[Uzgp] & Union Parishad Governance Project [Upgp]

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF UPAZILA PARISHAD GOVERNANCE PROJECT [UZGP] & UNION PARISHAD GOVERNANCE PROJECT [UPGP]

FINAL REPORT JUNE, 2017

Team Leader Dr. Salahuddin M. Aminuzzaman

Team Members Dr. Mobasser Monem Dr. Ferdous Arfina Osman Dr. Mohammad Shuaib Dr. Bazlul Huq Khondker Dr. Mohammad Abu Eusuf Abu Hossain Muhammad Ahsan Mr. Riaz Uddin Khan

2 Table of Contents

Composition of the team 2 Abbreviations and Acronyms 6 Maps of the Study Area 7 Executive Summary 8-15 Foreword 16

Part I Overview of Project Context 17-29 1.1. Introduction 1.2. Relevance of Project interventions and Government of Bangladesh Policy framework 1.3. UPGP and UZGP At a Glance- Objectives and Result framework of UPGP and UZGP 1.4. Background of Assessment 1.5. Reflections from other studies having bearing upon UPGP and UZGP 1.6. Scope and Objectives of Assessment

Part II Evaluation Methodologies 30-41 2.1 Survey Methodology of the study 2.1.1 Overview of survey design 2.2 Study area and target population of the study 2.2.1 Study area 2.2.2 Target population 2.2.3 Matching methodologies 2.3 Matching results 2.3.1 Methods of data collection 2.4 Quantitative survey 2.4.1 Sample size 2.4.2 Sample design 2.4.2.1 Sample design for Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad Surveys 2.4.2.2 Sampling design for household survey and Household selection 2.4.2.3 Sampling design for exit client survey 2.5 Qualitative survey 2.6 Review of Secondary Data 2.7 Data collection methodologies 2.7.1 Development of study instruments 2.7.2 Recruitment of and training to field staff 2.8 Data collection operation 2.8.1 Field visits and quality checking 2.9 Data management and quality assurance

3 2.10 Data Analysis and preparation of the report 2.11 Special consideration and limitation of the methodology

PART III UPGP: Overview of Impacts/Results 42-137

3.1. Impact Assessments of Results: UPGP Output 1 3.1.1. Key Findings 3.1.2. Capacity building of UP Chairs and members in the light of roles and responsibilities defined by UP Act 2009 3.1.3. Activating Ward Shavas for inclusive decision-making 3.1.4. Strengthening Standing Committees for Effective Governance 3.1.5. Up-Scaling of Women’s Development Forum 3.1.6. Building Citizenship and Promoting Downward Accountability and overall efficiency and effectiveness 3.1.7. Overview of performance grants for improving core governance areas of UPs 3.1.8. Identifying the areas of relative performance on composite governance indicator

3.2 Impact Assessments of Results: UPGP Output 2 3.2.1. Key Findings 3.2.2. Quality of development plans and needs assessments 3.2.3. Quality of financial and revenue management 3.2.4. Quality of budgeting, auditing and reporting practices 3.2.5. Number and nature of gender focused projects 3.2.6. Extent of use and impact of Right to Information 3.2.7. Performance and Challenges of WDF 3.2.8. Use and Impact of Citizen Charter 3.2.9. Assessment of quality of service delivery system 3.2.10. Right to Information at UP level

PART IV UZGP: Overview of Impacts/Results 138-202 4.1. Impact Assessment of Results – UZGP Output 1 4.1.1. Key Findings 4.1.2. Capacity and role of UZP members 4.1.3. Women Development Forum 4.1.4. Citizen Charter 4.1.5. Performance grants and improvement in core governance areas

4.2 Impact Assessment of Results – UZGP Output 2 4.2.1. Key Findings 4.2.2. Extent of links of the plans of the Line Departments

4 4.2.3. Quality of plan and budget making and execution 4.2.4. Co-financed Upazila level projects 4.2.5. Impact of performance based UFF to Upazila and how good practices have been replicated in other interventions 4.2.6. Assessment of quality of service delivery system

4.3 Impact Assessment of results-Output 3 4.3.1. Key Findings 4.3.2. Policy Advisory Group (PAG) 4.3.3. Policy Advocacy 4.3.4. System design 4.3.5. Peer Learning Forums 4.3.6. Policy Dialogue Forums

PART V Economic Analysis of the Project (UPGP and UZGP) 203-242 5.1. Economic Analysis of the Project (UPGP) 5.2. Key Findings 5.3. Trend Analysis of Grants, Revenues and Investments in Program and Control Areas 5.4. Assessment on Changes in Resource Base of UP and UZP 5.5. Assessment on Changes in the Pattern of Utilization of Funds 5.6. Impact on how investments benefit the communities, including poor households and gender 5.7. Estimate the impact on local fiscal space, fixed capital formation and economic return 5.8. Assessing the Changes in Financial Management Practices 5.9. Conclusion PART VI - Assessment of Overall Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability, Relevance, and Impact 243-254 Part VII - Gender Analysis 255-265 PART VIII - Self-Assessment of LGD Policy makers and Project Management of the UPGP and UZGP 266-271 PART IX - Lessons Learned and Good Practices 272-275 PART X - Recommendations 276-278 Annex: Questionnaire 279-335 Interview Related Note (Write Specifically) 336-523

5 Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADP Annual Development Programme AP Annual Plan CSO Civil Society Organization DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DC Deputy Commissioner DDLG Deputy Director, Local Government DF District Facilitator EPBG Extended Performance Based Grant EU European Union FY Financial Year FYP Five-Year Plan GoB Government of Bangladesh LD Line Department (Deconcentrated department at UZP level) LG Local Government LGD Local Government Division LGI Local Government Institution LG Local Government

LM Line Ministry MDG Millennium Development Goal NILG National Institute of Local Government NGO Non-government Organization OSR Own-source revenue

RTI Right to Information SC Standing Committee SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation UFF Upazila Fiscal Facility UNCDF United Nations Capital Development Fund UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNO Upazila Nirbahi Officer UP Union Parishad UPGP Union Parishad Governance Project UZP Upazila Parishad UZGP Upazila Parishad Governance Project

6 Map of the UZGP and UPGP Areas

7 Executive Summary

Bangladesh is going through a transition process of democratisation. Various policy documents including Five-Year Plans (6th and 7th) envision a stronger, eﬀective, participative and accountable local government system as the basis for democratic transformation and consolidation.

Policy regimes and plan documents over and over again emphasized the need for making Local Government Institutions (LGIs) participative, accountable, inclusive, gender-sensitive and responsive to the needs of citizens in general and the disadvantaged groups, in particular.

In view of the context, the Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) intends to build Upazilas as active, bringing all service providers at Upazila level under the accountability framework of Upazila Parishad (UZP).

The project also aims at transforming Upazilas into a corporate local government body by developing and strengthening a mechanism of participatory, democratic and accountable governance process, as envisioned in the Local Government (UZP) Act.

The Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) on the other hand has been piloting innovations to improve the functional and institutional capacity of Union Parishads. The project strives for enhancing democratic accountability of Union Parisha ds and increasing citizens’ involvement in order to achieve effective, efficient, accountable and responsive delivery of local services. The initiatives also included a significant gender mainstreaming effort, looking at local women leadership empowerment, participation and voice.

Both UZGP and UPGP aimed to strengthen the national capacity for eﬀective policy review, monitoring, and capacity development of local government institutions (LGIs) to enhance the quality and process of Local Governance.

The broad goals and objectives of the both projects are very much in line with the existing policy regimes, perspective plans and broader long- term visions of the government.

This study attempts to make an impact evaluation of the projects using both qualitative and quantitative methods, including econometrics techniques. Broadly the study attempts to assess the institutional processes, intervention measures and the impact, value for money, and sustainable improvement in livelihood of citizens at Union and Upazila levels.

A comprehensive sampling has been done to gather data and information from the UP and Upazila levels. A total of 3103 households (1541 from project and 1562 from control areas) have been taken as sample respondents of the study.

A total of 220 UPs and 80 UZPs have been covered under the survey representing both the project and the control areas. Institutional surveys based on a questionnaire were conducted on these Upazila and Union Parishads.

8 Besides, an exit- point survey on 720 UP service seekers and 720 Upazila Parishad service seekers was also conducted to assess their opinions about the quality of services and their satisfaction with the service delivery process.

The study also used the qualitative techniques of data collection from the sampled UPs and Upazilas. The study relied on elected representatives and appointed officials of Upazila and UP as Key Informant Interviews (KIIs).

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were organized at two different levels- at the institutional level with elected UP and Upazila representatives and appointed officials and also at the community level with community members Besides, a number of case studies were conducted both at the Upazila and UP levels. Finally, the study team members reviewed available secondary literature relevant to focus of the study vis-à-vis the two projects.

It reconfirms that grassroots based governments have significant potential to institutionalise democracy, participatory processes and pro-poor and gender sensitive development.

Capacity building and technical assistance support have noticeably contributed to accountability, responsiveness and social engagement of LGIs. Most importantly LGIs are gradually being recognised for their “functional credibility and institutional trust”.

The strong engagement of communities through the Ward Shava has deepened the pro-poor focus in local investment planning and local revenue mobilisation also emerged as a social accountability platform.

There are evidences that the creation of Women Development Forum (WDF) has promoted gender responsive planning, budgeting, strengthened women’s voice and leadership in decision making and addressed such issues as child marriage, sexual harassment, violence against women and children.

Both the projects with effective use of performance grants have improved transparency, accountability and participation of LGIs. There are evidences of improved pro-poor, gender- friendly planning and MDG- focused service delivery in pilot areas.

Furthermore, the grant system has improved women’s participation and capacity building support to female leaders and LGI’s own resource mobilisation processes.

The projects are found to be complementary in many ways. The collaboration between UZGP and UPGP facilitated strengthening of service delivery in the UPs.

A greater number of households (78%) are visiting the project UPs than it was in the baseline (72%). Household awareness about services at both UP (85%) and UZP (72%) has increased. Quality of services provided by line departments has seen little improvement from ‘poor’ to ‘average’ in the end-line compared to the baseline.

9 A number of projects sponsored by UZGP have ultimately been implemented at the UP level. Integration and synergies were achieved in planning and supporting various service delivery investments across the UPs. Furthermore, leveraging of partnerships among LGSP II and UPGP and UZGP has widened and deepened the impact of development interventions.

The projects are found to be complementary in many ways. Collaboration between UZGP and UPGP facilitated strengthening of service delivery in the UPs.

From an economic perspective, the projects present a positive scenario l. The estimated ‘benefit-cost’ ratio of UPGP intervention is 8.1 while for UZGP intervention the BCR is 18.5. Given the large BCR values (it is suggested that an intervention with more than 1 BCR value is cost effective), it may be concluded that the cost effectiveness of both interventions have been satisfactory.

Furthermore, a marginal increase of 2.6% in the Gross Fixed Capital formation (GFC) has been noticed in the treatment UZP as against the control UZPs. The UP level revenue growth has also been impressive.

Average revenue growth in project UPs is 26.8 % compared to average revenue growth of 18.0 % for the control UPs. The 8.8 percentage point difference in revenue growth may be attributed to the interventions in the project areas.

The headcount poverty rates in “project” and “control” areas between baseline (2009) and the end-line (2016) has been estimated. It was observed that poverty situation has improved for the project household by about 5 percentage points. The corresponding change is half for the control households

The broad analysis of the projects reveals some important features. There are clear differences between treatment Unions and Upazilas in terms of: a. revenue mobilisation, resource generation, and expenditure/investment sector preferences. b. The treatment Unions and Upazilas have high preference to projects/programmes linked with the national policy setting like MDGs.

Results in terms of both qualitative and quantitative indicators show that the projects have brought a relative positive change in treatment areas by giving better services, connecting the people with the local government system.

The income and expenditure patterns have improved-- which significantly contributed to reduction in the local level income disparity and thereby improved the poverty scenario in the project areas.

The local level capital is being formed and the overwhelming dependence on grants is being shifted by the new revenue generation process. Based on the measurable benefits, the increased income, benefit-cost analysis show a high level of net present value and a high

10 benefit-cost ratio suggesting worthiness of the project(BCR is 18.5 for UZGP while for UPGP, BCR is 8.1).

Both at the Union and Upazila levels, the projects have brought about changes in managing fiscal resources, in enhancing the service delivery mechanism, enrolling the local people so that they can reap the benefit directly, and forming local level capital for sustainability.

The two projects have contributed to up-scaling, institutionalising and sustaining local governance mechanism on strengthened transparency, accountability and participation (standing committees, Ward Shava, open budget meetings, citizen charter).

The M&E framework strategy and vertical division of work among DLGs and DDLGs have been established and implemented according to plan, despite changes and vacancies in the project staff. The M&E data are produced being assisted by the monitoring tool kit developed under the projects.

There are specific project interventions of activating and strengthening the Ward Shava. The UPs are trained and capacitated to have their respective Citizen Charters.

A significant up-scaling of Ward Shavas has taken place in terms of holding Ward Shavas as per the UP Act 2009 (end-line: 66% vs baseline: 33%) and attendance in Ward Shavas by 5% (endline:98% vs baseline: 8%). Project UPs demonstrated greater participation of female, poor and disadvantaged people in WS compared to those in control UPs.

The concept of citizen charter has been immensely popularised and institutionalised. At the UP level, 82.5% of project and 75% of control UPs informed having citizen charter while in the baseline 58% of project and 49% of control UPs affirmed the presence of citizen charter.

Under the UZGP, use of citizen charter in project UZPs (90%) is also greater than that in control areas (60%) though the degree of citizen awareness about such charter is still extremely low in both project (8%) and control (5.2%) Upazilas. In the project areas, the UPGP has been helping the UPs in developing a MIS system. The UP Act Section 78 has also been addressed through installing a provision for dissemination of information, especially, on open budgets.

The projects have trained a large number of rural LGIs and community level leaders and women. Such training, orientation programmes, peer learning and overseas exposure visits had direct and indirect implications on their mindset, attitude and level of skills. They are more aware of their “political, administrative and social role” as public representatives.

During the community based FGDs members of the community were found to have noted that elected representatives of recent years are “socially more sensitive” and more “approachable”. The community members seem to have now relatively a higher level of “institutional trust” in LGIs, especially UP. Participation in various UP organised meetings (Ward Shava, open budget meeting) by the community people has significantly increased.

11 For instance, on an average, the percentage of people ever attending any Ward Shava in the project areas has increased to 17.2% in end-line from 8% in the baseline. More importantly, community people now feel prompted to voice their opinion in these meetings about local development. Such opinions later are reflected in the UP plans more frequently in project areas than the plans in control areas.

The most important lessons that can be drawn from both projects are: a. Community engagement is possible and it ensures quality of the implementation of the projects; b. Voices of marginalised people can be channeled through the Ward Shava; c. Open budget has significantly contributed towards “responsive attitude” and “transparency” of the LGI officials; d. Line agency officials have become more aware and also responsive to problems and issues of the grassroots on demand; e. WDF has significantly contributed to creating a platform for women leaders that has raised social awareness among them on the one hand and made them more politically conscious and empowered on the other; f. UZPs and UPs are gradually emerging as effective bodies for coordination of development intervention; contributing towards more awareness and participation.

The training programmes have considerably boosted the level of confidence and functional skills of the UP/UZP members, especially female Vice Chairs, female members of UP who appear to be more active in decision making and supported by the emerging expanding role of the WDFs.

Through training and workshops, both UPGP and UZGP appear to have been able to infuse some democratic values among the Line Department officials and the field evidence suggests they are gradually acknowledging the political reality and accepting authority of political executives.

Both projects have piloted an enhanced performance-based grant system, which has become important catalyst for the achievement of project objectives within local governance, pro-poor development planning, MDG service delivery, and increased own-source revenues (OSR) mobilisation. The performance elements are highly appreciated by LGIs and have instilled a stronger awareness on good governance and a sense of competition.

The projects have been able to generate and facilitate broad policy discussions across the country on the future directions of local government institutional issues. Through its action research and review of policies and legal framework, the projects have been effective in initiating amendments to the local government regulatory framework (legal instruments, guidelines).

12 In broad terms the projects have contributed towards the development of institutionalising and sustaining local governance through strengthened transparency, accountability and participation practices through standing committees, WDF, Ward Shavas, open budget meetings, citizen charter etc.

At the policy level, based on the outcome of project results, the LGD has been able to successfully convince the Government of creating additional staff positions like UP Accountant- cum Computer Assistant to enhance the operational and managerial efficiency of the UPs.

Policy initiatives have been taken to transfer funds of the Line Ministries under the custody of UZPs to ensure a higher degree of institutional accountability of the LM staff to the UZPs. However, it is yet to be operationalised.

LGIs both at Union and Upazila levels face a broad range of institutional, functional and capacity constraints, strained relationship with LD officials and absence of detailed and clearly spelled out rules. At the functional and institutional level there is still a low level of coordination between Upazila Parishads and the LDs which have strong implications on the development planning, management and ensuring service delivery.

Lessons Learned • Community engagement supports better public service delivery and governance at the Upazila and Union Parishads. • Performance Based Grants have stimulated improvement of UP and Upazila governance and created a healthy competition among the Upazilas and UPs. • Scope for democratic space and downward accountability has been accelerated through the induction of Ward Shava, Open budget and proactive disclosure of information. • Sustained focus on social sector projects has helped gender mainstreaming and contribute to developing local women leadership • Role of standing committees can reinforce public accountability of local governments and compliance of citizens. • Capacity building and changing mindset of Upazila and UP functionaries enhance Own Source Revenue mobilisation • Web-based MIS system improves operational capacity, dynamism and oversight mechanism. • Regular monitoring visit to the Upazilas and UPs by the controlling authorities promotes financial transparency, accountability and compliance with the rules. • Model Upazila and UP Plans and Budget books encourage other Upazilas and UPs to make their plans effectively.

13 • Co-financing has a significant potential provided adequate legal framework, technical support as well as devising an appropriate strategy to generate trust of potential partners are there. • By stimulating the demand side the fullest potentials of the initiatives for ensuring transparent and accountable governance can be achieved.

