with health services. Use of various media for consensus orientation. Involvement of the key stakeholders in decision making.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Priority of municipal investment to take care of the heath of the citizens. Concern shown by private sector to provide health services. Concern shown by NGOs, to provide health services. Concern shown by CBOs, communities to take care of themselves. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of health services.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Situation of the number of hospital beds in the city. Situation of the number of health service workers in the city. Availability of extension health care service. Easy and affordable access to health care facilities for all. Operation of voluntary and free clinics in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the municipal staff and councillors realise they are accountable for what they do. To what extent the grievances and complains are entertained by the municipal authority. Realisation of the accountability by health service workers on their accountability. Legal provisions for compensation due to third party negligence in health care. Situation of actions taken against any negligence causing substantive damage to health or loss of life.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long or mid term programme and policy on health services. Reflection of the health service programme in the annual development budget of the local authority. The visionary level of private sector on health services. The visionary level of NGOs on health services. Availability of statistical information on the health situation of the citizens and available health facilities.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HEALTH SERVICES

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

HIV-AIDS

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the private sector and civil society on HIV/AIDS management. Level of awareness among mayor, governor, councillors and municipal staff to support HIV/AIDS prevention and care. Situation of local government and the private sector/civil society partnership programmes for fighting HIV/AIDS. Extent of civil society and private sector involvement in HIV/AIDS programmes. Extent of involvement of people living with HIV/AIDS and their families in the development and implementation of HIV/AIDS related programme.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequacy of rules and regulations related public health with focus on HIV/AIDS. Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to anti-discrimination and other protective measures for people living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Fair and impartial enforcement of existing rules and regulations. Respect to the rules and regulations to health and safe health services. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws, by laws, rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Level of transparency on the municipal expenditures on health services in general and HIV/AIDS in particular. Access to information and processes for city dwellers on HIV/AIDS risks. Access to information and processes for city dwellers on HIV/AIDS services. Use of media for information dissemination on SDT/HIV/AIDS. Level of transparency on the process for service delivery on HIV/AIDS prevention and care to the peop le living with HIV/AIDS.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Proportion of investment of the local authority on the health care services in general and HIV/AIDS in particular. Easy and affordable access to social and psychological support to people living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Easy access to people living with HIV/AIDS and their families to be involved in development and implementation of HIV/AIDS related policies and programmes. Mobilising media to increase awareness of the general public on the serious nature of HIV epidemic and its social, economic and health impact. Advocacy against torturing people with HIV/AIDS and their families.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of consensus among all political on major, important and strategic decisions related to HIV/AIDS policies and programmes. Institutional mechanisms to consult private sector to deal with HIV/AIDS. Institutional mechanisms to consult civil societies to deal with HIV/AIDS. Use of various media for consensus orientation. Involvement of the people living with HIV/AIDS and their families in decision making.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Priority of municipal investment to address needs and aspirations of the people living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Concern shown by the private sector, civil societies to address issues related to HIV/AIDS. Level of acceptance of people living with HIV/AIDS in general. Opportunities provided to live a productive life to people living with HIV/AIDS. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of HIV/AIDS.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Situation of the number of hospital beds allocated to HIV/AIDS victims. Attempt of the local authority to mobilise resources (financial and technical) internally and externally to fight against HIV/AIDS. Availability of extension workers to provide social and psychological support to the victims and their family. Practice of any monitoring mechanism to keep track on the information regarding HIV/AIDS in the city. Operation of motivational centres for people with HIV/AIDS and their families.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the municipal staff and councillors realise they could be accountable for HIV/AIDS epidemic in the city. Behaviour of the medical practitioners towards people with HIV/AIDS. Practice of educating medical practitioners and other service providers on the reality of HIV infection and awareness on gender sensitisation. Legal provisions for compensation due to third party negligence for transmission of HIV/AIDS. Situation of actions taken against any negligence causing substantive damage to health or loss of life

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long term or mid-term programme and policy for prevention and care of HIV/AIDS and reduce vulnerability. Reflection of the HIV/AIDS programme in the annual development of budget of the local authority. The visionary level of private sector on HIV/AIDS. The visionary level of NGOs on HIV/AIDS. Availability of statistical information on the HIV/AIDS situation on the city and the facilities available to combat the deadly disease.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: HIVAIDS

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Physically

AND

Mentally Challenged

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Policies and programmes of local government to encourage participation of all city dwellers on issues related to the physically and mentally challenged, in the development process of the city. Frequency of consultation with the physically and mentally challenged pertaining to their needs and aspirations. Extent of participation of the physically and mentally challenged in the process of the development of the city. Sensitivity of local government towards the importance of the participation of the physically and mentally challenged in the development process of the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Adequacy of rules and regulations particularly focusing on the issues of the physically and mentally challenged. Fair, effective and impartial enforcement of existing laws rules and regulations. Trends of crime and violence against the physically and mentally challenged. Action taken or initiated on public grievances within the framework of existing laws, by-laws and norms and standards. Vigilance and action against crime and violence against the physically and mentally challenged community members of the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparency of the policies and programmes of the local government with regards to issues of the physically and mentally challenged. Easy access to information for the physically and mentally challenged regarding activities related to them. Access to information and processes for the physically and mentally challenged without discrimination against age, sex, language and religion etc.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanisms to determine the needs and aspirations of all physically and mentally challenged city dwellers irrespective of their age, sex, language and religion. Mechanisms to accommodate public grievances and views related to physically and mentally challenged citizens (directly or indirectly). Municipal programmes for the welfare of physically and mentally challenged persons. Friendliness of municipal services towards physically and mentally challenged members of the community. The occurrence of staff/councillors training to generate awareness to be responsiveness towards the needs of physically and mentally challenged urban dwellers.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Institutional mechanisms to consult communities (including physically and mentally challenged people) or civil societies representing community and target group interests. Use of mass media for public consensus building on the issues related to physically and mentally challenged city dwellers. Practice of all-target group (including physically and mentally challenged people ) consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to disability issues. Frequency of consultation with different target groups (including disabled) for consensus orientation for their benefit. Promotion of issue-based discussions among senior municipal officials before major council debates.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Access to primary health, education, sanitation and basic infrastructure for physically and mentally challenged city dwellers of all categories irrespective of their sex, age, economic condition, language and religion etc. Situation of municipal and other programmes focused on welfare for the physically and mentally challenged. Gap between the demand and supply of various basic needs of the physically and mentally challenged (education, health, sanitation, transportation and entertainment etc.). Advocacy on crime and violence against physically and mentally challenged city dwellers of all categories irrespective of sex, age and economic condition etc.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Maximum utilisation of the potential of the physically and mentally challenged, irrespective of their sex, age, economic condition, language and religion etc., in the development process of the city. Instituting city administrative and procedural reforms to make the city more friendly towards physically and mentally challenged people. Acknowledging the contribution that physically and mentally challenged people can make towards effective and efficient local government. Access to basic education, primary health care, potable water, sanitation services and shelter for the physically and mentally challenged.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
Existence of advocacy/support groups for the physically and mentally challenged people in the city. The holding of training workshops and seminars on the issue of physically and mentally challenged city dwellers. Media mobilisation for advocacy on physically and mentally challenged peoples issues. Extent to which grievances and complaints related to the physically and mentally challenged are entertained by city administration.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Overall vision of the local government for city development with the needs of the physically and mentally challenged community members in mind. Overall strategic vision to enhance the participation of the physically and mentally challenged in the development process of the city. Availability of development strategies for the physically and mentally challenged. Availability of statistical information about physically and mentally challenged city dwellers and the available services in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY CHALLENGED

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Public Transportation AND Traffic Congestion

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and prog. of the local government to encourage participation of the civil society and the private sector on the issue of public transport and traffic congestion. Situation of the local govt. and the civil society/private sector partnership programme on public transport. Extent of civil society and private sector and community involvement in the issue of public transport and traffic congestion. Level of awareness among elected and government officials on the importance of civil society participation on the issues of transportation and traffic congestion. Forums organised by civil societies to discuss the issue of public transportation and traffic congestion.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to public transport. Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to minimise traffic congestion. Fair and impartial enforcement of the existing rules and regulations. Level of awareness regarding the traffic rules and regulations. To what extent people follow the traffic rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Level of transparency on the municipal revenue and expenditures from public transport and parking, etc. Access to information and processes for city dwellers related to public transport. Access to information and processes for city dwellers to minimise traffic congestion. Transparency on awarding contracts, incentive packages and budget allocation linked with public transport and parking.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanism to ascertain the need and aspirations of the stakeholders of the city on public transportation and traffic congestion and address accordingly. Easy and affordable access to the place of work, schools, hospitals and market place etc. Demarcation of vehicular traffics free zones to reduce congestion. Access of public transport to disadvantaged groups. Noise and air pollution due to public transport and traffic congestion.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all political party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to public transport and traffic congestion issues. Institutional mechanism to consult civil societies and private sector to deal with public transportation and traffic congestion issues. Involvement of media for general consensus on major issues related to public transport and traffic congestion. Involvement of the key stakeholders in decision making. Level of awareness among elected and government officials on the importance of consensus orientation to resolve the issue of public transportation and traffic congestion.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Priority of municipal investment to solve the problem of on public transport and traffic congestion. Concern shown by NGOs, CBOs, communities and private sector to address the transport problem of low-income communities and disadvantaged groups. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of public transportation and traffic congestion. Consideration of the well being of all the key stakeholders while making important decision related to public transportation and traffic congestion. Acton against grievances by city dwellers related to public transportation and traffic congestion.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Level of air pollution in the city. Level of noise pollution in the city. Availability of different mode of affordable transport and the adequacy of roads. Travel time to go to the place of work for average city dwellers. Situation of road accidents in the city?

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the municipal staff and councillors realise they are accountable for what they do. To what extent the grievances and complains are entertained by the municipal authority. Action taken against loss of life and property due to negligence. Legal provisions for compensation for damage of private and public property due to third party negligence.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1)

Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long or mid term programme and policy on public transport. Availability of long or mid term programme and policy on traffic congestion. Reflection of the public transport and traffic congestion issues in the annual development budget of the local authority. Availability of statistical information on the public transport and traffic situation in the city. Forum and discussion organised on the issue of public transportation and traffic congestion.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Shelter