Recommendations a) Training centres to overcome capacity constraints of local governments should be established in districts and Upazilas. Regional training hubs are also needed to sustain and institutionalise capacity building; b) Effective Fiscal Decentralisation for LGIs requires a local government finance policy framework where finance should follow functions. Local government budget should be aligned with national budget for strengthening the LGIs; c) “Basket funding” approach should be adopted by LGD which will help avoid overlapping and duplication of interventions at the local level; d) Delay in receiving EPBG hampers timely implementation of schemes. Therefore, EPBG should be transferred in time; e) Study findings reveal that all stakeholders are in favor of continuing the present audit system. Therefore, for ensuring transparency and accountability, the present audit system should continue. The audit period should be a bit longer and be done by experienced personnel/firms; f) In order to stimulate co-financing, appropriate legal frameworks are to be enacted detailing the modalities of partnership/engagement among the potential local partners; g) Performance grant system has produced outstanding dividends, so the system should be further reviewed, streamlined and continued in future interventions; h) Further attention should be given to effective use of performance grants; i) Direct transfer of funds to the Upazila and UPs was found to be effective and this should continue; j) UFF grant should be strengthened for co-financing and ownership building in local development; k) Experiences of UPGP and UZGP have strongly provided solid evidence of institutional achievements. Both projects should continue at least for one more phase and undertake few more innovative approaches to good governance and consolidate the tested tools with new interventions and experimentations; l) In line with the policy framework of the 7th Five- Year Plan, a uniform legal framework needs to be enacted and implemented;

14 m) Gradation of Upazila Parishad needs to be set up based on the number of voters and other local development indicators; n) Mechanism should be developed to address interference of the external actors into the LGI development planning and management; o) In order to strengthen the planning capacity, a planning cell should be formed at Upazila Parishad for formulating short, mid and long- term Upazila and inter-UP regional plans. A system is to be designed to develop a synergy between the Upazilas and other LGIs; p) Additional technical, financial and institutional support should be provided to LGIs with a view to making the Ward Shava more participative, effective and inclusive; q) Standing/Upazila committees have immense potential to democratise the LGIs, and therefore, it is important that these are activated properly to ensure internal accountability, local service delivery, responsive and integrated planning of LGIs; r) Participation of citizens in Ward Shavas and Open Budget Meeting is limited and women’s participation was found to be less than men. Therefore, more emphasis is to be given to encourage and motivate citizens in general and women in particular to participate in those fora s) Monitoring, Inspection and Evaluation system for LG Division should be strengthened. Monitoring of LGIs by DDLGs and other relevant agencies should be ensured. Coordination meetings between DDLGs and the LGD need to be organized on a regular basis for feedback and follow-up measures should be undertaken by the MIE wing of the LGD. The manpower and other related capacities of the MIE wing need to be enhanced to perform its monitoring role; t) Coordination meeting at UP should be conducted in the presence of UP members and UP based line agency field extension workers in order to make the local level services more responsive to community needs;

More care and emphasis be given to make the female UP members engaged, enthusiastic and participative in the UP affairs: Intensive training/orientation for the male members to support women’s participation in decision making needs to be organised; In order to enhance women empowerment capacity building initiatives should ensure increased participation of women.

15 Foreword

The Impact Assessment Study of the UPGP and UZGP took place between October 2016 and March 2017 and was conducted by a team of nine Core Consultants including Local Government Expert, Performance Grant Expert, Economist, Gender Expert, Statistician, Communication Expert and Data Analyst, eight Field Supervisors and forty two data collectors. The Techniques of data collection methods and tools comprised of pre-testing, survey, KII, FGDs, Exit Meeting and workshops. The data collection was carried out in twenty one districts and field level data collection was conducted in six weeks.

The two projects are implemented in accordance with separate project documents. They are, however, mutually interlinked both in terms of approach, intervention areas, technical assistance and management. Hence, the report integrates end-line impact assessments where interventions are jointly managed by the two projects, while interventions unique to each of the projects are assessed in separate sections.

The impact assessment team would like to thank for the warm hospitality and open discussions during all meetings and for sharing of valuable experiences in a structured manner at the inception workshop. The assessment team has done its best to reflect the views expressed during discussions with project stakeholders, although findings and recommendations in this report ultimately represent the assessments of the team and are subject to further review and discussions among project stakeholders.

The assignment would not be accomplished without substantial logistical support from the GoB officials, UNDP and UNCDF staff. The team would like to extend a special thanks to all concerned for their all- out institutional support to the arrangement of meetings, workshops, transportation and accommodation.

Salahuddin M. Aminuzzaman

PART - I OVERVIW OF PROJECT CONTEXT

1.1 Introduction Bangladesh is going through a transition process of democratisation. Multiple actors and factors have been emerging in the process. New processes are also emerging to strengthen democratic practices both at the national and local levels. Various policy documents including the most recent Five-Year Plan envision a stronger, effective, participative and accountable local government system as the basis for democratic transformation and consolidation. The Seventh Five- Year Plan has also recognised the need for strengthening local governments as one of the 11 priority sectors of intervention for better governance outcomes. Policy documents also emphasized the need for activating local government institutions based on a well-defined legal framework that assigns responsibilities along with commensurate financial autonomy. The local government system in Bangladesh has evolved within a three-tier framework - Union, Upazila (sub-district) and District. The institution at the primary tier i.e. the Union Parishad (UP) has had the most robust presence by virtue of institutional continuity as an elected body. The body at the secondary level i.e. the Upazila Parishad (UZP) has a much smaller history as an elected body while an elected body at the apex level i.e. district, is yet to appear. At present, Local Government Institutions (LGIs) of Bangladesh include 11 City Corporations, 313 Pourashavas (Municipalities), 61 Zila Parishads (Districts), 487 Upazila Parishads (sub-districts) and 4545 Union Parishads (rural local governments). Besides, there are three Hill District Councils, an additional system in force for the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Bandarban, Rangamati and Khagrachari districts). Alongside the statutory LGIs, these District Councils are legally empowered to exercise customary laws as well as act as the Regional Council. These are currently being run by nominated persons rather than by elected representatives. The LGIs in Bangladesh are served by nearly 77,000 elected representatives and 75,000 support staff. Since inception, these local government institutions were given responsibilities for the maintenance of law and order, infrastructure development, promotion of health, education, and some other basic social services. But the Constitution provides a wider agenda. The Article 59 narrates the overall functions of LGI as (a) “administration and the work of public officers; (b) the maintenance of public order and (c) the preparation and implementation of plans relating to public services and economic development”.

17 1.2 Relevance of Project interventions and Government of Bangladesh Policy framework Constitutional Commitment: The Constitution of Bangladesh describes the local government system and the Article 59(2) narrates the overall functions of LGI as (a) “administration and the work of public officers; (b) the maintenance of public order and (c) the preparation and implementation of plans relating to public services and economic development”. In addition, there are a number of supplementary Acts and Rules regulating different tiers of the local government system in Bangladesh.1 The local government has been repeatedly identified as a key strategic sector for improving governance and development in Bangladesh. The election manifesto of the Awami League (AL), the present ruling party, has expressed strong political commitment to establish an effective local government system in the country. The AL manifesto stressed that "every union will be made the headquarters for the development and administration of the area and be developed as a planned rural township."

Seventh Five- Year Plan In line with a strong electoral and political mandate, the Government of Bangladesh has formulated the 7th Five- Year Plan. The Government of Bangladesh places special emphasis on strengthening the local government in order to bring service delivery closer to people and also to make sure local people's preferences are well reflected in the planning process12. At the policy level, it is agreed that a devolved and effective local government system is crucial for making development agenda pro-poor, while widening participation in decision making and ensuring that resources are directed to where they are most needed through increased allocative efficiency. The 7th Five Year Plan has acknowledged that the reflection of good governance should be manifested by “better service delivery” system. The Plan, therefore, has strongly emphasized the need and importance of better service for rural and urban areas through the local government system. The Plan noted the weakness in public administrative capacity and the absence of strong local governments have limited the implementation of government policies. The focuses on strengthening public administration and local governments have been considered “a key priority” for the Seventh Plan. It specifically highlighted the need for improving efficiency and service delivery of local government through a series of structural reform interventions including “institutional and process engineering”3.

1 Local Government (City Corporation) (Amended) Act, 2011; Local Government (City Corporation) Election Rules, 2008; Zila Parishad Act, 2000; Upazila Parishad (Amended) Act, 2011; Upazila Parishad (Service) Rules, 2010; Upazila Parishad (Program Implementation) Rules, 2010; Local Government (Paurashava)(Amended) Act, 2010; Local Government (Paurashava) Election Rules, 2008; Local Government (Union Parishad) Act, 2009; Union Parishad (Development Planning) Rules, 2013; Union Parishad (Tax Schedule) Rules, 2012; Union Parishad (Property) Rules, 2012; Union Parishad (Agreement) Rules, 2012; Union Parishad (Accounts & Audit) Rules, 2012; Village Court Act, 2006. 2 Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Seventh Five Year Plan (SFYP) 2016-2020 Accelerating Growth, Empowering Citizens, General Economics Division (GED), Planning Commission, 2015, p. Xliv., 421, 422 3 Seventh Five Year Plan (SFYP) , p.123

18 It also identifies the local government as one of the four critical areas for intervention for good governance. The SFYP noted that at the process level LGIs should be: i. strengthened to engage in rural economic activities (in addition to conventional development activities. ii. capable of dealing with climate change, disaster management and planning, infrastructural management; iii. equipped with a results-based M&E system; and iv. capable improving financial management of local government bodies. Furthermore, at the policy level, the SFYP emphasized the need for introducing a Local Government Legal Framework; designing a comprehensive tax sharing formula between national and local governments; and evolving a strong management framework including creation of a ‘Local Government Service’. More specifically the SFYP put emphasis on: i. building the capacity of local governments through the assignment of appropriate officials, technical assistance and training programmes; ii. developing Planning and budgeting capacities at the local level to help design and implement local level programmes; iii. fostering initiatives to provide technical assistance to link local level plan to the national medium to long- term planning.

Vision 2021 According to Vision 2021, local government will be given due importance with a view to effecting a radical change in the political system. Vision 2021 envisages devolution of power, functions, and fiscal authority to local government in accordance with Constitutional provisions44. The Vision 2021 further noted that “the potential of local government bodies, particularly the Union Parishad, to coordinate a streamlined institutional strategy needs to be actively explored”. In addition, “establish powerful autonomous local government bodies for coordinating public and private development initiatives”. Bangladesh has strong Constitutional and political commitment, elaborate policy framework on Local government and governance – which have set a solid structural foundation for the Government of Bangladesh to attain the goals and aspiration of governance.

1.3 UZGP and UPGP at a glance – objectives and result framework The UZGP intends to build Upazilas as active and vibrant LG units, bringing all service providers at Upazila level under the accountability framework of UZP and creating a mechanism of participatory, democratic and accountable body corporate as envisioned in the Local Government (UZP) Act. The activities that are being carried out under the first output of the project aim at building the capacity of the UZP mainly to transform it into a fully functional institution and to promote democracy and empower people, in particular the women representatives to participate in the policy debate of the UZP. The capacity building efforts include making the UZP functionaries

4 General Economics Division, Planning Commission., Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Perspective Plan of Bangladesh: 2010-2021 – Making Vision 2021 Reality, April 2012. P102

19 understand their basic roles and functions. This is contributing to enhancement of their skills to perform within the provisions of the existing legal framework and fulfilling expectations of both their male and female constituencies. The second output intends to create a simple and viable planning and budgeting system under the existing legal framework and support improvements to the management and coordination of the infrastructure support and local services assigned to all the Upazila Parishads of Bangladesh under capacity development support. The project will ensure the preparation of five- year plans for all Upazilas following the guidelines prepared by LGD. The project under this output also provided support to an MDG oriented participatory planning and budgetary framework for 14 UZPs of Bangladesh. This will include a fiscal facility intended to support both development planning and actual delivery of gender sensitive and inclusive local services and infrastructure to a selected number of UZPs spread over all the seven divisions of the country. It also provides support to the Upazila Parishads as a means to improve basic service delivery within the areas assigned to them with an aim to make a difference in development and contribute to achievements of the MDGs.

The third output is common to both the projects. It includes support to the development of national policies and systems including rules which will enable implementation of the Upazila Parishad Act. The project provides assistance to the government to prepare and operationalise manuals including those for planning, human resources and administration. This output targets the capacity for policy development and national systems supporting local governance comprising both the LG training institutions, technical support and monitoring by the DLG, and DDLGs at divisional and district levels and relevant sectoral entities. The UPGP project has been piloting innovations to improve a. functional and institutional capacity, b. democratic accountability of Union Parishads and, c. to increase citizen involvement in order to achieve effective, efficient and accountable delivery of pro-poor infrastructures and services. The initiatives include a significant gender mainstreaming effort, looking at local women leadership empowerment, participation and voice. The three outputs of the UPGP projects together intend to achieve a comprehensive development outcome by maximising effectiveness of UPs as the lowest tier of democratically elected service providers. The output addresses two dimensions of improving democratic accountability at UP level. The first dimension is the functional dimension of UP affairs with a focus on ensuring that elected officials of UP fulfill statutory provisions and functions more effectively with regard to their stipulated roles, responsibilities and obligations. The project is carrying out activities to build the capacity of UP Chairpersons and Ward Members including Women Members to implement new responsibilities, identifying and removing bottlenecks and ensuring that they are supported with the right skills and capacities in line with the provisions of powers, functions and responsibilities stipulated in the UP Act 2009.

20 The second dimension is that of equitable and inclusive engagement between citizens and the UP and ultimately deepening values of local democracy as well as ensuring pro-poor service delivery. Activities that are being implemented under this output include activation of the Ward Shavas, strengthening of the Standing Committees, which provide a forum for citizens to represent specific interest groups in areas such as health, education and agriculture as well as the interests of women and poor members of the community, and support to Women‘s Development Forum. The activities being carried out under the second output intends to empower 564 UPs in seven districts to exercise their mandate in planning and delivery of services that contribute more effectively to the achievement of MDGs through strategic local development planning, equitable and improved financial management and local revenue mobilisation. The performance-based grants, being provided from the project, are instead being based on a ﬁscal―topping up of the exisng GoB annual block grants (supported by the LGSP II) to pilot promotion of performance improvements in specific core areas and provide additional funding to the well-performing UPs within the geographical coverage of the programme. The grant will focus on targeted areas of UP performance within cross-sectoral performance areas (as the UP grants are not sector specific) such as: development planning, accountability, project implementation capacity, own source revenues, poverty targeting/equity (e.g. the extent to which the development plans target the poor),gender and (perhaps) environment/climate change adaptation. Another important area is to enhance UP own revenue mobilisation. The third output targets the capacity for policy development and national systems supporting local governance comprising both the LG training institutions, technical support and monitoring by the DLG and DDLGs at divisional and district levels and relevant sectoral entities. This output also attempts to create continuous citizen-state collaboration, including the engagement of civil society organizations (CSOs), experts, politicians and elected and non-elected officers of local government. Under this output, the projects also support the LGD to conduct high profile policy research with an aim to develop policy framework and institutions supporting local governance.

21 1.1.1 Objectives and Result framework of UPGP and UZGP Objectives and results UPGP UZGP

Overall objective Capacities of local governments Government institutions at the and other stakeholders are national and sub-national levels strengthened to foster are able to more effectively carry participatory local development out their mandates, including service delivery for the MDGs delivery of public services, in a more accountable, transparent and inclusive manner

Specific objective Piloting and evaluation of Capacities of local governments innovations to improve the and other stakeholders are functional and institutional strengthened to foster capacity, as well as the democratic participatory local development accountability of Union Parishads, services for the MDGs thereby increasing citizen involvement leading to more effective, efficient and accountable delivery of pro-poor infrastructure and services

1. Strengthened democratic 2. Strengthened Upazila accountability of the Union Parishads as more functional,

Parishads through Citizen transparent and accountable Results Engagement 1. Innovations in Pro-Poor and 2. Strengthened Planning and MDG-oriented Planning and Budgetary system at UZP with Financing of Service Delivery MDG orientation and pro- by Union Parishads. poor service delivery mechanism Share result of both 2. Strengthened national capacity for effective policy review, projects monitoring, Lesson learning and capacity development of LGIs for enhanced Local Governance

2.4. Background of the assessment The UZGP and the UPGP are part of the programmatic support from UNDP and UNCDF to the Government of Bangladesh for Local Governance strengthening and reforms. The support is in line with the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) outcome level, which states that by 2016, all Bangladeshis including vulnerable groups are better represented

22 and participate more in democratic processes and civil service and local government institutions are more responsive and better able to deliver public services.

Both are the Nationally Implemented Projects (NIMs) implemented by the Local Government Division. The UNDP and UNCDF are the technical partners and implementing UN agencies. The projects are financially supported by the European Union (EU), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and DANIDA. The UZGP and UPGP are interlinked through shared output of policy research, have shared staff and draw on each other’s work in the field. Both the projects have heavy focus on capacity building and institutional strengthening of LGIs especially for fiscal decentralisation.