AND

Housing

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the civil society and the private sector on shelter and housing programme. Situation of the local government and the civil society/private sector partnership programmes on shelter and housing. Extent of civil society involvement in shelter and housing in the city. Extent of private sector involvement in shelter and housing in the city. Extent of individual involvement in shelter and housing in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to shelter and housing. Existence rules and regulations to safeguard the security and interest of owner Existence rules and regulations to safeguard the security and interest of the tenants. Fair and impartial enforcement of the existing rules and regulations. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws, by laws, rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Level of transparency on the municipal revenue and expenditures on shelter and housing. Transparency on action taken by local authority on public grievances. Access to information and processes for city dwellers. Transparency on awarding contracts and budget allocation for shelter and housing. Transparency on procurement of materials.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanism to ascertain the need and aspirations of the stakeholders of the city on shelter and housing and address accordingly. Easy and affordable access to land, finance, infrastructure and technical support. Easy access to rental accommodation Attitude of the local authority to wards informal settlements. Gap between the housing need and supply in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all political party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to shelter and housing. Institutional mechanism to consult private sector to deal with shelter and housing issues. Institutional mechanism to consult civil societies to deal with shelter and housing issues. Use of media for consensus orientation. Involvement of the urban poor communities, squatters and the disadvantaged groups in decision making.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Availability of special programmes on shelter and housing for urban poor and disadvantaged groups. Concern shown by private sector to address the shelter and housing problem in the city. Concern shown by NGOs, to address the shelter and housing problem of low-income communities. Concern shown by CBOs, communities to address their own problems. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of shelter and housing.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Proper utilisation of the scarce municipal resources for providing easy access to input required for housing. Delivery of service land for housing compared to need. Delivery of rental accommodation compared to need. Situation of homeless and the squatter population. Planned town extension.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the municipal staff and councillors realise they are accountable for what they do. To what extent the grievances and complains are entertained by the municipal authority. To what extent the grievances and complains are entertained by the municipal authority. Situation of legal action taken by the local authority related to shelter and housing. Legal provisions for compensation for damage of private and public property due to third party negligence.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long or mid term programme and policy on shelter and housing. Reflection of the shelter and housing programmes in the annual development budget of the local authority. Availability of vision for planned expansion of town. Availability of a vision to address the housing and shelter problems of the urban poor. Availability of statistical information on the housing situation in the city and programmes to address the problems.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SHELTER AND HOUSING

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Solid Waste Collection

AND

Disposal

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Policies and programmes to encourage participation of the private sector and civil society on solid waste management. Situation of local government and private sector/civil society partnership programmes. Civil society and private sector involvement in solid waste collection and disposal in the city. Community mobilisation on solid waste management.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequacy of rules and regulations related to solid waste collection and disposal. Fair and impartial enforcement of existing rules and regulations. Adherence to rules and regulations by citizens. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws in your city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparency of budget formulation, revenue and expenditure on solid waste management. Transparency of staff selection and promotion. Transparency in awarding of contracts. Community access to information and processes. Frequency of communication with residents.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanisms to ascertain the needs and aspirations of stakeholders of the city on health and hygiene, and address accordingly. Mechanisms to address public grievances and views. Coverage area of the solid waste collection and disposal system by city administration. Priority given to the management of solid waste.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all-party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions. Use of mass media for public consensus building. Institutional mechanisms to consult civil society partners. Frequency of consultation with different stakeholders.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Coverage of the municipal service in totality. Concern shown by NGOs, CBOs, communities and private sector for clean environment. Services provided to slums and squatters areas. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of solid waste management.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Proper utilisation of scarce municipal resources. Collection of taxes, revenues and service charges. Level of cleanliness in the city. Mobilisation of locally available resources including solid waste as a resource.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
Municipal staff awareness of their accountability. Extent to which grievances and complaints are entertained by city administration. Legal provisions for compensation for damage to private and public property due to third party negligence. Level of awareness among citizens. City administration attention on recycling waste.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Long term programme and policy on solid waste collection and disposal. Longer-term vision of other organisations involved in solid waste management. Level of awareness among municipal staff and councillors on the importance of solid waste collection and disposal. Level of awareness among NGOs, CBOs, communities and the private sector on the importance of solid waste collection and disposal.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Urban Poverty

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the civil society on poverty alleviation Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the private sector on poverty alleviation. Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the urban poor communities for poverty alleviation. Situation of the local government and the civil society/private sector partnership programmes. Extent of civil society and private sector involvement in the poverty alleviation in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequate and favourable rules and regulations addressing poverty issues. Fair and impartial enforcement of the existing rules and regulations. Dealing with the informal sector by municipal staff and police. Dealing with squatter communities by municipal staff and police. Action taken on grievances of urban poor communities within the framework of existing laws, by laws, rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Transparent on budget allocation and distribution process on poverty alleviation programmes. Simple and easy access to information and processes for the urban poor communities. Simple and easy access to information and processes for the hawkers and vendors. Transparency on partnership arrangement with NGOs, NGOs and CBOs, on poverty alleviation programmes.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanism to ascertain the need and aspirations of the urban poor communities and address accordingly. Mechanisms to listen address and act on the grievances and views of the urban poor communities. Coverage area of the poverty alleviation programme by municipal authority. Gender consideration in poverty alleviation programme. Availability of special support counter in the city council for the poor to access and use.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all political party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to poverty alleviation. Institutional mechanism to consult civil societies for consensus. Institutional mechanism to consult urban poor for communities consensus. Use of mass media for public consensus building.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Coverage of the poverty alleviation programme of the local authority in totality. Concern shown by NGOs, for poverty alleviation programmes. Concern shown by CBOs, communities for poverty alleviation programmes. Concern shown by private sector for poverty alleviation programmes. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of urban poverty.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Proper utilisation of the scarce municipal resources for poverty alleviation programmes. Utilisation of the scarce resources by private sector for poverty alleviation programmes. Utilisation of the scarce resources by NGOs for poverty alleviation programmes. Mobilisation of locally available resources in general and from urban poor communities in particular. The extent of empowerment of the urban poor communities.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the municipal staff and councillors realise they are accountable for what they do. To what extent the grievances and complains of the urban poor communities are entertained by the municipal authority. Legal provisions for compensation for damage of urban poor communitys property due to third party negligence. Realisation of the accountability on the part of NGOs and private sector. Realisation of the accountability on the part of the urban poor communities.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long term programme and policy on poverty alleviation. Poverty alleviation focus on the annual programme of the local authority. Poverty alleviation focus on the programme of private sector. Poverty alleviation focus on the programme of NGOs Availability of statistical information on the situation of the urban poor communities in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: URBAN POVERTY

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance

Water

AND

Sanitation

Developing Capacities for Good Urban Governance

THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI)

Working towards cities that are Socially Just, Ecologically Sustainable, Politically Participatory, Economically Productive and Culturally Vibrant

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

Core characteristic of good governance #1: PARTICIPATION

Indicators to measure the level of participation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on participation could be:
Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the civil society water and sanitation. Existing policies and programmes of the local government to encourage participation of the private sector on water and sanitation. Situation of the local government and the civil society/private sector partnership programmes on water and sanitation. Extent of civil society and private sector and community involvement to deal with the water and sanitation problems at city or community level. Extent of community involvement to deal with the water and sanitation problems at community level.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

Core characteristic of good governance #2: RULE OF LAW

Indicators to measure the level of rule of law (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on rule of law could be:
Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to water. Existence and adequacy of the rules and regulations related to sanitation. Compatibility of the service provided with the service charge. Fair and impartial enforcement of the existing rules and regulations. Action taken on public grievances within the framework of existing laws, by laws, rules and regulations.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

Core characteristic of good governance #3: TRANSPARENCY

Indicators to measure the level of transparency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on transparency could be:
Level of transparency on the municipal revenue and expenditures on water and sanitation. Access to information and processes for city dwellers. Transparency on awarding contracts and budget allocation for water and sanitation. Use of media for information dissemination. Level of transparency on the process for service delivery of water and sanitation to the citizens.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

Core characteristic of good governance #4: RESPONSIVENESS

Indicators to measure the level of responsiveness (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on responsiveness could be:
Mechanism to ascertain the need and aspirations of the stakeholders of the city on water and address accordingly. Mechanism to ascertain the need and aspirations of the stakeholders of the city on sanitation and address accordingly. Easy and affordable access to water Easy and affordable access to sanitation. The overall situation of water and sanitation in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

Core characteristic of good governance #5: CONSENSUS ORIENTATION

Indicators to measure the level of consensus orientation (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on consensus orientation could be:
Practice of all political party consensus on major, important and strategic decisions related to water and sanitation. Institutional mechanism to consult civil societies to deal with water and sanitation issues. Institutional mechanism to consult private sector to deal with water and sanitation issues. Use of media for consensus orientation. Involvement of the urban poor communities, squatters and the disadvantaged groups in decision making.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

Core characteristic of good governance #6: EQUITY

Indicators to measure the level of equity (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on equity could be:
Availability of special programmes on water and sanitation in slums and squatters areas. Concern shown by NGOs, to address the water and sanitation problem of slums and squatter communities. Concern shown by CBOs, and the communities to address the water and sanitation problem. Concern shown by private sector to address the water and sanitation problem of the city in general. Extent of gender sensitiveness in addressing the issue of water and sanitation.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

Core characteristic of good governance #7: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY

Indicators to measure the level of effectiveness & efficiency (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on effectiveness & efficiency could be:
Collection of revenue and service charges. Mobilisation of the community resources for providing easy access to safe water and sanitation. Proper utilisation of the scarce municipal resources for providing easy access to safe water and sanitation. Accessibility to safe drinking water. Accessibility to clean public toilets.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

Core characteristic of good governance #8: ACCOUNTABILITY

Indicators to measure the level of accountability (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on accountability could be:
To what extent the municipal staff and councillors realise they are accountable for what they do. Realisation of the accountability on the part of consumers. To what extent the grievances and complains are entertained by the municipal authority. Situation of legal action taken by the local authority related to water and sanitation. Legal provisions for compensation for damage of private and public property due to third party negligence.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

Core characteristic of good governance #9: STRATEGIC VISION

Indicators to measure the level of strategic vision (See suggestions below or identify your own. Please list four indicators.) 1) Grade (1-5)

2)

3)

4)

Total Score: Percentage Rating (Total Score 20 x 100%): Some examples of indicators on strategic vision could be:
Availability of long or mid term programme and policy on water. Availability of long or mid term programme and policy and sanitation. Reflection of the water programme in the annual development budget of the local authority. Reflection of the sanitation programme in the annual development budget of the local authority. Availability of statistical information on the water and sanitation situation in the city.

Grades 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Moderate 2: Poor 1: Very Poor

The Good Governance Report Card: WATER AND SANITATION

OVERALL GRADE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

Characteristics of good governance Grade (1-5) Percentage

1) Participation 2) Rule of law 3) Transparency 4) Responsiveness 5) Consensus orientation 6) Equity 7) Effectiveness and efficiency 8) Accountability 9) Strategic vision

Total (Percentage = total 180 x 100)

What are the TUGI Report Cards?

What is TUGI?
THE URBAN GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (TUGI) is a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) project to help local governments make cities in the Asia Pacific more liveable, particularly for the urban poor, women and children, by promoting good governance principles based on: social justice ecological sustainability political participation economic productivity cultural vibrancy

The TUGI Report Cards on Good Urban Governance are an evaluation tool introduced by TUGI and designed for you to assess the level of good governance in your city. The Report Cards hope to promote sustainable human development through better governance at the local level. The Report Card employs nine core characteristics of good governance to evaluate how healthy the governance of your city is, and comes in a series you can use the General Report Card to evaluate the overall governance of your city, or the Issues Report Card to evaluate any of the following 16 key urban issues: Children; Civil Society Participation; Corruption; Cultural Heritage; Elderly Citizens; Employment and Job Creation; Gender and Development; Health Services; HIV-AIDS; Physically and Mentally Challenged; Public Transportation and Traffic Congestion; Shelter and Housing; Solid Waste Collection and Disposal; The General Report Card; Urban Poverty; Water and Sanitation.

Specifically, TUGI seeks to: improve the quality of urban life by developing indicators, tools and methodologies for good governance, and enhancing the capacities of local authorities; develop mechanisms to share and enhance the quality of information on urban governance for sustainable human development and to improve the quality of life of people throughout the region; assist mayors and city governments to take full advantage of the increasing flow of information and networking mechanisms available to them.