1.5 Reflections from other studies having bearing upon UPGP and UZGP A number of relevant and important research on local government and local governance have been sponsored by the UPGP and UZGP. These research / studies have been conducted by nationally and internationally reputed scholars/ experts and consultants. The following sections provide a snapshot summary of the researches. Mobasser Monem (2016) in his research entitled, “An action research on the process and quality of budgeting and planning of Upazila Parishads” examines the quality and the processes of planning and budgeting of Upazilas in Bangladesh. The specific objective of the study is to examine the extent to which the existing legislations are being followed in preparing plans and budgets of UZPs. The study observed that Upazila budgets show following limitations and or deviations: a. in most cases the budget is prepared without consulting the government guidelines and thus, the documents seemed to have lacked the consistency, coherence and logical sequence; b. The budget focuses on multi-sectoral schemes but still many UZPs suffer from traditional mindsets of resource management; c. Consequently the plan documents do not generally found to be gender sensitive or truly inclusive, d. the plan and budget documents hardly show any linkage between the FYPs and annual plans; e. the vertical and horizontal integration of the Upazila plan with other tiers was found to be almost non-existent; f. There was no effective mechanism in place for soliciting citizen’s opinions or feedback on the draft plan; g. interestingly, all sampled Upazilas prepared surplus budget; h. Upazilas were generally found to have used the budget formats envisaged in the law; i. most Upazilas violated the important clauses of the guidelines for the utilization of revenue and development funds. Monem thus offers some broader and specific recommendations – some of those specific recommendations include: developing a comprehensive guideline on the plan; b. a system of sharing of budget of LGIs with other tiers of local government; c. an open budget meeting should be made mandatory for Upazilas; d. stern administrative measures must be taken against the Upazilas for non-compliance of standard practices, e. a strong central monitoring to be developed to ensure the linkage between the five- year and annual plans; f. capacity be

23 developed on planning and budgeting; g. setting up of a separate and dedicated plan and budget wing at the Upazila . Nazmuzzaman Bhuian (2015) in his study entitled “Review of Local Government Laws of Bangladesh- Towards Prospect of a Local Government Uniform Framework Legislation” attempts to make a comprehensive assessment of the laws that govern all LGIs in Bangladesh. He notices some anomalies and legal concerns that affect role and institutional performance of LGIs. Based on arguments and observation drawn from the legal review, he strongly suggests that instead of piece-meal legislation for each unit, “both rural and urban tiers of Local Government may be regulated by a single law”. The research suggests, among others, that “LGIs should follow uniform and complementary rules as regards finance, audit and procurement under “single framework legislation”. Nizam Ahmed and others (2014) observed in their studies that on a comparative scale LGIs in Bangladesh are increasingly looking to play a meaningful role both as a platform of deepening democracy and as an improved service delivery mechanism. After a thorough institutional analysis with five dimension perspectives (effectiveness, the dynamics of local leadership, local control over administration and service delivery, fiscal autonomy, and participation and accountability), the researcher notes that : a. assignment of functions and expenditure responsibilities to LG institutions is unclear due to the fragmented legal framework; b. The ability of the local political leadership to steer their local government jurisdiction is considerably limited due to limited local control over the local government’s core administration team and other structural factors; c. LG institutions are under-staffed and have little or no control over local-level staffing. In the absence of meaningful control over local human resources, it is almost impossible for local political leaders to influence the quality of local public services; d. Local governments are given limited revenue discretion, and they do not effectively collect the revenues assigned to them. The intergovernmental transfer system generally provides inadequate and unpredictable funding, e. Limited opportunities for meaningful participation and accountability exist in the local government system. While many committees exist (especially in rural LGs) to encourage participation, many of these committees are “paper- based” and lack power over the entities they monitor. With such findings, the researcher recognised the need for: a. unified local government framework; b. there is a strong need to strengthen the deconcentration to the Upazila to check coordination failure and improve service delivery; c. balancing the functional assignment between LGI executive functions versus LGI monitoring functions; d. necessary reform of the local political system to further strengthen the LGIs; e. ensuring local control over local functionaries; develop a consolidated local government grants system; f. strengthen the local level budgeting, PFM and revenue collection system and administration; g. strengthening local participation and accountability.

24 Jamie Boex (2014) in his study entitled “Decentralization and localization in Bangladesh – the role of Local Government and Local Administration in Ensuring Efficient and Equitable Health and Education Services” has raised some fundamental concerns about local government and local administration as regards service delivery with particular focus to Education and health. The research noted that Bangladesh, as compared to other developing countries, has made considerable progress in achieving Millennium Development Goals including in the realm of health and education. He raised few fundamental questions whether, and if so how reforming some of the vertical relationships in the public sector in Bangladesh could improve public service delivery in Bangladesh. The findings further suggest that Upazila level local governments are well positioned in the long run to become the main platform for localized service delivery in Bangladesh. Upazila jurisdictions are sufficiently large to take advantages of most scale economies in service delivery, while they are sufficiently close to the people for downward responsiveness and it would be possible in a meaningful way. Thus he suggests that Upazila Parishads, in the long run would be in a position to effectively provide health and education services. He, therefore, strongly suggests that Upazila level ought to become the main platform for localised service delivery in Bangladesh. In that case, Union Parishad has an important role to play. He also observed that Upazila Parishads are positioned closer to the people, and therefore have an opportunity to support the localized delivery of public service without having to work through different administrative tiers. He, therefore, recommends: i. a gradual, sequenced approach to decentralization and localization of reforms”; ii. strengthening sectoral deconcentration by improving transparency, discretion and accountability of deconcentrated line ministry officials at the Upazila level. The research reminds that lack of sectoral expertise of the Upazila to deliver health and education services on their own could be a critical concern. However, one possible way to leverage the role of Upazila Parishad is to introduce a formula and performance based Upazila Parishad Human Development Grant. Mahfuz Kabir (2015), in his study Mapping of Fiscal Flow and Local Government Financing in Bangladesh observed that effective decentralization through inclusive and sensitive intergovernmental transfers as well as sensible resource sharing are the key to strengthening LGIs. In Bangladesh, it is widely believed that all the LGI tiers have been suffering from resource deficiency that hinders delivering quality services. In general, financing LGIs have not shown any particular pattern in the recent past years. There are oscillations in direct transfer of funds in all the LGIs in terms of both amount and rate of change. Rural LGIs are seen to experience more oscillation than other type of LGIs. The aggregate direct allocation to LGIs also shows frequent fluctuation of fund transfer. Compared to other tiers of LGI, the UPs get a stable and constantly increasing unconditional block allocation along with a more stable annual change over the years. The allocation to Upazila, however, shows a typically fluctuating pattern. The existing laws provide the areas where the LGIs are sharing resources generated locally by the national government. Revenue

25 coming from the local level is supposed to be generally predictable and sustainable, but there is paucity of data as regards revenue generated from LGIs to the national government. Most of the municipalities, including ones of A-category depend heavily on the development receipts from the government and donor projects to finance their total expenses. No particular pattern could be seen in direct development allocation by the Government. Unlike other tiers of the LGIs, the analysis of fiscal flow from and to Upazilas is quite complicated. This is because there are three types of institutions functioning on a parallel basis at Upazilas, viz. (1) UZP having revenue and development expenditures, (ii) 17 departments of 12 ministries that are transferred to LJZP but their finances are yet to be transferred, and (iii) about 17 additional non- transferred departments operating in Upazilas earn revenue from and spend at Upazilas. The transferred departments have been found to be spending more in non-ADP developmental areas than the revenue spending in most of the Upazilas. Union Parishad, on the other hand, despite many innovations and practices along with legal bindings of performance-based allocation mechanism are still dependent heavily on the government support directly from the national level and other tiers of local government, viz. Upazila. Analysis of the budget data from selected unions reveals that with very few exceptions, government support is an overwhelming majority (ranging from 80 to about 97 per cent) of total revenue in most of the UPs. The researcher suggests few policy reform strategies: a. Undertake analysis of medium- term financing requirements for all LGIs and then include it in the mainstream long- term planning; b. Introduce an index based financing mechanism for LGIs. The index could be either simple or composite, but sub-indices must have the indicators of financial performances, service delivery, fund requirement depending on quantitative analysis of the resource gap to deliver desired services to citizens; figure out the financial transfer to and spending of LGIs by functions and economic classifications. However, in the mid-term, GOB may consider establishing notified area for a reasonable period to assess the financial viability before declaring an area as a municipality. And for the long- term policy intervention the GoB may consider bifurcating the Local Government Division in two – Rural LGI Division and Urban LG Division.

Summary of the research papers Core observations • Non-existence of a unified local government legal framework covering both rural and urban tiers • LGIs do not follow single and unified framework legislation and complementary rules as regards finance, audit and procurement. • UZPs suffer from traditional mindsets of resource management;

26 • Upazila budgets are generally prepared without consulting the government guidelines; • The plan and budget documents of UP and UZP do not have any linkage with the FYPs • The vertical and horizontal integration of the UP and Upazila are non-existent; • Upazilas tend to violate guidelines for the utilization of revenue and development funds. Also, Upazilas tend to prepare surplus budget; • None of the LGI laws in any section outlines the nature of institutional interface between various tiers of LGIs. • Upazila has the potential and ought to become the main platform for localized service delivery in Bangladesh. • Financing LGIs have not shown any consistent particular pattern in the recent past years. UPs get a stable and constantly increasing unconditional block allocation. While Upazila shows a typically fluctuating pattern. Fiscal flow from to and Upazilas is also complicated.

Suggested way- forward • Both rural and urban tiers of Local Government may be regulated by a unified local government legal framework • LGIs should follow uniform and complementary rules as regards finance, audit, and procurement under “single framework legislation”. • Developing a comprehensive guideline for the multi-tier planning; • A system needs to be developed for sharing of budget information of LGIs with other tiers of local government; • An open budget meeting should be made mandatory for all levels of LGIs; • Devise mechanism and process for ensuring local control over local functionaries; • Develop a consolidated local government grants system; • Strengthening sectoral de-concentration by improving transparency, discretion and accountability of deconcentrated line ministries officials at the Upazila level. The LGD has reviewed all such study reports and developed policy papers based on the reports for relevant authorities including the Planning Commission. The project through the active support from the LGD have been able to draw attention of the Planning Commission to some of the major observations of the studies along with the empirically validated models and approaches of programme design, implementation and social monitoring processes have been well accommodated in the SFYP. Furthermore, the projects have been able to add substantive inputs to the mainstream professional and academic literature on local government and governance.

27 1.6 Scope and objectives of the assessment This study attempts to make a rigorous impact evaluation of the both projects using both qualitative and quantitative methods including econometrics techniques. Broadly, the study covers following key areas of post-results:  To measure the impact of UPGP and UZGP on the lives of people in the targeted districts  To assess intended and unintended results of the project both at beneficiary households level and beyond;  To assess which approaches, interventions and activities have proven to be most effective and why;  To assess the extent to which the project has achieved value for money, and  Make recommendations of what further efforts are required for sustainable improvement of UP and UZP.

1.7 Components of the study With the above general focus of the assessment, specifically the study has following components of the projects under purview:

Component 1: Capacity building, gender and policy advocacy for UZGP and UPGP  Assess the impact of backstopping services provided to Upazila Parishads and Union Parishads  Examine the improvements and changes accrued from various trainings provided to Upazila Parishad & Union Parishad Chairpersons, Members and Officers  Examine improvements achieved in the Upazila Parishad andUnion Parishad Planning through financing of civic engagement  Examine improvements in quality and availability of Upazila Parishad andUnion Parishad Plans and the contributions of support to the planning exercise, including mentoring support  Examine the impact of support provided to Ward Shavas and Standing Committees in the performance of Union Parishads  Assess the status and performance of Women Development Forum at the Upazila and Union Parishad levels

Component 2: Direct fiscal support and performance assessment system of UZGP and UPGP  Examine time series data on grants, revenues and investments in a representative sample of local governments, including control units, along with qualitative analysis, to identify the changes in resource base of local governments

28  Estimate the increase in availability of discretionary funds for the target local governments  Identify changes in the pattern of utilization of funds, and changes in profile of service delivery by local governments  Impact on how investments benefit communities, including poor households and gender profile  Estimate the impact on local fiscal space, fixed capital formation and economic return  Identify complementarities arising from the provision of these grants in co-financed schemes  Impact of climate-change related schemes  Examine sustainability of innovations in grant financing including co-financing and local platforms such as trusts  Assess impact of performance assessments for grant making on key performance areas of local governments and how the good practices have been replicated in other interventions  Assess changes in the financial management practices including the new accounting software, and its impact on management of grants and other resources

Component 3: Strengthened national capacity for effective policy review, monitoring and capacity development of local government institutions This component is a shared output of UZGP and UPGP. The two projects are jointly supporting the development of the policy framework and institutions supporting Local Governance. The component also supports the Policy Advisory Group, undertake research on policy issues, capacity development support to LGD (MIE Wing), DLG (Division Level) and DDLG (District Level) for backstopping and monitoring of local government (UZP and UP); and support R&D for knowledge generation.

PART - II EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES

2.1 Survey Methodology of the study 2.1.1 Overview of survey design The evaluation method comprised of both quantitative and qualitative data and information in order to analyse progress, achievements and changes over time. The study adopted a rigorous impact evaluation method based on econometric techniques. Quantitative data were collected through structured questionnaires at household and institutional levels and the qualitative data were gathered through in-depth or intensive Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) including information checklist for Union Parishad and Upazila Parishad activities, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and review of documents.

For the quantitative part of the study, a quasi-experimental design with case and control in both baseline and endline was used to measure progress of both the UZGP and the UPGP projects. To obtain an optimum beneﬁt from the study design, the study followed the baseline sampling methodology as much as possible. This is expected to produce an estimate of change with minimum disturbance of sampling error i.e., the standard error of the estimated diﬀerence was minimized. Accordingly, two sets of households: “Treatment” group, selected from the UPGP project area and another “control” group outside the project area were selected.

Two independent Baseline Surveys for UPGP and UZGP projects employed two separate samples for UPGP and UZGP interventions and control areas. However, the evaluation survey employed single sample covering both interventions in the same intervention districts. It created a future scope of comparing and linking between Upazilas and unions across areas.

The UPGP proj ect has been implemented in 564 UPs in 65 Upazilas (UZs) in seven districts of seven divisions, where UZGP project has been implemented. The districts are Kishoreganj, Brahmanbaria, Sunamganj, Sirajganj, Khulna, Barguna and Rangpur. Treatment groups were selected from these districts while the control groups were selected from 14 adjacent districts having similar socio-economic features as project districts.

30 2.2 Study area and target population of the study 2.2.1 Study area Study area comprised of seven intervention districts: Kishoreganj, Brahmanbaria, Sunamganj, Sirajganj, Khulna, Barguna and Rangpur, and fourteen control districts: Jamalpur, Netrokana, Comilla, Chandpur, Pabna, Natore, Satkhira, Bagerhat, Barisal, Patuakhali, Dinajpur, Gaibandha, Habiganj and Moulavibazar under seven administrative divisions of Bangladesh.

2.2.2 Target population Following study population was targeted in the evaluation study: • Household beneficiaries: men and women; poor (low income, poor and hardcore poor) and non-poor; and socially marginalized population (fishermen, sweepers, hizras (transgender), poor widows, day- laborers, landless farmers, indigenous etc.) • Elected UP Chairmen, Members-(male and female) and UP Secretaries, members of the Standing Committees • Upazila Chair, Vice- chairs, UNOs, Upazila level officers, Members of Women Development Forum, members of the Standing Committees • Project/program officials: DLGs, DDLGs, District Facilitators • Community level: Selected persons attending Ward Shavas, open budget meetings, members of the community, informed local citizens. • UP and Upazila service seekers

2.2.3 Matching methodologies The major challenge in designing the sample for this evaluation was to strike a balance between different methodologies in baseline surveys for the UPGP and UZGP and hence find a single sample design for the evaluation, which would produce data comparable to those from the baseline studies. Based on the baseline reports and discussion with UPGP & UZGP management some criterion were set to finalise the evaluation methodology- 1. Strike a balance between the two methodologies in two baselines (UPGP and UZGP); 2. At least half of the sample be repeated from (same area of) both baselines; 3. Controls in UZGP baseline to be reviewed and half of them to be selected for endline 4. It is a blended study where data for both UPGP and UZGP to be collected from the same source, wherever it was applicable, e.g., household questionnaire to address both UPGP and UZGP whatever was applicable for that household (either or both) Based on such points, the sample was designed in a way that all the Upazilas of UZGP baseline plus half of the remaining 65-14=51 Upazilas were selected for the endline, i.e., 40 Upazilas in total (61.5% of all under intervention) and 3 UPs from each selected UZs. Finally, a total of 120

31 unions were selected for the endline as against 188 unions in UPGP and 14 unions in UZGP baseline, and 1560 households for both UPGP and UZGP in endline as against 1880 households for UPGP and 560 households for UZGP data in baseline. Further, the matching and selection of control UPs were determined on the basis of some background indicators set for the evaluation survey. Based on availability of data, the indicators selected from the list were as follows- education, income, livestock holding, landholding, membership of production cooperative/group, land type, current practice of agricultural production and livelihood items etc. From the 7+7=14 ‘control districts’ of UPGP and UZGP baselines, seven were selected as control in the evaluation (mentioned in sub section 2.8.2.1), considering the geographical proximity to the intervention districts and other comparability. These are: Jamalpur, Comilla, Pabna, Satkhira, Barisal, Dinajpur and Habiganj.

2.3 Matching results In the evaluation survey same union parishads, covered in the baseline survey, were selected as far as possible. Sample households were selected from different socioeconomic categories, viz., non-poor, low income group and hardcore poor, and data analysis indicates a close similarity among categories between two selected samples of treatment and control areas (see Table 2.8.4 below). The matching and selection of Control UPs were finalised with support and in consultation with UPGP project management team.

Table 2.4: Coverage of sample households from different socioeconomic categories

Endline Type of Area Treatment Control Well- off/non-poor 38.3 33.7 Low income/poor 45.6 45.1 Hard core poor 16.1 21.2 N 1541 1562

2.3.1 Methods of data collection To meet the objectives of the survey, data were collected following two methods:  Quantitative data collection methods o Household survey o Upazila Parishad survey for assessing their activities and performances o Union Parishad survey for assessing their activities and performances o Exit point (of service recipient) survey of service seekers at UPs and UZPs

32  Qualitative data collection methods o Key informant interviews with Upazila and UP chairmen/Upazila Vice Chairmen (both male and female), UP members (both male and female)/UP Secretary o Key informant interviews with NBD officials/UNOs/others o Focus group discussion with Upazila Parishad Officials/Elected representatives o Focus group discussion with members of the community o Case studies

 Secondary data or review of documents o Reviews of local government programmes as well as monitoring products of the project including progress reports and reports of review meetings o Outputs of the project including manuals, system design works and concept papers o Political and development reports, Economic Sector Reports of the World Bank, thematic sector reports, relevant legislations and national plans, strategy papers of UNDP and o Selected articles published in the print media

2.4 Quantitative survey The household survey was conducted using a pre-tested structured questionnaire through in- depth interview with the target beneficiaries/audiences to collect information on the selected indicators along with their responses to their knowledge, practices and attitudes regarding UPGP and UZGP interventions on a sample basis. Information was collected from the household head or responsible persons following gender ratio (male: female=1:1) of the selected households through face- to- face interviews.