If you have any additional important issues directly pertaining to your city and wish to incorporate these into the TUGI Report Cards on Good Governance, you can get in touch with TUGI for assistance. You can also contact us for examples of Report Cards from other cities.

For further information contact:

The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Wisma UN, Kompleks Pejabat Damansara (Block C) Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights 50490 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Tel: (603) 2095 9122 Fax: (603) 2093 2361 E-mail: tugi@undp.org; Website: www.tugi.org.

Annex 3:

Suggested Training Design FOR TUGI Report Card Implementers

he training design provided below can be used as a draft template to conduct a workshop for people who intend to implement the Report Cards in their community.

It is a generic 3-day training format, and needs to be adapted to local situations. However, it provides some ideas and exercises that can help familiarize the participants with the Report Cards as a tool for promoting good governance.

Day 1

Time
7:00 8:00

Activity
Breakfast and Registration Official Opening Overview and Objectives of the Training Activity

Objective

Who
Secretariat

8:45 9:15 9:00 9:15

Official Provides introduction to the training and explains the background of the Report Cards; Sets out the local organisations objectives in initiating this training. Get to know participants and their expectations; Information on their experiences with governance monitoring; Ice-breaking and leveling off of expectations within the group Local Implementers

9:15 10:00

Introduction

Facilitator

10:00 10:15 10:15 12:00

Break Overview of Report Card Methodology as a tool for Public Participation Presentation and discussion on the Report Card as a governance tool Background on good governance, city stakeholders and their roles Examples of Report Card use What can it achieve? Resource person familiar with the Report Cards

12:00 1:30 1:30 3:00

Lunch Break Report Cards Example I Sharing of experiences in using the Report Cards Resource Person/ Presenter from local authority or nongovernmental organisation that has used the Report Cards

3:00 3:15 3:15 5:00pm

Break Report Cards Example II Sharing of experiences in using the Report Card Resource Person/ Presenter from local authority or nongovernmental organisation that has used the Report Cards

5:00pm

Close of Day One

Day 2

Time
8:30 8:45

Activity
Recap of Day 1

Objective
To level off on what was covered the day before, and to deal with matters arising or questions. Volunteer Participant Exercise to select issue, develop objectives, and determine target group.

Who
Volunteer Participant

8:45 10.15

Exercise I: Using the TUGI Report Cards Tea Break Exercise II: Developing Indicators Lunch Break Presentation of Group Discussion and Feedback Break Exercise III: Formulating Action Plans Dinner / Cultural Night

Facilitator See Exercise I

10:15 10:30 10:30 12:30

Step-by-step exercise on how to develop indicators

Facilitator See Exercise II

12:30 1:30 1:30 3:00

Review the results of Exercise I & II and provide feedback

Facilitator

3:00 3:15 3:15 5:00

Based on the information derived from the data, formulate an action plan on achieving the objectives as stated in Exercise I.

Facilitator Use any action planning method familiar to the group

7:00 9:00

Day 3

Time
8:30 8:45 8:45 10:15

Activity
Recap of Day 2 The TUGI Report Cards A ValueAdded Tool

Objective

Who

Deliver an overview of where local governments are today, and what the most urgent needs are with respect Local Government Performance Assessment in the country; Identify the niche at the local level for which the Report Cards could potentially provide a solution.

Knowledgeable representative who can present the various options available for Local Government Performance Measurement Systems.

10:15 10:30 10:30 12:30

Break Presentation of Group Discussion and Feedback Lunch Evaluation of the Report Card Implementers Training Closing Ceremony Reflections Awarding of Certificates of Completion Facilitator - See Exercise IV Review the action plans resulting from Exercise III and provide critical feedback Facilitator

12:30 1:30 1:30 2:30

2:30 3:00

138

TUGI REPORT CARD IMPLEMENTERS TRAINING

EXERCISE I: Using the TUGI Report Cards
Objective: The objective of this assignment is to establish which governance issue will be scrutinized using the Report Cards, develop an objective for the use of the tool and determine the target sector. Make groups of 5-6 participants. Ensure that participants with the same background will be divided over various groups in order to ensure that working groups are sufficiently mixed.

Working Groups:

In this training, we will assume that each of the working groups acts as if they were a stakeholder group in their community, and were actually tasked with the implementation of the tool at the local level, for either an imagined or real situation, as the case may be.
Reporting: Each working group will select one reporter who will present the results of the working group in a short presentation of about 10 minutes. 1 hour 30 minutes

Time available:

Background materials: i. The TUGI Report Card Users Manual ii. A set of TUGI Report Cards to choose from.

Discussion guidelines: 1. Of the following urban issues, which would you like to assess using the TUGI Report Cards, and why? You can also choose your own. Children; Civil Society participation; Corruption; Cultural Heritage; Elderly citizens; Employment and job creation; Gender and Development; Health Services; HIV Aids; Physically and Mentally Challenged; Public Transportation and Traffic Congestion; Shelter and Housing; Solid Waste Collection and Disposal; Urban Poverty; Water and Sanitation.

2. Having selected the issue to be assessed with the Report Cards, what is your objective in using the Report Cards? What do you want to achieve through the use of this governance tool? For example, if you selected water and sanitation, what are you hoping that you will achieve by using the Report Cards to assess public satisfaction of the service delivered? What would you hope to achieve once you had in your hands the data generated by the Report Cards survey? Remember, the objective that you state should be SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound. For example, an objective for the above question could be phrased as: To increase peoples accessibility to clean water in the ABC Community by 30% from current levels, within the next 3 years. The results of the survey would then be used to feed into action plans to achieve the above objective. Hence, in Exercise II, the indicators need to be phrased in a way that would obtain the exact kind of information you will need to have in order to increase the standards of water provision. 3. The objective is closely connected with the target sector, and discussions on determining both may overlap with each other. The selection of target sector involves the following The target sectors feedback should be sought because they need to be involved in the solution. Hence the target sector will be the same as the sector for whom the problem exists. The number of respondent will depend upon the resources available to carry out the Report Card testing, and the capacity to mobilize people to get involved in the process. The number needs to be large enough to attract the attention of those you wish to engage on a discussion of the results. Once you have the issue, the objective, and the target group identified, you can look at the indicators which need to be developed in order create the necessary information that would help to realise the objectives.
139

TUGI REPORT CARD IMPLEMENTERS TRAINING

EXERCISE II: Developing Indicators
Objective: Working Groups: The objective of this assignment is to develop the indicators to be used in the Report Card. Make groups of 5-6 participants. Ensure that participants with the same background will be divided over various groups in order to ensure that working groups are sufficiently mixed. Each working group will select one reporter who will present the results of the working group in a short presentation of about 10 minutes. 2 hours

Reporting:

Duration:

Background materials: i. The TUGI Report Cards Users Manual ii. A set of TUGI Report Cards from which each group can select an issue of concern.

Discussion Guidelines: 1. Exercise One facilitated the process of determining the issue to be analysed, the objective of using the Report Cards and the target sector.

2. Now, you will need to select a set of three or more characteristics of good governance (for example participation, equity, responsiveness) which you would like to use to assess local governance performance within that particular issue.

3. For each characteristic, select a list of four indicators that will provide the information and data relevant to enable the achievement of your objectives, as discussed in the previous exercise.

4. The indicators will need to be: Relevant: they should serve an clearly defined purpose; Understandable: are easy to understand, even by people who are not specialists; Reliable: provide information you can trust; Attainable: use information that is available.

5. One tip is to work backwards from the objective. For example, in order to improve the coverage of water supply to houses in a particular community, you may need to know what average distances people need to walk in order to access the nearest public water tap. This will give you the data to calculate the costs for providing access to a larger number of people, as per your objective in Exercise One. Hence, one indicator needs to ask the question, How far do you need to walk in order to access water?

6. Brainstorm on all the indicators that you think would be useful, then narrow the selection down to the four most important, most pertinent questions.

7. You also need to discuss how you will ask people to respond with a subjective rating of 1(very poor) to 5 (very good), or will you assign values based on preliminary knowledge of the situation in the ABC Community, for example: 1 Need to walk more than 20 minutes 2 Need to walk between 15 - 20 minutes 3 Need to walk between 10-15 minutes 4 Need to walk 5-10 minutes 5 No need to walk as the access is just outside my home.

8. Finally, allow for a test run of the indicators within your group try and role play as community members and answer the indicator questions did you get the information you were looking for? Is it useful? Are there better ways to phrase the question? Are there more important questions to be asked?

140

TUGI REPORT CARD IMPLEMENTERS TRAINING

EXERCISE IV: Using the Report Cards for Training Evaluation
Objective: The objective of this assignment is to evaluate the training and to showcase how the Report Cards can be used as a tool for evaluation. There will be no working groups, as it can be done in plenary Plenary session. Comments from participants will be directly reported. 0.5 hours

Working Groups: Reporting: Time available:

Background materials: Manual on the use of the TUGI Report Cards

Discussion Guidelines: 1. The Facilitators proposed a number of characteristics for the overall analysis of the success of the training. These characteristics were: Relevance; Effectiveness; Responsiveness; Professionalism; Participation; and Enjoyability

2. For each of these characteristics, indicators were developed. The participants were asked to individually rate the indicators. Summary of the results were calculated, presented and discussed. Please see the table below for the example Report Card for Evaluation of the TUGI Report Cards Implementers Training. Rating can be done using the following scale:

85% - 100%: Very Good 65% - 84%: Good (but still room for improvement) 50%- 64%: Fair ( Can do much better) 35% -49%: Poor (More commitment and effort needed) Below 35%: Very poor (something is drastically wrong)

141

REPORT CARD FOR EVALUATION OF THE TUGI REPORT CARDS IMPLEMENTERS TRAINING

Please rate the following statements using 1 to indicate very poor to 5 very good. Your responses will be treated as anonymous I) Relevancy 1 Background of the participants is relevant for the training 2 Training has shared tools which you can use in your own organizations 3 Training has provided reading materials which you will be able to use after the training 4 The Report Card system is a tool useful to local government performance measurement II) Effectiveness 1 My expectations of the training have been achieved 2 The steps of using the Report Cards are sufficiently clear to me 3 I will be able to implement the Report Card tool 4 I am committed to apply the lessons/tools learned and implement them III) Responsiveness 1 The training methods used were flexible enough to be adapted to the needs of the participants 2 The lectures/facilitators were able to respond to the questions/concerns of the participants 3 Sufficient time was spent on discussing the training needs of the participants 4 The secretariat was able to resolve any problems/complaints from the participants quickly and sufficiently IV) Professionalism 1 The training venue was conducive to the training 2 The lecturers/facilitators were professional 3 The training materials handed to the participants are of a high quality 4 The logistics for the training have been well arranged V) Participation 1 Sufficient room was given for participation and discussion 2 Training methods used ensured participation 3 Participants interacted actively during the training 4 Participants were able to express their ideas and concerns VI) Enjoyability 1 I had fun during the training 2 There was sufficient room for breaks and free-time 3 Food during the training was good 4 The accommodation facilities were good Rating 1-5

142

143

Annex 4

Resources
Please find below a list of organisations and individuals who have, in various capacities, contributed to the development of the TUGI Report Cards methodology.