2.4.1 Sample size Sample size for household survey Since the endline study has attempted to compare the estimates of the indicators at baseline with those at endline, the sample size was determined using the well-known statistical formula for the test of a hypothesis of equality of two proportions from baseline and endline (H0:P1=P2 1 Vs. HA:P1P2) as follows (Lwanga and Lemeshow, 1991 ): Sample size for testing of a Hypothesis of equality of two population proportions (For a two- sided test)

[ ( )] [ ( ) ( )] = { 2 1 − + 1 − + 1 − } /( − )

1 Lwanga, S. K. and Lemeshow, SW. (1991), Sample Size Determination in Health Studies: A Practical Manual, World Health Organization, Geneva.

33 Where = ( + )/2

p1 = proportions estimated for the indicator of interest in baseline

p2 = proportions estimated for the indicator of interest in endline

z = standard normal value with 5% level of significance = 1.96

z = standard normal value with 80% power = 1.28 d = Admissible error difference between the estimates from baseline and endline deft = design effect for cluster sampling = 1.5

According to the baseline Survey of UPGP and UZGP, only about 35% and 15% of respondents respectively were satisfied with the services rendered from UP and UZP. Using this proportion of satisfied respondents and applying above formula with an absolute difference of 5.5%, the study needed a sample of 1517 households rounded to 1560 households from each of the project and control areas. The original formula for simple random sample (SRS) was readjusted to obtain the same level of precision with a three-stage cluster sampling design rather than Simple Random Sampling (SRS). This was done by multiplying the SRS sample size by appropriate design effect.

Sample size for Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad Surveys According to the baseline Survey of UZGP, about 43% of project Upazilas claimed to have prepared an annual development plan while none of them has prepared a five- year plan (FYP) yet. Based on this proportion, to have an assessment of the given intervention and control areas with an absolute difference of 22%, at 5% level of significance and 80% power, the sample size became 106 UZPs. However, since the number of intervention Upazilas was 65 only, the sample size was adjusted by a correction formula for finite population. The formula is as follwos: n n  0 c n 1  0 N

where, nc= Corrected sample size

n0 is the sample size based on the calculations above, and N is population size. Using the correction formula for the finite population size of 65 Upazilas, the study needed a final sample of 40 Upazila Parishads from each of the project and control Upazila Parishads. The research team extended the number of UP up to 120, considering the sample size of 40 Upazila Parishads, from 40 Upazilas each from project and control UPs. The difference was also reduced to around 18per cent in this regard.

34 Sample size for exit point survey at Union Parishads and Upazila Parishads Based on the average proportion (i.e., 25%) of respondents in the baseline study being satisfied with the services rendered by UP and UZP, the study team needed a sample of 347, rounded to 360 exit clients, who had received services from each of the project and control Union Parishads and Upazila Parishads. Thus, a total of 360 exit clients in UPsx2 areas (720 exit clients at UPs) and similarly 360 exit clients in UZPsx2 areas (720 exit clients at UZPs) were targeted.

2.4.2 Sample design 2.4.2.1 Sample design for Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad Surveys Baseline Upazila was considered and systematic sampling technique was followed to select Upazila Parishads in the evaluation survey. At first 14 Upazilas, where UZGP baseline survey was conducted, were selected from 65 project Upazilas. Then 26 Upazilas were selected from the rest 51 project Upazilas (65-14 UZP=51 UZPs) following systematic random sampling after arranging all Upazilas in a geographical order. A total of 40 Upazila Parishads from project districts and 40 Upazila Parishads from seven control districts were selected as final sample. Three Union Parishads were selected from each Upazila following systematic random sampling technique. Thus, a total of 240 Union Parishads were selected from throughout intervention and control districts.

2.4.2.2 Sampling design for household survey and Household selection Household survey was conducted with the targeted respondents in a village in each of selected Upazilas with a structured questionnaire including indicators of both UPGP and UZGP. A three- stage cluster sampling procedure was applied for the survey. Three villages/mauzas were targeted from each of the selected Upazilas following systematic random sampling procedure after arranging all unions in a geographical order to ensure maximum spread of the sample villages. At first stage three unions were selected from each selected Upazila. In the second stage sample villages were selected from three selected unions. Each village/mauza was then divided into some segments of around 100 households in each, on an average, by preparing sketch maps. Such segments were considered the primary sampling units (PSU) in the sampling process. This was treated as a cluster. In the third stage 13 households were selected from each PSU by systematic sampling. The study covered non-poor, poor and socially marginalised households identified during household listing operation preceding the household survey. Thus, in each cluster a total of 13 households (including maximum two socially marginalized households) were selected to cover all the categories. The required sample size of 40 Upazilas×3 clusters from 3 unions×13 households from each cluster = 1560 households were planned to select from 40 Upazilas as the sample from project area. In a similar fashion, another 1560 households were to select from control area. However, 1541 households in project area and another 1562 households in control area were finally interviewed.

35 A pool of listing operators were appointed to collect primary data at the household levels. They were sent to all segmented villages before data collection. The listing operators initially drew a map of each of the villages consulting with 4/5 villagers at the local Hat or a tea stall. They started collecting data from a corner of the respective village until data collection from 100 households was completed. Each of the households was given a numeric code number from 01 to 100 and this list was submitted to the core research team. Subsequently when the data collectors went to the villages the research team gave them the code numbers of 13 households covering well- off/non poor, low income group and the hardcore poor, using systematic random sampling. Thus, the study covered 80 Upazila Parishads, 240 Union Parishads, 1440 service recipients through exit point interview and 3103 households in total throughout project and control areas. Table 2.8.5.1.2 below presents planned and finally covered sample sizes of different quantitative surveys implemented in the evaluation study.

Table 2.1: Planned and covered sample sizes employed in different quantitative surveys by types of study area Project area Control area

Union Parishad and Upazila Parishad Sample size Union Parishad 120 120 Upazila Parishad 40 40 Collected data Union Parishad 120 120 Upazila Parishad 40 40 Exit point (service seekers) in Union Parishads and Upazila Parishads Sample size Union Parishad 360 360 Upazila Parishad 360 360 Fully interviewed Union Parishad 352 353 Upazila Parishad 327 353 Household survey Sample size 1560 1560 Fully interviewed 1541 1562

2.4.2.3 Sampling design for exit client survey Three and nine persons, who just received services from Union Parishad and Upazila Parishad, respectively, were covered randomly in both project and control areas. In this way, a total of 720 exit clients (service recipients) were interviewed from Upazila Parishads and 720 exit clients from Union Parishads were interviewed as main sample.

36 2.5 Qualitative survey Often it is difficult to find the best suited and possible approach for a project assessment efficiently by only quantitative research, as there are also a number of social and behavioral issues (i.e., knowledge and attitudes of the beneficiaries towards service and governance structure, at HH or community level etc.). Keeping this in mind, qualitative component was included in this study where data were collected through in-depth key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). The techniques in the qualitative component of the survey were applied on the basis of availability and sources of information etc. Based on previous experience, an optimum number of sessions or interviews were arranged for maximum output avoiding extra sessions or gathering a large number of participants to minimise the information repetition. Use of sources or varieties of information regarding the study objectives was modified at field level as per need during the fieldwork.

Table 2.2: An overview of UP and UZ level KIIs and FGDs

KIIs FGDs Number of FGD participants

UP level

Project area UP 235 120 934

Control area UP 251 120 999

Total for UP 486 240 1933

UZ level

Project area UZP 80 40 251 Control area UZP 80 40 245 Total for UZ 160 80 496

Key Informant Interviews (KII) A total of 486 intensive interviews (project and control UPs combined) were conducted with UP chairs, UP members, UP female members, UP Secretary, project implementation committee members and other local project officers to have their views, comments, opinions etc. on the status of UP governance and services. A comprehensive UP checklist was developed for this purpose. Further, a total of 160 Key Informant Interviews (project and control area combined) with the elected local representatives, deputed line ministry officers, informed local citizens (school

37 teachers, local political leaders, businessmen, etc.) from selected Upazilas to measure the views, comments, opinion etc. on the status of UZP’s governance and services.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Research team conducted a total of 240 FGDs (taking 120 each from both the project and control areas) with the members of the community. The participants included, among others, individuals who attended Ward Shavas, members of Women Development Forum, local UP service seekers etc. FGDs with these groups provided information on the UP’s governance and service delivery status, their needs and constraints and other related issues. Separate FGD guidelines were used to record discussions of each group of participants. For Upazila part of the study, one community level FGD was conducted in each Upazila. In total, 80 FGDs with the community members were organised covering both the project and control areas which provided information about various aspects of Upazila governance and Upazila’s service delivery status, and the constraints Upazilas are facing and other relevant issues.

2.6 Review of Secondary Data The team members reviewed most relevant evaluations or reviews of local governance programmes in Bangladesh conducted by third parties, as well as all monitoring products of the project including progress reports and reports of review meetings. They have also reviewed all documents produced as outputs of the project including manuals, systems, design work and concept papers prepared in connection with the design and implementation of the project. In order to assess UNDP’s own strategic positioning, the team members reviewed a range of political and development reports, Economic Sector Reports of the World Bank, thematic sector reports, relevant legislations and national plans, strategy papers prepared by the UNDP office, as well as select articles in the media.

2.7 Data collection methodologies 2.7.1 Development of study instruments A draft structured questionnaire for household survey, two separate semi-structured questionnaires for UP and UZ surveys and a set of checklists for FGDs, KIIs and in-depth interviews were prepared. The instruments were pre-tested and as per results of pre-testing those were modified to address all issues/feedback captured through pre-testing. After sharing pre-tested draft instruments with concerned government officials those were finalised.

38 2.7.2 Recruitment of and training to field staff The data collectors and supervisors were recruited from the Department of Public Administration, University of Dhaka. Mostly they were the senior students of the department who had both the theoretical and the practical knowledge and orientation about the functioning of the Upazila and Union Parishads. These students were then given training organised by the Department of Public Administration. The trainees were finally appointed to different positions (field investigators/field supervisors) depending on their training performance. A comprehensive six-day training programme including one- day field test was organised on household listing operation, household data collection, data collection from exit clients and Union and on Upazila Parishad surveys as well as qualitative inquiries. The training consisted of lectures, classroom practices, group discussions, role plays, and mock interviews i.e. practices of filling-in questionnaires through interviewing one another, practices of interviewing in randomly selected households at Dhamrai Upazila in Dhaka. Team members assigned for collecting qualitative information were given training on how to collect qualitative information through FGDs and KIIs. They were specially trained on organising and managing a qualitative session with groups of people and conducting interviews of participants. They were provided guidelines for compilation of collected information through FGDs and KIIs.

2.8 Data collection operation Data collection at all levels started on 1st November 2016 and ended on 8th December 2016. There were 42 field investigators and eight supervisors deployed in seven districts for quantitative data collection. Similarly, there were seven teams. Each comprising of two researchers was involved in qualitative data collection in seven districts under four supervisors.

2.8.1 Field visits and quality checking Senior members of the study team, i.e. teachers of the Department of Public Administration, University of Dhaka, visited a sample area in project sites. A total of 10 Upazilas (5 project and 5 control areas) and 10 UPs (5 project and 5 control areas) were visited. During the visits, a number of KIIs and FGDs were organised with the UP and Upazila level elected representatives, line department officers and other key informants representing both project and control areas. The Key Informants included UNOs, officers of various line ministries posted at the Upazila and functionaries of the Upazila Parishads and Union Parishads. Regarding quality checking, the quality control team consisting of senior research team members performed quality control checks to ensure quality and reliability of collected data. They performed physical verifications to see whether the investigators completed the questionnaires by interviewing right respondents in right households and by asking right

39 questions and filling the questionnaires rightfully on the spot. Physical verification was done both in presence and in absence of the interviewing team members. Ten to 15 per cent respondents were revisited and interviewed by the Supervisors or Quality Control Officers or Research Officers to monitor the validity of information. Further, during the extended field visits the senior members of the study team collected some sample documents from the UZPs and UPs. Contents of those documents were later carefully analysed. Information gathered through content analysis helped members of the team supplement and validate the information collected through other means. The juxtaposition of the information collected through surveys, KIIs, FGDs and content analysis has helped the members of the study team understand and capture the real situation on the ground.

2.9 Data management and quality assurance Data processing Data editing and coding of filled-in questionnaires were conducted with the help of experienced data processing personnel. They checked gaps, inconsistencies, miscoding and blank areas found in filled-in questionnaires. Further, coding of open ended questions was done by preparing appropriate code lists. After coding, questionnaires were ready for entry into computer. A database software in CSPro package was developed with built-in editing facilities that pertain range checking and logical checking. Qualitative findings from FGDs and KIIs were compiled, analysed and summarised according to standard guideline and a report was prepared to incorporate summary findings into the quantitative findings.

2.10 Data Analysis and preparation of the report Data Analysis: A tabulation plan containing dummy tables as per the study objectives were prepared. Then tables containing quantitative data were constructed in accordance with dummy tables with modifications as and where necessary. Data were analysed by using SPSS software. Bi-variate analysis was performed to present variation of indicators with respect to some background characteristics as well.

Preparation of the report Based on study objectives and indicators chapter-wise dummy tables were prepared before the data analysis. Quantitative data analysis generated proportions and frequencies for indicators related to socio-economic condition and knowledge, attitude and perception of household respondents about services of Upazila and Union Parishad. It also includes proportions and

40 frequencies related to opinion and perception of receivers of services of Upazila and Union Parishad (exit point interview). Analysis of quantitative data from institutional survey (Upazila and Union Parishad) presents proportions, frequencies and summary statistics of data obtained from document review. On the other hand, analysis of qualitative information focused on opinions and insights of community people, different stakeholders and service recipients of Union Parishads and Upazila Parishads through the project under study. Finally, appropriate triangulation of the qualitative findings with quantitative findings was made to attain the complete scenario. Experienced study team members through in-depth analysis, interpretation and comments on quantitative and qualitative findings produced a detailed description of study findings and prepared the draft report.

2.11 Special consideration and limitation of the methodology The study used a quasi-experimental design conducted on case and control groups to measure the progress of the Union Parishad and Upazila Parishad Governance (UPGP and UZGP) project. The intervention Upazilas were selected through an administrative decision while true randomness could not be ensured; this might have influenced the results to an extent. During data collection, in some cases government officers were unavailable on the day of visit. Also, some relevant documents were not found available at the UP and Upazila offices, which resulted in missing of some data. In addition, the study collected data on some indicators based on perception or knowledge of the respondents, which were not possible to verify in some cases.

PART – III UPGP: OVERVIEW OF IMPACT AND RESULTS

3.1.1. Key Findings

(i) Capacity Building: The project has enhanced capacity of about 80,000 functionaries of Union Parishads and Upazila based officers having noticeable impact on the overall performance of the LGIs. About 16,000 elected women representatives from the LGIs have been trained on gender rights, mobilisation processes and advocacy. Furthermore, 551 Women Development Forums (WDFs) – a platform of LGI women representatives, have been capacitated to ensure gender rights and mainstreaming gender issues into local government affairs. The UPGP through activating Ward Shava has been able to promote inclusive decision making at the local level. It has enhanced empowerment of the community members and their involvement in decision making process at the grassroots level has made the project selection and planning process responsive to needs of the poor and marginalised. UPs under the UPGP have been able to improve their planning, budgeting, financial management and OSR mobilisation efforts, and improved their performance on all such fronts faster than the UPs in control areas.

(ii) Gender Focus and women empowerment: Most of the UPs are steadily getting more responsive, accountable, inclusive and participative with the activation of Standing Committees. Besides, Standing Committee is a legal platform where women members can play a vital executive role of being one-third of Chairs of the committees. By 2016, WDF was scaled up across the country. A large number of elected women representatives of LGIs have been mobilised as members of WDFs from district to union level.

42 (iii) Transparency:  An overall improvement of citizen engagement with the UPs has been observed. Ward Shavas (WSs), open budget meetings are being held regularly in almost all the project UPs and the participation of the community in such meetings is on the rise.  As a means of ensuring downward accountability, UPs have largely become accustomed to publicly displaying their financial information related to budget, plan and audit on the notice board and to informing the citizen about various activities through using different mechanisms. Citizens are also having better access to information and appears to be more aware of their entitlements and also about the role of UPs.  Performance Based Grant System has been an effective means to improve the overall governance performance of the vast majority of UPs;

(iv) Governance:  The linkage of UPGP with nationwide LGSP-II, offers a mechanism for transferring lessons and good practices that are being continuously developed by the project, and this has been practiced through joint training of auditors/assessors, sharing of the support from DFs etc.  The UPGP has demonstrated that UPs can do more than just hard-core infrastructure and the diversification of projects and implementation ratio provided a strong showcase for future reforms.

3.1.2 Capacity Building of UP Functionaries The UP Act 2009 has introduced some new institutional process and practices to make UP more responsive, pro-people, inclusive and participative. Section 4 of the UP Act provides the provision of Ward Shava – a grassroots based participatory planning platform, Section 45 sets the provision of Standing Committees to draw both male and female in the core decision making process, with at least one- third of the Committee chairperson reserved for women members. In addition, the UP Act 2009 also provides two new innovations- Citizen Charter (Section 49) and Right to Information (Section 80). Both the provisions have installed a system of transparency and accountability of the UP towards larger community members. The UPGP project has induced a number of capacity development interventions since its inception. The District Facilitators have supported the Union Parishads and also provided backstopping services and advice on various activities performed by UP and UZGP. The project has also organised a number of trainings for elected UP representatives and Secretaries. Field data reveal that a high proportion of all newly elected UP office bearers have been trained by the project. The table below shows the distribution.

43 Table 3.1. Training of UP functionaries till the end of December 2016 (in %) Training of UP Officers Project Area Control Area Chairperson 78.3 58.3 UP Male Members 34.2 22.5 UP Female Members 100.0 45.0 UP Secretary 90.8 88.3

As part of the GOB policies on capacity building of UP officers, a number of training sessions have been organised by different agencies like NILG, Upazila Parishad, DPHE, NGOs, and other line agencies of the government. The project has also organised a number of specialised training for the UP elected officers and Secretary. The following Table shows distribution of the training being attended.

Table 3.2: Training on key areas of UP Act 2009 received by UP functionaries by type of area

Areas of Training Project area Control area Training received on mandatory activity of UP 87.6% 71.9 Mean Number of days received training 5.83 2.92 Number of person/personnel received training 7.77 4.56

Financial management 88.5 71.7 Mean Number of days training received 4.17 2.83 Mean Number of person/personnel received training 5.16 4.35

Open Budget 70.8 49.6 Mean Number of days training received 2.59 2.52 Mean Number of person/personnel received training 5.28 5.45

Local resources Mobilization & utilization 65.5 41.6 Mean Number of days training received 2.84 2.89 Mean Number of person/personnel received training 5.47 4.87

Women Development 59.3 46.9 Mean Number of days training received 2.15 2.68 Mean Number of person/personnel received training 5.82 4.75

Planning, Scheme formulation & implementation 75.2 50.4 Mean Number of days training received 2.35 2.47 Mean Number of person/personnel received training 5.12 5.09

44 It also indicates a significant difference between UPs under the project and control UPs. The UPs covered by the project have attended more number of training and on an average more man days of training too. The overall percentage of trained UP officials and staff as compared to the control areas is high. The types and variety of training are likely to have affected their performance to uphold values and commitment of the UP Act 2009.

In addition, the UPs have also received some additional training with the support and assistance from the Upazila Parishad and or line Upazila based agencies. In such cases too, UPs in the project area have availed the opportunity higher than that of UPs in control areas. In terms of percentage of attendance, UPGP covered UPs have scored more than 10 per cent as compared to the control area UPs.

Table 3.3: Training received from Upazila Parishad or Upazila based line agencies (%)

Indicator Project area Control area

Technical support as training received from Upazila level 58.5 47.5

The project has also organised specialised training programme in Monitoring, Inspection and Evaluation Strategy, Effective Accountable and Inclusive LGIs; Local Level Planning, Implementation, Monitoring and Resource Mobilisation. These trainings have also had the provisions of overseas exposure and orientation visits. A total of 227 Upazila Chairs, UP Chairs, UP Members and UP Secretaries have taken part in such special training and orientation sessions. During the field visits some of the Chairs and members acknowledged the importance and utility of such overseas exposure and training sessions.

Table 3.4: Training/Workshop / Seminar for capacity building UP/Upazila based representatives and professionals

No. of Training/workshop/seminar Category of Participants Participants Auditors training on UP Performance 2470 Independent Auditors Assessment Orientation workshop on M&E Strategy Officials from MIE wing of LGD & UPGP 25 and Tools Project Staff Local Economic Development 14 Govt. Officials and Project Staff Financial Management and Public 23 DDLGs and Projects Accounts related Staff Procurement Local Government and Decentralization 41 Officials from different Ministry in Bangladesh

45 Training on Monitoring & Evaluation 20 Officials from MIE wing of LGD System of LGIs for MI&E Wing Officials Learning, Innovation, Best Practices and Officials from LGD, DDLGs and Project 30 Documentation workshop Staff International Training on Govt. Officials from Different Ministry 9 Decentralization of Local Government TOT Workshop on SDG's & the role of LGIs 53 LGD Officials, DLGs, DDLGs, UNOs, Project Staff Workshop on preparing draft MIE Wing Officials, DLGs, DDLGs, UNOs, Monitoring, Inspection and Evaluation 50 Upazila and UP Chairmen, UP Member, Strategy UP Secretary, UZP Vice Chairman etc Workshop on Capacity Development LGD Officials, DLGs, DDLGs, Project Staff 76 Framework Training cum Exposure Visit on Local Level Govt. officials (LGD, DLG & DDLG), public Planning, Implementation, Monitoring 19 representatives (UZP Chair, VCs & UP and Resource Mobilization Chair), UZDP staff and project staff Training cum Exposure Visit on Local Level Govt. officials (LGD, DLG & DDLG), public Planning, Implementation, Monitoring 16 representatives (UZP Chair, VCs & UP and Resource Mobilization (2nd batch) Chair), UZDP staff and project staff.

Furthermore, the UPGP has also trained the Village Police on UP law and order, ensuring public safety, human rights as per the UP Act. The purpose of the training is to orient the village police with their roles and responsibilities to protect public lives and property, law and order maintenance, saving lives and property of UP inhabitants, implementing social safety net programs and helping communities during disasters and other types of calamities. A total of 4997 village police members from 564 UPs received such training.

The UPGP also carried out tailor- made training for Deputy Directors of Local Government (DDLGs) of the UPGP covered area. The training aimed to improve management skills including - Financial Management and Accounting, Local Resource Mobilisation & Budget, Public Procurement Act and Rules, Audit & Reporting and Financial Reporting and Co-financing for development projects.

The assessment of training programme under the UPGP interventions reveals the following: a. Varieties of training have been provided of which more emphasis has been put on mandatory functions of UP; financial management, budgeting system, resource management and planning, role of standing committees, office management, legal aid, environment, disaster management etc.

46 b. Seminars and workshops, orientation and field visits have also given UP officers and related professionals an opportunity to learn and adapt to best practices on various aspects of operational management at the grassroots level local government.

Structured interviews and FGDs with UP officers reveal that such training, orientation and field exposures have helped participants understand their role as elected members of UPs better, and also enhanced their technical understanding about functional processes of the UP. Furthermore, a majority of elected members of UPs acknowledged that such trainings and workshops have also significantly enhanced their confidence, self-esteem and morale.

3.1.3 Activating Ward Shavas for Inclusive Decision Making Following the Local Government Act of 2009, UPGP put emphasis on arranging Ward Shava (WS) as one of the most important means of ensuring civic engagement in UP activities and making the institution accountable. Stakeholder participation in planning and implementation of projects is paramount for ensuring transparency and accountability. The WS is such a platform of UP where stakeholders set their priorities to be incorporated in the development plan of UP (Panday, 2015)1.

The current study found 66% of the project UPs reported holding of two WSs in 2015-16 with required quorum (5% voters) in all the nine wards while in the baseline only 33% of the project UPs reported doing the same. This indicates a significant improvement in holding WSs in project areas over the baseline. Compared to the control UPs (49%) also, project UPs are doing better in holding WSs.

Table 3.5: Status of holding Ward Shavas: Baseline Endline Comparison

Endline Baseline Status of holding Ward Shavas Project Control Project Control 2 Ward Shavas with quorum in 9 wards 65.8% 49.2% 33% 19% 1 Ward Shava with quorum in 9 wards 20.0% 20.8 33% 31% 2 Ward Shavas without quorum in 9 wards 3.3% 5.0% 11% 12% 1 Ward Shava without quorum in 9 wards 3.3% 4.2 1% 1% Ward Shavas held but did not cover 9 wards 2.6% 11.7% 9% 12% 0 Ward Shava in 9 wards 5.0% 9.2% 13% 25% N 120 120 188 188

1 Pandey, P. (2015). Qualitative Action Research on Results and Learning of Strengthening Local Governance Project, Dhaka: BRAC-THP SLG Project.

47 In project UPs 95.4 per cent of the WSs were presided over by UP members while in control UPs this rate was found to be marginally low (94%). On the other hand, 81 per cent of the WSs in project UPs were attended by UP secretaries as against 68 per cent of the WSs in control UPs. Thus, at the UP level, although attendance of UP members in WSs is almost similar in both project and control UPs in case of attendance of the UP secretaries in WSs, project UPs performed better than the control UPs. This is indicative of better sensitisation of the project UPs about the importance of WS, which can be attributed to the efficiency of various capacity building initiatives of the UPGP. Project UPs also ensured slightly better community participation in WSs than did the control UPs. In project UPs 98 per cent of the WSs were attended by 5 per cent of voters while in control UPs similar attendance was found in 95 per cent of the WSs held. Attendance in WSs by the female UP members was also found to be little higher (90%) in project UPs compared to that in control UPs (84%). Thus overall performance of WS in project and control UPs appears to be closer to each other but when it comes to the comparison between the current endline and the baseline study, one can observe a clear improvement over the baseline in all respects. Project UPs demonstrated an impressive improvement over the baseline in different aspects of functioning of WSs including: held WSs as envisaged in the UP Act 2009 (endline: 66% vs baseline: 33%), attendance in WSs by 5 per cent of voters (endline:98% vs baseline:8%), WSs presided over by the UP members (endline: 95.4% vs baseline: 38%), WSs attended by the UP secretaries (endline: 81% vs baseline: 25%), and attendance of female members in WSs (endline:90% vs baseline:34%). Improvements in project UPs over the baseline is indicative of the effectiveness of project interventions while nearly similar performance of WSs in project and control UPs demonstrates an increase in sensitisation of the UPs and of the community in favour of WS by various other project interventions in the UPs.

Figure 3.1: Functioning of Ward Shava: Baseline and Endline Comparison

48 In project UPs 67.5 per cent of the households were found to be aware of the WS as against 46.4 per cent in 2013 (CPS 2014)2. Attendance in the WSs in project areas by the people also shows a significant improvement over the baseline. The current study finds that on an average, the percentage of people ever attending any WS in the project areas has increased to 17.2% (male-20%, female-6.8%, non-poor-18.3%, poor-17.2%, socially marginalised group-14.5%) from 9% in the baseline. On the other hand, attendance in the last WS held in 2016 has also been found to be higher in project areas (72%) than in control areas (61.3%).

Figure 3.2: Respondents ever participated in any Ward Shava

Alongside an overall increase in participation of community people in WS the field data revealed that such participation was still dominated by male and non -poor members of the community. The project areas demonstrate a significant increase in participation by the poor (project: 17.2% vs control: 8.9%) and socially marginalised group (project: 14.5% vs control:

7.6%) compared to the control areas (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3: Participation in Ward Shava by different categories of people

2 LGD (2014), Citizen Perception Survey Report on Services Provided by the Local Government Institutions as well as Assessment of results achieved by UPGP and UZGP, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

49 The FGDs also revealed higher participation by the community people in WS in the project UPs (67.5%) than in the control UPs (30%). More importantly, lesser number of people in project UPs (16.5%) expressed ignorance about WS compared to that in control UPs (32%). In addition to this, all project UPs informed holding WSs while 23% of them reported negative on this front.

Figure 3.4: FGD Responses about Ward Shava

Although Ward Shavas are to act as a platform for ensuring active citizen engagement with the UP, citizens’ perception about their expected role in the shava still seems to be unclear. In exit interviews, 65 per cent of the UP service recipients in project areas informed that they participate in WS as “audience” while only 31 per cent of them consider being active through proposing development schemes, sharing their opinions and problems. Similarly, in household survey, 43 per cent of the community people in project areas informed that the reason they attend the Ward Shava was because they were “invited” by the UP member. Other dominant reasons for attendance in Ward Shava as reported in project areas included: intention to propose development schemes (28%), to have an idea about the development schemes proposed (12%) and to be informed about the community (9%). In control areas also, such reasons appeared to be prominent.

Figure 3.5: Reasons for attending Ward Shava

However, in project areas 35 per cent while in control areas 21 per cent of those who participated in the WSs, informed that they had expressed their needs/concerns there although in both projects (50%) and in control areas (26%), voice of the non-poor was dominant compared to the poor and socially marginalised groups. Most of the participants (project area-- 73%, control area--68%) raised the issues concerning the construction/repair of roads/culverts and majority of them (project area-67%, control area 61%) reported that the issues raised were recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

In project areas, 89.2 per cent of female members raised some issues while this rate was low (73.3%) in control area. The dominant issues raised by the female members in both project and control areas include: women empowerment/employment, infrastructure development, prevention of child marriage, prevention of women oppression, hygienic sanitation for women in public places, safety net programmes. Almost all the female participants in both project areas (99%) and control areas (97%) informed that issues they raised in the WS were reflected in the ADP and were finally implemented, the rate of which was higher in project areas (95.3%) than in control areas (87.5%).

In project UPs 51.5 per cent of the respondents (households) who attended the WSs reported that the issues related to development plan and budget were discussed in Shavas and community based projects were identified and shortlisted while in control UPs 42 per cent of respondents reported the same. In addition to this, a significant number of people (41.5%) in project areas mentioned that through WSs beneficiaries of safety- net programmes were properly selected although in project areas this rate is negligible (18.5%).

51 In project areas, 63 per cent of those who attended the WSs (17% of the total population), expressed their satisfaction over its performance, while only 48 per cent of similar attendees (9%) in control areas expressed satisfaction. More than half the community people who attended WS informed that they benefitted from it through becoming aware of the ongoing/proposed development activities in the area.

Figure 3.6: Satisfaction with the performance of Ward Shava

Effectiveness of Ward Shava

Strengths The current study reveals a significant improvement in institutionalising the WSs. Available evidence shows that most of the sample UPs have regularly held meetings of the WS. In the project areas 80 per cent of the UPs reported holding of two WSs with required quorum (5% voters) in all nine Wards, while in the baseline, only 33 per cent of the UPs and in Midterm Review 53 per cent of the UPs reported the same. In project areas attendance in Ward Shavas by the community population has also increased from 9 per cent in the baseline to 17 per cent in the endline. In project areas, participation of the poor (17%) and socially marginalised people (14.5%) in WSs is also higher than in control areas. In a large number of project UPs (61%) WS is considered the most widely used mechanism to inform the public about UP plans.

Thus, UPGP through activating WS has been able to promote inclusive decision making at the local level. It has empowered community members. Their involvement in community decision making process at the grassroots level has made the project selection and planning process responsive to needs of the poor and marginalised and created a demand side of accountability.

52 Ward Shava: Where community needs heard and mainstreamed

Taslima Begum, a tupi(native cap) maker and mother of two school going children had accepted the fate that her children would go to school only during the dry season. During monsoon, the road to the primary school where her children attend gets inundated and becomes utterly unusable. Often, they fail to manage getting there on time and even if they can manage, teachers fail to come to school. So, the family decided not to send their children to school during monsoon. “We didn’t know what to do, where to go but one day, along with another neighbour, I shared this problem with our ward member who suggested me to attend Ward Shava and raise this issue there”, said Taslima. She continued, “Attending Ward Shava was a great relief to me as a scheme for repairing the road was promised there”. Later, the ward member informed her that a scheme for repairing the road causing damage to her children’s academic life has been undertaken by the UP.

“I didn’t know getting help was that easy! Now monsoon will not be a barrier for my children to attend school any more”, said a happy Taslima.

Weaknesses Both in project (20%) and in control areas (28.3%), a number of UPs could not hold the WSs with required quorum. On the other hand, despite the fact that the rate of attendance of the community in the WS has increased this rate appears to be low and more importantly, female participation looks quite low (project:7% control 3%). Wider participation of local citizens in WS is central to making it more effective and meaningful. On the other hand, although a greater number of the poor and socially marginalised people are participating in WSs than before, they still appear to be less vocal in raising their concerns and problems in the meeting. In addition, quality of the discussions held in WSs also remains a concern. Evidence from the field shows that discussions in the Shava remain mostly limited to the selection of schemes and safety- net assistance. A recent study (Ahmed, 2015) notes; “Only a few WSs have ever deliberated on any issue except selecting projects for inclusion in the UP lists or choosing members of different committees. Occasionally issues related to planning and taxation were included in the agenda of WS meetings”. The current study also reveals a lack of active engagement of citizens in WS since a great majority of the household respondents mentioned that they attended WS as “audience” and because they were “invited” by the UP member. To make the functioning of WS more effective it is crucial to make citizens feel engaged in it.

3.1.4. Strengthening Standing Committees for Effective Governance Available reviews and studies have noted the importance and dire necessity to activate and bring structural reform to revitalise the local government system. One of the most important aspects is to make the LGIs more “responsive, accountable, inclusive and participative”3. In such

3 General Economics Division (GED), Seventh Five Year Plan FY 2016-FY 2020- Accelerating Growth, Empowering Citizens, Planning Commission, Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh

53 context policy and legal framework, the Standing Committees at the Union Parishad level can play an effective, purposive and visible role in making the institution more “responsive, accountable, inclusive and participative”.

Technically and from legal perspective, the roles of standing committees in Union Parishad are crucially important and legally significant to improve the decision making process at the UP level. Basically the SCs have all legal power and authority to ensure the effective participation of the Committee members to ensure a wider and participative decision making, planning, monitoring process. It has all potentials to make the UP planning and service delivery more accountable and inclusive.

Standing Committees have a key role in supporting the Union Parishad to make effective decisions. It is a significant part of democratic practices within UP through which all members of UP is accommodated to play a role in the decision making and development management process at the local level. Besides, it is a legal platform where women members could play a vital role in UP thereby contributing to empowerment of women leadership at the grassroots level. Standing Committees are also a vehicle of civil engagement as local people are members of the committees.

The UP Act 2009 Section 45 provides the legal basis of UP Standing Committees (SCs)46. The SCs are part of the formal structure of the Union Parishad, and serve as a platform for engaging with communities, civil society actors and other stakeholders to develop plans and monitor their implementation in specified thematic areas. The UPGP has been engaged to ensure that all such Standing Committees were established, and that they carried out their mandated tasks.

There are 13 Standing Committees in each UP. A Standing Committee is led by an elected councilor and requires 5 to 7 members. Each committee can co-opt citizens or professional persons but such members do not have voting rights. Each SC has to meet every two months, but emergency meetings can be arranged any time. Core functions of the SCs are: a. monitoring activities of service providers and giving feedback to people based on their needs and demand; b. giving planning support to the service delivery provider and monitor the implementation process; providing regular reports to the UP about activities of the committee, decisions and monitoring with two- month intervals.

It appears from the field observations that community members in general are not much aware about the Standing Committees. Though the awareness level is relatively a little high in the project areas as compared to the control areas the level of awareness is noticeably low. It shows the SCs have not yet been effective to draw attention of the community members at large.

4 Section 45 of UP Act, 2009 provides the legal foundation to form 13 Standing committees at the UP for the purpose of discharging its functions efficiently and in an inclusive participative and accountable manner. However if required, the Union Parishads may form additional Standing Committees with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner. The UP Standing Committees cover several functional areas of engagements. The Committees include: Finance and establishment; Audit and accounts; Tax assessment and collection; Education, health and family planning; Agriculture, fisheries and livestock &other economic development work; Rural infrastructure development, protection and maintenance; Maintenance of law and order; Birth-death registration; Sanitation, water supply and drainage; Social welfare and disaster management; Development & conservation of environment and tree plantation; Resolution of family conflicts, women and children welfare (not applicable for Chittagong HT) Culture and sports.