Fazal Noor, Development Consortium, 603 Anum Blessing, KCUS, Sharea Faisal, Karachi, Pakistan. Tel: 92-21-453 1240; E-mail: fashn@email.com. Implemented the field-testing of the Report Card on Water and Sanitation Francisco L. Fernandez, Pagtambayayong Foundation, 102-P Del Rosario Extension, Cebu City, Philippines. Tel: 63-32-253 7974; Fax: 63-32-4182168; E-mail: pagtamba@mozcom.com. Implemented the field-testing of the Report Card on Employment and Job Creation K.A. Jayaratne, President, SEVANTHA Urban Resource Centre, 14, School Lane, Nawala, Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka. Tel: 94-1-879 710; Fax: 94-1-878 893. E-mail: sevanata@sri.lanka.net. Implemented the field-testing of the Report Card on Shelter and Housing, and used the TUGI Report Cards to help develop the poverty profile for the city of Colombo Khoo Salma Nasution, Honorary Secretary, Asian and West Pacific Network for Urban Conservation (AWPNUC), c/o Penang Heritage Trust, 19 Kelawi Road, 10250 Penang, Malaysia. Tel/Fax: 604-226 1358; E-mail: lubisksn@tm.net.my. Implemented the field-testing of the TUGI Report Card on Cultural Heritage Leo Fonseka, 56 Charles Place, Moratuwa, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Tel: 94-11-264 9597; Fax: 94-1 -264 9044; 1 E-mail: lfonseka@slk.lk. Researched and wrote the TUGI Sourcebook on Indicators

Moekti Handajani Soejachmoen (Kuki), PELANGI, Jl. Danau Tondano, No. A-4, Pejompongan, Jakarta 10210 Indonesia. Tel: 62-21-573 5020; Fax: 62-21-573 2503. E-mail: kuki@pelangi.or.id. Implemented the field-testing of the TUGI Report Card on Transport and Traffic Congestion Rabial Mallick, Assistant Director, Christian Institute for Study of Religion and Society (CISRS), 14/2 Sudder Street, Calcutta 700 016 West Bengal, India. Tel: 91-33-249 3544; Fax: 91-33-249 3686; E-mail: wcsrc@vsnl.net. Implemented the field-testing of the TUGI Report Card on Urban Poverty Suresh Balakrishnan, Public Affairs Centre, 578 3rd Cross Road, 16 B Main, Koramangala Block 3, Bangalore, 560034 India. Tel: 91-80-553 7260; Fax: 91-80-552 0216; E-mail: pacindia@vsnl.com. Teresa B Fernandez (Tessie Fernandez), Executive Director, Lihok-Filipina Foundation, Inc., 102 P Del Rosairo Ext. (Building 3), Cebu City 6000, Philippines. Tel: 63-32-254 8092 / 256 1341; Fax: 63-32-254 8072; E-mail: tessbf@mozcom.com. Implemented the field-testing of the TUGI Report Card on Gender and Development V. Keerthi Shekar, Group Executive, Waste Wise Asia Pacific, Mythri Sarna Seva Samitri, 1300D 1st Cross, 1st Main Hall, 3rd Stage, Thippesandra, Bangalore, 560 075 India. Tel: 91-80-527 3941; Fax: 91-80-525 5543; E-mail: msss@vsnl.com. Implemented the field-testing of the TUGI Report Card on Solid Waste Collection and Disposal

Lajana Manandhar, Lumanti Support Group for Shelter, P.O. Box 10546 Kathmandu, Nepal. Tel: 977-1-523 822; Fax: 977-1-520 480; E-mail: shelter@lumanti.wlink.com.np. Implemented the field-testing of the TUGI Report Card on Civil Society Participation
The following organisations have other Report Card systems of assessment. Please contact them directly for more information:

Suresh Balakrishnan, Public Affairs Centre, 578 3rd Cross Road, 16 B Main, Koramangala Block 3, Bangalore, 560034 India. Tel: 91-80-553 7260; Fax: 91-80-552 0216; Email: pacindia@vsnl.com. Vinay D. Lall, Director, Citizenship Development Society, Society for Development Studies, Core 6-A, 2nd Floor, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 India. Tel/Fax: 91-11-2469 9368; 91-11-2469 9369; E-mail: sds@nda.vsnl.net.in; Website: www.sdsindia.org.

144

145

Generating

Good Urban Governance

The TUGI Report Cards Users Manual

United Nations Development Programme

The Urban Governance Initiative

Generating

Good Urban Governance

The TUGI Report Cards Users Manual

United Nations Development Programme

The Urban Governance Initiative

Acknowledgements

This Users Manual owes thanks to many people and institutions. We gratefully acknowledge the following:

To Dato (Dr) Anwar Fazal, Senior Regional Advisor, UNDP-TUGI, for initiating the idea and developing the framework. To Jeffrey Tan, formerly of the Malaysian Society for Transparency and Integrity for the development of the template for the Report Cards. To Prafulla Pradhan, formerly the Programme Manager of The Urban Governance Initiative, and Leo Fonseka, formerly of UNICEF, for their very constructive roles in developing the background materials and innovating the practical methods of making the Report Cards user-friendly. To the TUGI Team, especially Sri Husnaini Sofjan, Programme Manager of UNDP-TUGI, and Juliana Mokhtar, Administrative Assistant, for their support to the project. All the participating organisations and resource persons that were involved in the initial field-testing of the TUGI Report Cards, and who illustrated through their experiences, the usefulness of the tool. The names and contact numbers of these institutions and individuals are provided in Annex 4. To Joris van Etten of the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS), K.A. Jayaratne of SEVANATHA Urban Resource Centre, and Tessie B. Fernandez of Lihok Pilipina, for their skill in bringing together the key elements of this manual. The production and final edit of the manual was completed by Saira Shameem, Programme Specialist for Capacity Building and Project Development, UNDP-TUGI. The graphics were a creative boon and contributed by Sabariah Jais, otherwise known as Cabai. The layout of the publication was skillfully presented by Michael Voon <amx@tm.net.my> We encourage the use and reproduction of the materials in this publication. Please acknowledge the original source of any of the materials used, as well as UNDP-TUGI, when doing so. Do let us know of your experiences in using this tool. E-mail us at <tugi@undp.org>.