54 Field visits in the project areas gave the impression that SCs to some extent have been able to “create a platform and space for engagement of other members of UP over the exclusive lead role of the Chairperson himself”. But field observations also reveal that community members in general are not much aware about the functions of Standing Committees. Although the awareness level regarding SCs is relatively a little high in the project areas as compared to the control areas it has to be taken into consideration that the UPGP project primarily attempted to strengthen institutional capacity of six selected Standing Committees of the UP. Thus, overall low level of awareness about SCs cannot be attributed to the selected SCs.

Table 3.6: Community awareness of UP Standing Committees Endline Baseline Project area Control area Project area Control area Status of awareness about SCs Total Total Total Total Percentage of Community 9 1 7.2 1 members are aware of

The project intervention primarily attempts to strengthen the institutional capacity of the UP by duly recognising and strengthening the selected six Standing Committees under the UP Act. The survey data reveal that only 9 % of respondents in project areas and 7.2 % of respondents in control areas are aware of the Standing Committees of UP. The bar graph below shows the overall performance of the SCs in the project areas as compared to control areas. In general, it shows that a significant improvement in performance of the Standing Committees, especially for the selected 6 target SCs of the UPGP, as compared to control areas. The comparison shows a significant improvement in performance of the selected committees in the project areas as compared to the baseline.

Figure 3.7: Performance of Selected Standing Committees

55 The bar graphs clearly show that performance of all SCs in the project areas are significantly high as compared to control areas.

However, for the routine development management functions, UPs have to form other committees too. There are other committees at the UP level which are formed by different ministries of the government and operate in parallel with the UP Standing Committees. Such committees at the UP level are formed usually by executive orders/ministerial orders, while the UP Standing Committees are formed as per the Section 45 of the UP Act 2009. The table below presents a comparative picture of some of those committees. It again shows that such committees are more or less similarly active both in UPs located in project and control areas. The UPs with-in Project areas have marginally performed better in forming such committees as compared to UPs in the control areas. Such committees are obligatory for all UP projects especially for projects funded by LGSP and other line agencies of the government.

Table 3.7: Existence of other committees in UP: (in %) Types of committees in place Project (n=120) Control (n=120) Union Development Coordination Committees Endline 87.5 Endline 85.8 (UDCC) Base line 73.0 Base line 69.0 Ward Committees (WC) Endline 97.5 Endline 96.7 Base line 97.0 Base line 93 Scheme Supervision Committee Endline 97.5 Endline 96.7 Base line 93 Base line 82 Procurement Committee Endline 86.7 Endline 82.5 Base line 72 Base line 61

In accordance with the UP Act, one- third of the UP Standing Committees ought to be headed by female UP members. The field data reveal that, both in the project and control areas, the number of female chairs has marginally exceeded three. In other words, there are more female Chairs of the SCs in the project Areas as compared to control areas. The data show that some UPs in the project areas have appointed more female members as Chairs of the committees than that of obligatory one-third of the total.

Table 3.8: Number of Standing Committees headed by female members

Endline Baseline Status Project Area Control Area Project Area Control Area Mean of Committee 3.15 3.04 3 3 n 120 120 188 188

Figure 3.8: Status of Formation of SCs: Endline and Baseline Comparison

57 The two graphs presented above make a comparison of the formation of SCs both in project areas and control areas at present and during the baseline. The graphs clearly show the significant change between the baseline and the endline. These clearly demonstrate the formation of SCs has improved both in the control and project areas but the rate of constitution of SC is relatively high in the project areas.

Field observations show in some of UPs under the project areas57: All 13 Standing Committees are formed and have started functioning. In some UPs, the names and contact numbers of the Standing Committee members are shown on the UP Notice Board. Furthermore, Standing Committees are relatively better in the project areas compared to control areas.

The standing committees, in general, have taken some special initiatives to develop pro-poor, MDG- oriented plans in consultation with Ward members and also found to have negotiated with the Union Parishad for effective implementation of such interventions.

Some “coordination gap” is found between Standing committees and extension workers of LMs at the field level.

For the UPs in the control areas: The planning input from the Standing Committees to the planning process has not been found to be significant and or appropriately recorded;

Overall capacities of UP Standing Committees are still very low. The members are not fully aware of their roles.

In general, the Standing committees are formed but not yet fully effective, visible and functional.

5 Salahuddin Aminuzzaman, Research on Standing Committees of Union Parishad, UNDP 2015

UP Standing Committee System: Observations drawn from FGD Sessions

FGD sessions with cross-section of people of UP reveal the following strengths and weaknesses of UP Standing Committee.

Strengths: (i) Standing Committee is one of the most potential and important means to make UP more responsive, accountable, inclusive and participative. (ii) In some cases UPs have been able to mobilise enlightened community leaders to attend UP meetings as guests of UP Standing Committees. Such inclusion boosts image, credibility and institutional trust of UP. (iii) Drawing from the success cases it appears that there are two ways in which the SC can intervene to improve services at the local level. First, it can take effective initiative to monitor the qualities of service delivery both of the UP and also line agencies working at the grassroots. Second, the SC can devise a mechanism of reporting the issue to UP monthly meeting and the UP chair can place the issue to either UZP level SC or UZP monthly meeting for appropriate actions.

Weaknesses: (i) The UP Secretaries play a critical role in terms of managing SC documents and meeting minutes for records. Through the intervention of the project some managerial capacity have been created – however, it is also true that the workload of the UP Secretaries has increased considerably. It is estimated that the work volume has increased about 40 per cent. (ii) Considering the workload, the total number of UP elected officers and nature of existing and potential role, the number of UP standing committees appears to be too many (13 in total). Based on objective assessment and role specification and core mandate of the UPs, the number of SC needs to be rationalised. (iv) There is no specific TOR for the specific SCs. Thus, members of SCs find it difficult to focus their attention and fail to identify viable, realistic and specific projects. It is also recognised by the FGD sessions that there is a need for more coordination and synchronising activities of UPSCs.

3.1.5 Up-Scaling of Women’s Development Forum According to the National Women Development Policy, political empowerment of women requires focused interventions to help women overcome social, economic, religious and cultural

59 barriers that suppress their voices and bringing women to the forefront6. Women Development Forum (WDF) is such a focused intervention of UZGP which was set up in 2013 involving elected women representatives from UPs, UZPs, and Paurashavas (municipalities) at the Upazila and District levels. The core objectives of WDF are to enhance capacity of the elected women representatives for better contributions at the LGI level in a gender responsive manner, enhance women’s political leadership, contribute to the local socioeconomic development, and establish networks with various Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) for addressing gender issues. This initiative was undertaken by the UZGP in order to create a space or a platform for women to join together and discuss their roles, participate and raise their voices in the decision-making process and also to effectively and successfully accomplish their mandated roles and responsibilities as elected representatives in the greater interest of rural communities in general and women in particular. By 2016, WDF was scaled up across the country. The number of Upazila level WDF was increased from 65 in 2013 to 551 (in 64 districts, 487 Upazilas) in 2016. It has mobilised over 16000 elected women representatives of LGIs as its members at district to union level7. The WDF has been integrated with the national policies and institutions. Currently, 268 WDFs are registered at the District level as an official body with the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs (MOWCA)8. Through a Circular issued from Local Government Division (2015), it has been made mandatory to allocate 3 per cent of the Upazila annual development budget to the WDF. One of the objectives of forming WDF was to strengthen inter- LGI linkages between UP and UZP and pursue advocacy on women issues with LGIs and respective Parishads. Accordingly, upscaling of WDF has created a significant impact at the UP level. The present study shows that in project areas 80 per cent of the UPs have on an average a woman representative participating in officially registered WDF at the Upazila level while in the baseline only 61 per cent of the UPs had this. Field data show that currently, on an average 65 per cent of the project UPs have more than one UP members having membership of WDF at the Upazila level while only 40 per cent of control UPs have this. Still 20 per cent of the project UPs do not have any female member having membership of WDF while in control UPs this rate is 41 per cent. Attendance of the female UP members in WDF meetings at the Upazila level was also found to be higher in project UPs (79%) compared to the control UPs (58%). But compared to the baseline, the rate of attendance in the meeting in both project and control UPs look quite low (project:95; control:91). This can be explained by the fact that during the survey due to the recently held UP election, many UPs were newly formed and were not adequately informed/oriented about the need for attending the WDF meetings. However, field data show that on an average, in project UPs, the female members attend more than three WDF meetings while in control UPs they attend more than two meetings.

6 National Woman Development Policy 2011 issued in March 2011, section 5 7 (http://www.dwa.gov.bd/) 8 GOB (2016) Results Report: Upazila Governance Project, 2012-16; Local Government Division, MOLGRD, Dhaka

Figure 3.9: Status of UP involvement with WDF

3.1.6 Building Citizenship and Promoting Downward Accountability and overall efficiency and effectiveness To build democratic citizenship, individuals are to be actively engaged in governance. Citizens look beyond self- interest to the larger public interest adopting a longer-term perspective that requires knowledge of public affairs, a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, and a moral bond with the community. With this spirit of democratic citizenship, UPGP adopted several measures for encouraging active engagement of the citizen in the process of local governance. In definitional terms, “engagement is not single process or set of activities. It is an ongoing process or conversation that builds trust and relationships” (Holmes, 2011:13)9. Civic engagement is often seen as a tool for deepening democratic governance, through the channels of voice and accountability (Ahmed, 2015). While describing the key components of citizen engagement, Holmes (2011) referred to participation (as the “highest order” of public engagement), consultation (“a second order of citizen engagement”), and access to information (as a means of ensuring downward accountability). The UPGP introduced all these components of citizen engagement at the local level governance. With the objective of promoting participation of and consultation with the citizen, the project facilitated holding of Ward Shava (WS) and open budget meeting at the ward level, inclusion of the ordinary citizen in the UP Standing Committees (SCs) and creation of WDF. The project also facilitated UPs to display Citizen Charter and the disclosure of financial information on the UP notice board in order to promote downward accountability.

9 Holmes, B. (2011). “Citizen’s Engagement in Policymaking and the Design of Public Services”, Research Paper No 1, 2011-12, Canberra: Parliament Library.

61 Previous evaluations (LGD, 201310; 21014a11; 2014b12) inform that UPGP has made a significant contribution to promoting citizen engagement at the local level. The Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) claimed that UPGP had a major success in strengthening democratic accountability and transparency of the UP through citizen engagement (output 1), among other things, by activating WSs for inclusive decision-making, strengthening SCs for effective governance and building citizenship and promoting downward accountability (Local Government Division, 2014b: 46-54). The current study also corroborates the earlier studies revealing higher performance of the project with regard to various measures for promoting citizen engagement. Field data reveals that during 2015-16, on an average, in project UPs the households attended 2.3 UP meetings, while in control UPs people attended similar number of meetings (2.22). This indicates an overall improvement of citizen engagement with the UPs. Control UPs demonstrated similar level of participation in UP meetings due to the presence of other projects (i.e. LGSP-II having similar agenda). In addition to this, WSs, open budget meetings are being held regularly almost in all project UPs and the participation of the community in these meetings is on the rise (compared to baseline). Household data reveal that in project UPs WS is the most popularly attended (51% of 309 respondents) meeting while open budget meeting is the second most popular meeting (17.5%) and the WDF meetings at the Upazila are the least attended by the households (6.8%).

Figure 3.10: UP meetings attended by the households

10 LGD (2013). Report on Baseline Study, Dhaka: UPGP. 11 LGD (2014a). Citizen Perception Survey on Service Delivery: Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad, Dhaka: LGD. 12 LGD (2014b). Mid-Term Evaluation: Final Report, Dhaka: UPGP & UZPGP.

62 The WS has gained popularity among the community people as it has been able to create a platform for them to raise their voice in decisions that affect their lives at least, up to a certain extent. Ahmed (2015) also notes, “Ward Shava has created a sense of political empowerment among those who have traditionally been denied any political space”. In addition to creating an opportunity for community participation in decision making and direct face- to- face interaction between UP functionaries and the community people, the provision for WS has also created a culture of accountability and transparency among UP functionaries.

Downward accountability through Ward Shava: List of beneficiaries of

widow allowance got corrected

Rahima, a 50-year old widow, lives alone in a shabby hut in Jagannathpur union under Sunamganj district. She lost her husband five years back. Since then she had been trying to get widow allowance but failed to manage it. One day she found another widow living in her village, who lost her husband only one year back, but was selected eligible for widow allowance. Rahima got surprised at this and it was more shocking to her when she came to know that the woman was well taken care of by her two earning sons. Frustrated Rahima decided to share this matter with the ward member. When contacted, the member advised her to attend the upcoming ‘Ward Shava’ and raise the issue there. Rahima said, “I didn’t know what Ward Shava actually was. Finally, accompanied by the ward member I went to attend it.” She continued, “In the Shava, when the UP men were talking about the allowances, I raised my hand and wanted to know why I was not being considered eligible for widow allowance for the last five years while my neighbour, despite being economically better off than me received it only one year after her husband’s death”. Upon hearing this UP men looked little embarrassed. They promised to look into her case soon. Three days later, the ward member informed that Rahima’s name was included in the beneficiary list and mistakenly she was missed out from the list earlier. Since both the widows were called the same (Rahima), benefit went to the one who visited the UP little more frequently! Thus, poor Rahima could manage to include herself in the beneficiary list through the mechanism of downward accountability offered through Ward Shava.

Open budget meeting is another popularly attended platform, which shares the budget and other financial information of UP directly with the citizen and thereby promotes accountability and transparency in its activities. Despite having some limitations, “the process is, however, more transparent than it was in the past when budgeting was mostly considered to be a ‘private’ function of the UP. This certainly represents an improvement over the past” (Ahmed, 2015). Despite various measures taken by the UPGP to strengthen Standing Committees (SCs) as a means of establishing anaccountable and responsive governance, it is yet to gain popularity among the community people. In project areas, only 7.2% of the household respondents (n=1541) while in control UPs 3.2% of the respondents (n=1562) informed being aware of SC meeting at UP. Field data reveals that SCs in project areas tended to be more active than those

63 in non-project areas, at least in terms of holding meetings on a regular basis and also in terms of community attendance (project-12.3% of 309 respondents, control- 7% of 268 respondents) in the meeting. The WDF formed at the upazila level has also created a sense of political empowerment among female members of UP. The most dominant reason for community attendance in the UP meetings in both project (35%) and control areas (42.5%) was to get informed about the development of the locality. The most widely discussed issue in these meetings as referred by the household respondents in project UPs (47%) was community development while in control UPs 27% of the household respondents mentioned the same. Similarly, when asked about the benefits they obtain from attending such meetings the majority of the households in project UP (30%) and in control UPs (22%) referred to being informed about community development. Thus, the community level meetings act as the platforms through which citizens can engage one another in a kind of personal dialogue and deliberation which is the essence of community building and of democracy itself. The UPGP (by offering incentives) played a critical role in facilitating and supporting these meetings to establish connections between the UP and the community to promote downward accountability. One study has thus claimed that since community people, particularly women, are becoming knowledgeable about their rights and entitlements, they are participating in WSs and open budget meetings more in numbers than before for expressing their demands and realising their shares. As a result, UP representatives are becoming compelled to accept different proposals of common people (Panday, 201513). Participation in rallies and in various awareness programmes is another means of promoting community engagement. Field data reveals that 83.3 per cent of the project and 77 per cent of the control UPs organised awareness campaigns during the last year (2015-16). These programmes focus on various important social issues like prevention of child marriage, drug addiction, eve teasing, oppression of women and dowry, hygienic sanitation and improvement in education (See annex for the details: UP Table 43). Field data reveal that community participation in these rallies/campaigns is still low although the endline data reveal a slightly higher rate of such participation than it was in the baseline. Participation of socially marginalised groups in these programmes has increased to 4.8 per cent in endline from 0.5 per cent in baseline (Table 3.9).

Table 3.9 : Distribution of respondents by status of participation in rallies or awareness programme organised by the UP Endline Participated in Rally Category Project Control Male (n=1216) 6.3 5.0 Female (n=325) 2.5 1.7

13 Panday, P. (2015). Qualitative Action Research on Results and Learning of Strengthening Local Governance Project, Dhaka: BRAC-THP SLG Project.

64 Poor (n= P: 703; C: 704) 3.8 3.3 Non-poor (n= NP: 590; C: 527) 7.8 5.1 Socially marginalised group (n= P: 248; C: 331) 4.8 3.9 Baseline Participated in Rally Category Project Control Male (n=940) 5 2 Female (n=940) 3 1 Poor (n= P: 933; C: 939) 1 1 Non-poor (n= NP: 947; C: 941) 7 3 Socially marginalised group (n= P: 387; C: 385) 0.5 0.3

As a tool for promoting transparency and accountability the project has also intensified the display of Citizen Charter to inform the public about services they are entitled to receive from UP. Information disclosure was another mechanism used by UPs to promote downward accountability. It rests on the premise that when government officials are watched and monitored, they feel greater pressure to respond to their constituents’ demands and have fewer incentives to abuse their power (Berthin, 2011)14. Field data reveal that UPs have largely become accustomed to publicly displaying their financial information related to budget, plan and audit on the notice board and to informing citizens about activities through using various mechanisms. The citizens are also having better access to information and they appear to be more aware of their entitlements and also about the role of UPs.

To establish accountable governance at the UP level, monitoring and supervision of UP activities has also increased. Ninety two per cent of project UPs and 88 per cent of control UPs confirmed the visit of a government official to the UPs for supervision.

Overall efficiency and effectiveness of UP activities In project UPs, 40 per cent of the household respondents expressed satisfaction over the performance of UP which demonstrates a significant improvement over the baseline where only 23 per cent of the households expressed satisfaction over the UP performance. Satisfaction rate in project UPs is also higher than that in control UPs (32%). Only 18 per cent of the household respondents in project UPs expressed their dissatisfaction over UP performance while it is almost similar in control areas (19.3%). The presence of various interventions of other projects with similar agenda in control UPs can explain such closeness in dissatisfaction in control UPs.

14 Berthin, G. (2011). A Practical Guide to Social Audit as a Participatory Tool to Strengthen Democratic Governance, Transparency and Accountability, New York: UNDP

Figure 3.11: Level of satisfaction on overall performance of UP (%)

The UPs have been assessed positively by the majority of the household respondents for their performance in infrastructure development, distribution of allowances and relief and for the provision of assistance to the poor. Similarly, the households also mentioned various weaknesses of UP. The major weaknesses of UP as mentioned by the households included: (a) nepotism in distribution of allowances and taking bribes for this, (b) lack of adequate interaction between the UP and the community/ sympathetic attitude towards people, and (c) delay in accomplishing development works. With respect to these issues of weaknesses, project UPs were assessed better than the control UPs.

Figure 3.12: Household perception about the weaknesses of UP

However, when asked about the way of increasing citizen engagement with the UPs majority of the household respondents in both project and non-project UPs suggested an increase in

66 community participation in UP meetings and sympathetic redress of their grievances there.. To engage women more in UP activities, their participation in UP meetings/rallies/ awareness raising campaigns needs to be increased. They should be imparted more trainings on income generating activities and assistance should be provided to the destitute women.

3.1.7 An Overview of Performance Grants for Improving Core Governance Areas of UPs In Bangladesh, performance based grants with minimum conditions (MCs) and performance measures (PMs) were originally tested in the Sirajganj Local Governance Development Fund Project (SLGDFP), where an increasing number of Union Parishads (UPs) in the Sirajganj district got access to this grant. Later the system of PBGS was refined as part of the Local Governance Support Project- Learning and Innovation Component (LGSP-LIC) in 2006, and the system had been gradually rolled out between 2007 and 2010 with a full coverage of all 388 UPs in six districts.

Figure 3.13: Evolution of performance based grants in Bangladesh

LGSP-LIC, among other things, provided qualifying UPs with access to Supplementary Block Grants (SBGs), which had been allocated to UPs in addition to their Expanded Block Grants (EBG) from the Local Government Support Project (LGSP) and from 2007 a new performance based grant was introduced based on the assessment of 264 UPs’ performance. Under the programme, the UPs needed to demonstrate compliance with a number of minimum conditions (MCs) before they could be considered for the SBG and PBG. So both the SLGDFP and LGSP (LIC) contributed to the government decision to introduce a system of nationwide local governance

67 funding support to Union Parishads with a PBG component attached to it. The mainstreamed national Local Government Support Project (LGSP) has thus been designed and administered by the government with a governance support component in which its annual support is to be provided on the basis of performance assessment with a set of 12 indicators. The LGSP follows two steps in allocating Basic Block Grant (BBG) funds among the Union Parishads. First, it allocates 25% of the total BBG among all Union Parishads equally. Second, the remaining 75% of the BBG funds is distributed among the UPs that meet some governance performance indicators ‘MCs’ based on a transparent formula that takes into account population and area of the UP. Population gets 90% weight while the area gets 10% only. To be eligible for remaining 75% of the BBG a Union Parishad needs to fulfill certain necessary criteria. These are:  Clean audit report (unqualified and qualified audit report);  Evidence of participatory planning and budgeting; and  Timely submission of six-monthly report.

On the other hand, the Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) worked with a clear purpose to further develop PBGs and other innovations to strengthen local governance, and operates in seven districts. The PBGs provided by UPGP are based on more elaborate set of 41 performance indicators, which reflect the next generation of innovations to strengthen local government. Performance assessments focus on compliance with mandatory functions specified in legislation and rules. The following figure shows different areas of governance and number of indicators in each area.

Planning & budgeting

6 7 Financial management 5 8 Own source revenue 7 mobilization 8 Monitoring & Accountability Implementation & expenditure efficiency

Figure 3.14 : UPGP-areas of governance and number of indicators

Union Parishads are annually assessed against 41 governance indicators and a total score of 100 was distributed in the following manner:

68 Table 3.10: UPGP composite governance performance indicators Composite governance Indicators Maximum Score Preparation of Planning and Budgeting 24 UP expenditure/Financial management/Financial Reporting 15 Own Source Revenue Efforts and Performance 18 Transparency and Accountability 18 Implementation Capacity 10 Democratic Governance System 15 Total 100

The overall objective of the UPGP was to strengthen capacities of local governments and other stakeholders to foster participatory local development service delivery for the MDGs. The specific purpose in implementing the UPGP was to support the piloting and evaluation of innovations to improve the functional and institutional capacity, as well as the democratic accountability of Union Parishads, thereby increasing citizen’s involvement leading to more effective, efficient and accountable delivery of pro- poor infrastructure and services. In addition to capacity building support, the UPGP supported the evaluation of systematic development plans and performance based grants to UPs, to scale up the improved service delivery, with a particular focus on the MDG related services. This assistance was linked to a portfolio of support to develop policies and institutional mechanisms that provided an enabling environment for pro-poor service delivery managed by local governments. The UPGP operated across seven districts covering 564 UPs and the funds transferred to UPs was known as the Extended Performance Based Grant (EPBG).

An amount of 5292.02 lakh taka (about 53 crore) was disbursed to the eligible UPs as EPBG between 2012 and 2016. This amount was made available for allocation in almost equal installments over four fiscal years. The table below shows the fiscal year- wise allocation of EPBG to UPs under UPGP. The figure confirms the fact that the funds were consistently made available to the UPs through the medium of the UPGP proejct with an exception made in the project’s last year of operation (2015-2016).

Figure 3.15 : Amount of Extended Performance Based Grant Allocated (in BDT) to UPs under UPGP

It was gathered during the field visits that the performance and financial auditors have gradually become stricter while assessing UP’s governance quality against the performance indicators set-forth. The table below shows the number of UPs which could successfully cross the eligibility bar during last 4 years.

Figure 3.16: Year-wise number of UPs eligible for EPBG (out of 564)

The above figures demonstrate that 410 UPs were eligible for EPBG during the fiscal year 2013- 2014 (highest number) and 400 UPs were eligible during the fiscal year 2014-2015 (lowest number). The PBG was seen by the most UP functionaries as an effective mechanism to help UPs improve their governance quality. A number of chairmen of both the project and control area UPs said, “Because of the UPGP and LGSP interventions UPs have now become instituionally much more vibrant. These projects have made the funds availbale to these institutions on a continuous basis and in a somewhat predictable manner which ultimately help them provide quality services to local citizens more effectively than ever before.”

Performance grants turn Jalalpur UP into a Vibrant Institution

In 2012, activities of Upazila Governance Project started in Jalalpur Union of Sirajganj district. At the beginning, it was observed that the UP was not run properly and there were a number of irregularities including mismanagement at the UP office. With the passage of time, due to project interventions in the Jalalpur Union, the UP office management has improved significantly. Now, the monthly meetings are held regularly and minutes are being written properly. Eighteen files and 22 registers in the UP office are being updated on a regular basis. As per the UP Ordinance, all the 13 Standing Committees have been formed. Register books for all the 13 Standing Committees are maintained. Meetings particularly of the Standing Committees on Health, Education and Agriculture are being held regularly. A notice board has been installed at the UP office, where the notices are posted. There is a complaint box that helps UPs receive feedbacks from the community. The Gram Policemen come to duty on time with uniforms on. The national flag is being hoisted regularly. The employees of UP office sign the attendance register now. While conducting Gram Adalat, the UP is now able to use all 11 formats after receiving training. Two separate registers are also maintained to record births and deaths. The UP secretary claimed, “We now have more people visiting UP every day for various services, particularly the number of women visitors has increased manifold during last three years”. “Our UP has now turned into a vibrant local government institution and thanks to the performance grant and associated financial and other capacity development supports which were made available to us by the UPGP, stated the UP Chair.” Rabi Mondol (34), who runs a small shop beside the UP complex, said “Seeing is believing”! a lot of people come to UP complex for services.They attend UP budget meetings in large number and also get actively engaged in other events organized by UP”. What contributed to such a change within a short span of time? The UP Chair stated, “The provision of performance grant has done helped the UP to improve its governance and service delivery. The system has also been able to create a sense of competition among UPs and also within the UPs this has helped motivate the UP functionaries to continuously pay attention to meet the conditions required by the performance grant system.” A female UP member claimed, “It was because of the conditions attached under the performance grant, the attitudes of the male members and the Chair towards the female members of UPs have changed.” Along this line, the UP secretary also stated, “Performance grant has directly contributed to improvement in our UP governance system and now we follow the rules and pay attention to every detail of UP governance including ensuring accountability, transparency and participation.”

The annual allocation to districts was based on a formula that took into account the number of UPs in the districts, the population and the geographical area of the district. The Performance Based Grant was conceived in a manner that it would align with and support the four key objectives of UPGP:

71  Strengthening the capacities of UPs in core generic functions related to Planning and Budgeting, Financial Management, Own revenue collection and Accountability.  Strengthening of Democratic Accountability of the UPs through Citizen Engagement.  Innovations in pro-poor and MDG-oriented Planning and Financing of Service Delivery by UPs.  Strengthening of national capacity for effective policy review, monitoring, lesson learning with regards to fiscal decentralization in general and performance based grants in particular.

More specifically, the focus of support for performance enhancement in the Union Parishads, in the initial period, has been placed on cross-sectoral institutional performance improvements in the areas of: 1. Planning and Budgeting 2. Fiduciary aspects (expenditure, financial management, procurement and reporting) 3. Own source revenue mobilisation 4. Monitoring, Oversight, Transparency and Accountability 5. Implementation Performance/Expenditure Targeting (for MDGs) 6. Democratic Governance Systems

The same framework was also applied, with adjustments, for the Performance Based Grant being provided under the LGSP-II, with initial focus on the first four areas, for which 12 performance indicators were formulated. The UPGP implemented the performance aseessment using the complete set of 41 indicators, which covered all the above six areas. The UPGP capacity building and technical assistance support and system development were closely related to the national legal and regulatory framework. The use of the government institutional set-up to a maximum extent helped the project reduce transaction costs, and enhance sustainability of the results. The minimum conditions and performance measures are closely aligned with the legal framework and related guidelines. The UPGP’s inputs within capacity building and grant scheme, not only complement the support provided by the LGD/LGSP, but also act as a catalytic support to enhance performance of UPs. The linkage of UPGP with nationwide LGSP-II, offers a mechanism for transferring lessons and good practices that are continuously being developed by the project, and this had been practiced through the joint training of auditors/assessors, sharing of the support from DFs etc. The following Table exhibits the lowest, highest, minimum qualifying score and the average scores secured by the UPs of different districts under UPGP during 2015-16. Two UPs representing one each from Sunamganj and Sirajganj districts had achieved highest scores of 87 in 2015-16 fiscal year. It appears that the UPs of Sunamganj district achieved highest average scores on the composite governance indicators in that year while UPs of Kishoreganj received the lowest average score of 30.28.

72 Table 3.11: Average Performance Scores of the Union Parishads in different districts (2015-2016) Minimum Number Lowest Highest Average Districts Qualifying of Unions Scores Scores Scores Score for Grant Barguna 42 33 52 84 60.29 B.Baria 100 33 64 78 53.83 Khulna 68 21 43 69 47.34 Kishoreganj 108 0 28 43 30.28 Rangpur 76 3 34 74 41.04 Sunamganj 87 28 57 87 61.30 Sirajganj 83 10 43 87 50.19

As a whole, a significant impact was observed in seven districts receiving EPBG which were captured by an impact assessment survey conducted in 2015 by the UNDP. Some of the highlights are presented in the box below.

Evidence collected from the field suggests project area UPs have been able to improve in particular their planning, budgeting, financial management and OSR mobilisation efforts, and improved their performance on all these fronts faster than the UPs in control areas. The UPGP has already demonstrated that UPs can do more than just hard-core infrastructure and the diversification of projects and implementation ratio provided a strong show-case for future reforms. The Figure below presents the percentage of UPs in seven districts and their frequency of receiving EPBG.

Impact of EPBG

 Participation of poor households in local planning has moved from 4% in 2012 to 36% in 2015

 Villages where communities reviewed plans and performance moved from 33% in 2012 to 80% in 2015

 Use of performance based grants for MDG oriented investments rose from 20% in 2013 to 58% in 2015 Figure 3.17: Frequency of the EPBG received by UPs  Local revenue mobilisation has increased by about 103% in 2015 over the base mobilization in 2012. The table below presents the number of times the UPs under 7 UPGP districts were in receipt of EPBG.

73 Table 3.1: Distribution of EPBG among Union Parishads of different Districts (in number) Never Received Received Received Received Districts Total Received One Time Two Times Three Times Four Times Brahmanbaria 3 10 21 33 33 100 Khulna 2 7 13 25 21 68 Sunamganj 3 10 20 19 35 87 Barguna 2 3 7 16 14 42 Sirajgonj 1 11 14 24 33 83 Kishoreganj 3 13 20 32 40 108 Rangpur 3 5 14 29 25 76 Total 17 59 109 178 201 564 (%) 3.0 10.5 19.3 31.6 35.6 100.0

A few observations can be made based on this table:  Performance Based Grant System has been an effective means to improve the overall performance of the vast majority of UPs;  Governance performance and quality significantly improved across UPs under the proejct;  UPs could also sustain this good performances over time;  UPGP’s capacity buldiling and backstopping support to UPs have proved very effective;  This enhanced governance capacity of UPs helped them provide local services more efficiently than before;  In all distrcits, the number of UPs that were in receipt of EPBG gradually increased;  There had been significant percentage of UPs which received EPBG for 3 (31.6 percent) to 4 times (35.6 percent)during project period;  Only a very few UPs under UPGP districts failed to receive EPBG ever during the project period which constitute only 3 per cent of the total.

The following figure shows the areas of improvement in UP governance from the annual assessment.

Figure 3.18: Performance indicators with highest improvement registered

74 UP’s increasing superior performance achievements can be attributed to the following factors:  Conditions attached to additional funding in terms of Extended Performance Based Grant (EPBG) motivated UPs to improve their performance further as the MCs/PMs were seen as positive obligations by the UP Chairs and members.  Field level information suggests that within the UPs many core stakeholders have become aware of their responsibilities because of the system of incentives for performance with accountability mechanisms.  In the area of revenue mobilisation, the EPBG has been one of the strongest arguments put forward to improve tax mobilisation, as local politicians could easily convince communities of paying their due taxes to enable UPs get increased grants and to improve their service levels: All stakeholders mentioned that UPGP, through its incentive framework, has contributed to improvement in own source revenues, although more can be done in this area by continuing to link the grants to better revenue mobilisation efforts.  The MC/PM systems have generated a sense of competition among neighbouring UPs: This has contributed to better performance as all UPs wanted to achieve higher scores, which they thought would ensure more future funds for them.

The quantitative and qualitative field data captured in connection with this survey reveal that the EPBG and its sustained focus on own source revenue mobilisation, which had shown a greater impacts on services and tax mobilisation contributed to building up of a stronger trust in UP operations and thereby provided important input into the overall policy reform process on decentralisation along the objectives in the SFYP. The data-base data and data collected from the annual performance assessment, which show improvements, have also been supported by views expressed by UP functionaries and local citizens during the field visits. All project UPs were of the views that there had been significant improvements in the performance due to incentives generated in the annual performance assessment, as well as through the capacity building support and awareness raising. The local citizens, although did not have a clear idea about EPBG during the focus group discussions orgnised in the project area informed that they witnessed a gradual change in the UP governance and service delivery over the pariod of last few years. A number FGD participants claimed, “We noticed a remarkable change in the operation of UP, the functionaries are much more organised, friendly and welcoming now”. This was echoed by other participants when they suggested the following: “Now we can have services without hassles and getting services from the UP has never been so easy in the past”. Many FGD participants stated, “We trust our UPs and UP Chairs and members more now than before because we know they are no longer trying to hide infomation”., Some female FGD participants said, “UP functionaries now treat us well and also invite us to attend meetings and talk about our problems”. All these opinions testify to the overall impact the EPBG had on the imporvement in UP governance in proejct areas.

75 Explaining why a few UPs never got EPBG? Only an insignificant percentage of UPs failed to receive EPBG ever (out of 4 rounds) in 7 distrcits during the project period. Now this raises a question as to why some UPs have not been able to secure the grant even for single time? Based on the qualitative information collected during the field visits following explanations can be advanced:  In some cases, the geographical location played against UPs. The remote and vulnerable geographical location was practically responsible for UPs not being able to comply with some of the important requirements of EPBG. For example, some UPs were prone to river erosion or located in a haor areas or elsewhere where poverty level was generally higher and people therefore lacked the ability to pay taxes imposed by UPs. In that situation, even with the best of UP’s tax efforts, the UPs were not able to score any point on mobilisation of own source revenue which was later taken into account by the performance assessors during the annual performance assessment. Besides, in a number of UPs, specific challenges such as flooding, draught etc. had adverse impact on the overall governance performance.  Some UPs had inherently weak governance capacity and their capacity building would require a long- term intervention. The UPs under this category failed to meet governance performance targets of UPGP.  Some UP Chairs had law suits filed against them for numerous reasons who, therefore, failed to create a conducive environment for UPs to meet the performance grant conditions.  There had been UP Chairs who were too powerful locally either because of their strong political connections or their advanced socio-economic status. UP Chairs falling under this category were not generally accustomed to following the rules and therefore, did not pay attention to complying with the conditions of the performance grant system.  There had been some UPs within the project area in which they did not have a secretary. The position of secretary was lying vacant for a long time and without the continuous support from the secretary it was not possible for the UPs to meet the performance grant related requirements.

3.1.8 Identifying the Areas of Relative Performance on Composite Governance Indicators For decades the governance quality of Union Parishads in Bangladesh has been below the average as they severely lacked, among other things, financial resources to carry out their mandated local service delivery functions. Performance grant was introduced with a view to dealing with this governance crisis and make resources available to local government institutions. The underlying assumption was that these institutions would be able to serve local people better and improve their governance if the funds are made available to them which need to be competitively achieved. The dynamics of and the linkages between the availability of financial and other resources, institutional performance and quality of governance can be understood in terms of the following figure:

76 Q2: Higher quality of Q1: Availability of additional High governance may not resources lead to effective be sustainable due institutional and governance to resource scarcity practices

Quality of Q3: Corrupt and Q4: Higher resource can create governance ineffective institutions possibilities but weak governance lead to corrupt and inefficient institutions Low

Low Resource Availability High

Figure 3.19: Determination of the effectiveness of an institution

Performance based grant can significantly contribute to both factors—making additional resources available and also getting the governance practices right (Q1). It can provide resources and at the same time it can create conditions to improve the quality of governance. Such positive effects of performance based grants were reflected in opinions of the respondents of the project and control UPs alike. About 99.2 per cent informed respondents (UP functionaries) of the project area considered performance grant as an effective tool to stimulate UP governance. None of them considered it ineffective, while only 0.8 per cent respondents from the project area informed that it was difficult for them to assess the effect of performance grant on the improvement of UP governance. Similarly, most of the respondents from control UPs agreed to the importance of PBG to improve governance (97.5 per cent) though this percentage is slightly lower than the project areas.