Preface

T H E U R B A N G O V E R N A N C E I N I T I AT I V E ( T U G I ) developed the Report Cards as a set of tools for assessing public satisfaction of local governance processes and for establishing a mechanism for the participatory appraisal of good local governance. TUGIs Report Cards are an innovative tool that have been used by urban administrators, community-based organizations and policy-makers for bridging local communication gaps and erasing blind spots that may exist in any given governance process. The TUGI Report Cards cover fifteen different urban issues, from shelter and housing to the needs of the elderly in urban areas. Of these, nine issue-specific Report Cards have thus far been translated into seven different local languages and field-tested in twenty-two cities in the Asia Pacific region. The Report Cards have opened up new avenues for city stakeholders to engage constructively with urban managers, creating a platform for information exchange and problem solving. The Report Cards aim to translate the demands of the constituency to practical action plans based on a participatory process in which the indicators and information feeding into the process are determined by the city stakeholders themselves. The Report Cards translate the feedback received from stakeholders into formats that are more easily implemented as governance processes. They also facilitate the development of governance as a partnership with all stakeholders, and can create opportunities for expanding local ownership of the governance process. The Report Cards help to increase understanding between partners with competing interests through engaging in an inclusive definition of what governance means to people at the local level. This manual has been prepared with the support of the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS), SEVANATHA Urban Resource Centre, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Lihok Pilipina, Cebu, the Philippines. We would like to thank all the participants of the TUGI Report Card Implementers Training , which was held in Antipolo City, the Philippines, from 13 till 15 March, 2003 for all their feedback on the draft version of this manual.
Kuala Lumpur, April 2003

The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI): TUGI is a project developed and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). TUGI is an action-oriented initiative that promotes better urban governance through institutional capacity building, providing policy advisory services, enabling innovations on tools and methodologies for better urban governance, and ensuring the wider dissemination of good practices and collaborative networking on all of the above within and between cities in Asia and the Pacific. Please visit www.tugi.org for further information.

For more information on the TUGI Report Cards, please contact: The Programme Manager, The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI), United Nations Development Programme, P.O. Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: 603-2095 9122; Fax: 603-2093 2361; Website:http://www.tugi.org; E-mail: tugi@undp.org.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI)
Compiled by:

The Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS), Rotterdam, the Netherlands
In cooperation with:

SEVANATHA Urban Resource Centre, Colombo, Sri Lanka Lihok Pilipina, Cebu, Philippines
Edited by:

Saira Shameem United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI)

First published by The Urban Governance Initiative, December 2003. Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data ISBN 983-40263-1-5

The TUGI Report Cards Users Manual

Table of Contents

Preface Introduction Good Urban Governance Measuring Good Urban Governance This Manual Local Governance Performance Measurement An Introduction to Performance Indicators Performance Indicators for Good Urban Governance Using Performance Indicators: Lessons Learned TUGI Report Cards as a Local Governance tool The TUGI Report Cards How it works Steps for using the TUGI Report Cards Step 1: Select an Issue of Concern Step 2: Convene a Stakeholders Meeting and Get Support Step 3: Define an Objectives for the Use of Report Cards Step 4: Select a Target Sector Step 5: Select the Characteristics of Good Governance Step 6: Develop your own Indicators Step 7: Decide on the Rating System Step 8: Compile Data Step 9: Disseminateand discuss results Examples of Using the TUGI Report Cards Report Cards for Developing a Poverty Reduction Strategy in Colombo, Sri Lanka Report Cards for Gender in Cebu City, the Philippines Annex 1: Glossary of Terms Used Annex 2: Standard Templates for the TUGI Report Cards Annex 3: Suggested training design for TUGI Report Cards Implementers Annex 4: Resources 1 1 3 3 5 5 7 9 11 11 11 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 19 19 24 31 35 137 144

The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI)

The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI) is a regional project developed and funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It is an action-oriented initiative that promotes better urban governance through: Institutional capacity building; Providing policy advisory services; Enabling innovations on tools and methodologies to promote improved urban governance; and Ensuring the dissemination of information and promoting collaborative networking on all of the above, within and between cities in Asia and the Pacific. UNDP-TUGIs strategy for implementation includes the following: Building capacities for better urban governance through encouraging and promoting innovations of inclusive and participatory decision-making processes; Upstreaming the UNDP-TUGI Report Cards and other modalities that facilitate collaboration and partnerships into city policy-making levels; The production of user-friendly tools for improving urban governance structures and processes, and encouraging the growth of indigenous experiences and knowledge systems to support the expansion of the global movement for good urban governance; Popularising good governance through the implementation of a complementary awards system that also incorporates the media and the use of new information and communication technologies (ICT) into delivering on targets for poverty eradication and improved good urban governance; and Promoting new collaborations that strengthen national government focal points and national policy initiatives through mapping and the building of synergies between ongoing urban-related activities, while at the same time providing linkages to other regional and international programmes. UNDP-TUGI seeks to assist mayors, governors and other city stakeholders in building the capacity of local governments to perform their tasks effectively. UNDP-TUGI advances the five principles for livable and sustainable cities including social justice, ecological sustainability, political participation, economic productivity and cultural vibrancy.

The Urban Governance Initiative United Nations Development Programme P.O. Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: 603-2095 9122; Fax: 603-2093 2361; E-mail: tugi@undp.org Website: www.tugi.org.