Figure 3.20 (a): Opinion of the functionaries Figure 3.20 (b): Opinion of the functionaries project area UPs about the effectiveness of control area UPs about the effectiveness of PBG to stimulate UP governance in general (in PBG to stimulate UP governance in general project areas) (in control areas)

Similarly, 86.7 per cent respondents informed that PBG has improved governance as a whole in the project area UPs while only 60 per cent respondents from the control area UPs fully agreed on this view. Such variations in opinions can be attributed to exclusivity of UPGP when

77 compared to the mainstreamed similar intervention of LGSP-II in terms of their nature of intervention, special nature of local level facilitations, frequency and timeliness of monitoring and the quality of the capacity building approaches and supervision mechanisms adopted.

Figure 3.21 (a): Opinion of the functionaries of Figure 3.21 (b): Opinion of the functionaries project area UPs about EPBG’s direct of control area UPs about PBG’s to direct contribution to improve UP governance as a contribution to improve UP governance as a whole (in project areas) whole (in control areas)

The performance-based grant system, with its more elaborated performance indicators demonstrated that performance incentives, when combined with capacity development support and funding, could contribute to enhanced performance of UPs and be an important element in building UPs as effective local institutions.The UPGP intervened with a set of innovative performance measures supporting the MDG, vulnerable groups/women, a wider set of public financial management and governance areas. The UP institutional survey data testify to the fact that EPBG has contributed significantly to the UP planning and budgeting alongside other areas of governance.

Figure 3.22: Score obtained for performance grant's contribution to UP planning and budgeting

78 A significant 98 per cent of the project area UP functionaries and 90 per cent of the control area UP functionaries were in agreement to suggest the fact that EPBG was exceedingly effective in encouraging the UPs to pay attention to the formulation of long-term plans in a participatory manner with the active engagements of local people. It also stimulated UP functionaries to prepare budget following the government guidelines and also sharing it with local people and thereby ensure transparency of UP’s planned income and expenditure. Interviews with UP functionaries during field visits suggest that EPBG created a positive obligation for UPs to meet requirements for UP planning and budgeting. A number of UP Chairs noted, “UP planning and budgeting was promoted consistently by the UPGP through its EPBG. We were also given necessary hands- on training on these aspects. Now we can prepare plan and budget on our own and EPBG was a real motivating factor for us”.

The endline UP institutional survey data also support these views expressed by UP functionaries. The findings suggest that UPs under the UPGP were found to have prepared Fiver- Year Plans taking into account priorities identified by the local people. Also the UPs were found to have been preparing their budgets each year following the government stipulated rules. From the survey data it is evident that UPs have been able to develop the capacity to organise open budget meetings with a view to sharing budgets with the local people. A number of UP Chairs and members, however, admitted that “Initially we faced a serious challenge in this regards. It was not always easy to get local people to attend these meetings. So we started with inviting people we know and who would be interested in attending those meetings. This had a gradual demonstration effect and now we see a different picture, people from all walks of life attend these meetings spontaneously”. From the M&E data a commendable performance improvement in almost all areas of governance in UPs representing the project areas was also evident. There had been improvements on 37 out of the 41 performance measures (PMs) of which significantly higher performance was registered in core areas of UP governance including, i) information disclosure, ii) tax assessments, iii) revenue mobilisation, iv) projects benefitting more than 1 ward, tax rates, v) Medium term planning, vi) MDG planning targeting, vii) project implementation, viii) functioning of the standing committees etc.

Figure 3.23: Score obtained for performance grant's contribution to financial management

79 According to the qualitative evidence from interviews during the field-work and interviews with other stakeholders, especially the auditors, it was clear that there has been a significant improvement in the public financial management performance of the UPs in the project areas compared to the control areas. It appears from the annual performance assessment that the performance on core dimensions of financial management has increasingly improved and part of this can be attributed to the UPGP support. The average score on bookkeeping and accounting has significantly improved from the first annual assessment to last annual assessment, but as mentioned earlier, bank reconciliations have shown a snag in general, not much improvement was registered on this front for the reasons explained earlier. Tax management has also improved, e.g. tax assessment performance has improved significantly for all UPs in the project area when compared between the first and last round of assessments. Performance on tax defaulter identification has not improved as much as it was expected. But the performance on tax register up-date has improved significantly between the first and last round of assessments. These improvements were also supported by the views of the auditing companies met during final evaluation period. Such companies informed that they could focus on audit rather than on supporting UPs with the up-dating of their accounts.15 The institutional UP survey examined the effectiveness of performance based grant system. This has been assessed using the categorical variable describing four categories: fully agree, partially agree, disagree and strongly disagree. The categories have been reclassified into two major groups: agree and disagree. The results have been reported in the following figure:

Figure 3.24: Impact of performance grant system

15 Interviews with 5 of the auditing companies under the LGSP/UGPG annual audits all confirmed improvements in the UP PFM performance.

80 The results show that there was an agreement among the respondents that performance based grant system has an effective role in managing the offices, preparing budget following the established rules, achieving inclusive local governance, maintaining multi-sector (MDG) focused plans, creating incentive and positive obligations to prepare five-year plans, improving the good governance as a whole and making additional funds available to UPs.

EPBG makes a magic: Changes UPs and lives

“It is amazing to see the way officers of Kharina Union Parishad under Dumuria Upazila, Khulna listen to us now. It was not possible earlier”, said a happy farmer Abdur Rahman. They also accept our suggestions and implement activities for development of our locality. We are happy and proud to be able to play an important role in improving our locality and our lives,” he adds. A local tea-stall owner Khalil Miah said with a smile, “It is very nice to see new and well- developed roads and communication system. Earlier we had to suffer a lot because the UP never performed like this.” Such observations were made by FGD participants on the present state of the Kharina UP. But before introduction of the Kharina UP, what they said, was in a crisis. They complained of a higher level of inefficiency in providing services to local people due to scarcity of resources and presence of a poor system of governance. Corruption was rampant, and the people were dissatisfied with the UP and its services. The ineffective UP failed to comply with the government rules. Ward Shavas were not held regularly, and thus the needs and priorities of the people remained unidentified and unmet. The locals’ dissatisfaction culminated in their apathy towards the UP and disengagement in UP affairs.” “Plans were not made, and if ever made, did not address the local people’s needs and priorities.” “The UP hardly made any tax assessment, and was weak in its tax effort and tax imposition. Poor collection of taxes led to providing poor or no services at all. The UP depended heavily on the central government’s grants, which were barely enough to keep the system running,”said the FGD respondents. The UP officers also agreed on such observations and claimed that “the situation started to change when the UPGP began its operation in Kharina. The positive performance obligations created by the UPGP with its Extended Performance Based Grant (EPBG) which included holding Ward Shavas with proper attendance, formulation of plan, proper assessment and collection of taxes, preparing budget and sharing it with the locals, keeping a specific provision for women in the development plans, etc. had direct impact on revamping the existing system of governance”. UP officials vowed to obtain EPBG to fund local development projects and demonstrate effective leadership. The UP Chair said, “We are grateful to UPGP for EPBG, as it has magically changed the system, and has created a win-win situation. We are happy to be able to satisfy the people and their needs, who are equally content with the rapid and visible local development. This has increased their willingness to pay taxes, and we can now raise more revenues and provide services in higher number and quality. The Performance Measures of EPBG not only acted as

81 governance indicators, but also as a guideline and benchmark.” The UP Secretary stated, “We hold Ward Shavas on a regular basis, thus we make plans engaging local people, following their needs when making the budget and share the budget with them. We now do our best to surpass the performance measures.” A female UP member engaged in local women empowerment stated, “30% of the total projects now have to target women as the main beneficiaries, and after a long time, the conditions of the local women are finally improving. They are involved and trained properly, and visit and show interest in the UP a lot.” A popular male member of the UP said, “People respect and like us for what we are doing. We have better relationships with them and that means we go the extra mile to provide better services too. EPBG has been an innovative and successful incentive oriented system which has been a catalyst for local development ever since it was put into effect in 2012.” Not only are the UP officials elated with the success and unity of the locality, but so are the people. A local housewife Amina Begum said, “Unlike earlier when we had to wait ages, we now are pleased as we receive fast and good service from friendly UP officials. We now go to the UP for services much more than ever before and recently I went to UP office to get a nationality certificate for my son who will soon go abroad for employment.”

Both qualitative and quantitative evidence collected from the field suggests that UPs under the UPGP have been able to effectively implement projects, and with an increasing focus on MDG targets and needs of the vulnerable and greater involvement of women in all phases. The following figure shows the sector- wise implementation of schemes with EPBG by UPs under UPGP between 2012 and 2017 (based on UNDP M&E data).

Figure 3.25: Sector-wise implementation of schemes -2012-2017

82 The above figures demonstrate that 74 per cent of the total investment was made in the social sector by the UPs under UPGP, proving that these had a clear focus on undertaking and implementing the social sector or MDG focused schemes. A significant 31 per cent of the investment went into health, water and sanitation alone, 22 per cent on education and sports and 15 per cent on others which included schemes for the women, poor and disadvantaged communities. Only the remaining 26 per cent of the total investment went into infrastructure development including roads, bridges, culverts etc. Implementation of these small projects by UPs with the support received from UPGP in terms of EPBG has served to gain community confidence in the process, to demonstrate that UPs can perform effectively and to reconfirm their absorptive capacity of the UP system. The Soidabad UP of Sirajganj, like many other UPs, under the UPGP evidently demonstrated the proper use of the grant. During the field visit, the Chairman of Soidabad UP said, “We have followed the performance grant guidelines while making our investment decisions and we consistently kept our multi-sectoral focus in investment as required by the EPBG. We invested in several sectors such as health, agriculture, education, women development and infrastructure in our mission to speed up local development. From the EPBG we provided financial assistance under a scheme to our community clinics to install better equipment and store more medicines to make sure that the locals’ basic health needs are met.” The locals also confirmed these claims made by the Chairman. Hasan Ali, father of three young children, said, “We are now seeing more visible local area development than before. The UP constructed many small roads all around, and one such has made my children’s commute to their school much easier, and so their willingness to go to school has increased.” Another local farmer Mohammed Selim said, “UP built a small culvert over a nearby ditch, and now we can transport our agriculture and aquaculture products to a distant haat (a big local market) and sell these at a relatively higher prices than before, earlier we were forced to sell our goods only in the local market.” A newly-employed woman Nargis Akhter said, “ UP and Upazila Parishads now undertake a lot of skill training programmes (schemes) for women, I attended a training programme organised by our UP, which helped me find a job in a local tailoring shop and earn a decent income.” According to the Soidabad UP Secretary, “ UPs have become accustomed to undertaking and implementing multi-sectoral schemes as this has been a performance measure for securing EPBG, although the size of the grant was small, t from our end we tried to make the best use of this.” The UP Act accords the UPs the authority to deliver a series of sectoral services in the areas of agriculture, education and health. The current extended performance block grants have addressed this issue to an extent, although these were generally too small in size to be very useful in this regard.

83 Reviewing and refining performance indicators The UPGP used a set of 41 performance indicators for allocating EPBG. These performance indicators should be reviewed for their relevance after four cycles of implementation. There are indicators which the UPs had been able to comply with on a consistent basis. Following are the indicators with which a very high compliance of UPs was registered (more than 80% UPs).

Figure 3.26: Indicators with very high UP compliance: >80%

It is important to revisit and revise these indicators for the next round of performance based grant system. Consistent good performance of UPs against these set of indicators means that UPs now have the capacity built around these areas of governance and they have also been able to sustain these good performances over time. These indicators may now be replaced with a new set of indicators which would create new challenges for the UPs and motivate them to meet new requirements. On the other hand, there had been some indicators which most UPs found very difficult to comply with, which included the indicators such as monthly reconciliation of bank accounts, procurement plans completed by 31st July, collecting more than 90% of targeted revenue, systems for follow up with tax defaulters and budget provision for maintenance.

Figure 3.27: Indicators with low performance

84 Only 30 per cent of the total UPs have been able to comply with the requirements of these indicators. It is, therefore, important to review the suitability of these indicators given the readiness and capacity of the UPs and the socio-cultural context they operate in. For example, UPs might not have found it culturally appropriate to identify tax defaulters and also naming them or taking stern measures against them for not paying taxes. It was revealed during the field visits that UP Chairs abstained from identifying and naming tax defaulters in most cases as they did not want to embarrass them. A few UP functionaries stated, “Those who defaulted on paying the holding taxes were either very poor or very powerful, identifying them was easy, but naming them or dealing with them was a difficult proposition for us. We are not yet culturally ready for such actions in our rural setting”.

With regard to the monthly bank reconciliation, in general, UPs showed little interest in complying with requirements for practical reasons. A number of UP secretaries stated “We did not make bank transactions every month of the year and therefore there was no point for us to do the bank reconciliation on a monthly basis”. A few Chairs said that “A bank reconciliation each month forced UPs to incur unnecessary additional cost each month, which generally varied between 60 and 160 taka depending on the nature of the bank and that is why we were shy in this respect”.

Likewise, the requirement of the indicator on the collection of 90 per cent of the budgeted own source revenue was also found to be a difficult one for the UPs to comply with. Non-compliance did not always stem from the demand side incapacity or unwillingness to collect tax. Rather, in many cases it was a supply side’s unwillingness or inability to pay taxes resulting from the poor and economically fragile state of the households. Collection of 90 per cent of the budgeted tax was a very high target in general for the UPs to achieve. Even if UPs had exerted their full tax efforts it might not have been possible for them to achieve this high target on a consistent basis for reasons mostly external to the UPs. The UPs under the UPGP have shown a commendable performance on own source revenue mobilisation front in general by enhancing their tax efforts significantly.

There were also clear indications that UPs under the UPGP performed better than the control area UPs in almost every respect. It was informed by different stakeholders during the field visits that the EPBG introduced under the UPGP significantly contributed to this upward trend of improvement on all important structural and functional areas of UPs. Performance-based grant system was also highly appreciated by all local stakeholders for being predictable, directly accessible and also motivating them to improve their governance performance and thereby contribute to enhance UP’s credibility as effective local governance institutions.

85 3.2 Impact Assessment of Results – UPGP Output 2

3.2.1. Key Findings

(i) Capacity Building:  UPGP supported a simple but systematic planning process for the UPs which enabled them to examine resources, identify demands and prioritize proposals with a strong pro-poor focus.  All UPs have learnt to prepare Five Year and annual development plans. The plans of the project area UPs had focused more on schemes meant for the hard core poor, women empowerment and socially marginalized sections of the rural population.  UPGP through its incentive framework has contributed to improved own source revenues and financial management of UPs. UP functionaries received systematic training on financial management in the project area which has helped them develop their financial management capacities. Significant improvements have taken place within the core areas of PFM of UPs in project.  All project UPs had their tax assessment done and almost all project UPs were in a position to substantially enhance their tax efforts and thus mobilized significantly more own source revenues.  All project area UPs were found to have prepared their annual budgets following the government provided formats, also had their budget approved for execution.

(ii) Governance:  The UPs were externally audited each year and this forced UPs to engage in some kind of internal stock taking or internal auditing practices ultimately resulting in significant governance improvement.  Gender focus in UP Plans -both Annual and Five Year Plans has gained crucial importance and it is in increasing trend.

(iii) Gender focus and women empowerment:  The Women Development Forum (WDF) is gradually evolving as a catalyst body to encourage, mobilize and engage the UP female leadership for women development , right based advocacy and social mobilization activities to ensure gender rights and responsive service delivery for the women.  Compared to the baseline active participation of female members in ward shavas, SCs, open budget meetings has been increased. Project UPs also demonstrate better performance than control UPs in this regard.

86 (iv) Information disclosure and transparency:  Improvement has taken place with regard to having Citizen Charter (CC) by the UPs from the baseline. In project UPs, 82.5 per cent of UPs were having CC as against 58 per cent of project UPs informed having it in the baseline.  Although a large number of UPs were found displaying the CC on their premises only around a quarter of the household respondents in project UPs informed that they saw it at the UP Office and a large majority of the respondents in both project (63%) and in control UPs (65%) expressed their ignorance about CC.  The UPGP has been able to establish a positive approach in capacitating the UPs to deliver and support information sharing with the community but the demand side was not at par with the supply side.  Visit to the UP office by both males and females was found to be higher in project UPs than that in the control UPs. Encouragingly, the poor and socially marginalized groups were found to be benefitted more than the non-poor groups.

3.2.2 Quality of Development Plans and Needs Assessment By regulations, UPs were supposed to prepare an annual and five- year plans. These plans were expected to be prepared in a participatory manner so that local citizen’s aspirations get reflected in the planning documents. In fact, UPGP’s support enabled UPs to fulfill their statutory obligations to formulate a Five- Year Rolling Plan as stipulated in the UP Act 2009. UPs were given necessary assistance to prepare five- year and annual development plans by involving all the stakeholders. To this end the programme supported a simple but systematic planning process that enabled them to examine resources, identify demands and prioritise proposals with a strong pro-poor focus. UP grants (including their performance based top up) contributed towards funding a part of the plan and UPs utilised other existing sources to co- fund related activities. While preparing the plan the UPs were expected to match their plans with relevant Upazila Parishad’s plans so that they could design joint project by pooling resources together. The table below presents a comparison of the baseline and endline survey findings on the status of the availability of the Five Year and Annual plans. The findings reveal a spectacular progress on this front for both the project and control area UPs in general. It appears that 97.5 per cent of the project area UPs and 90.8 per cent of the control area UPs had their annual development plans prepared. In both project and control areas this shows an upward trend when compared with the situation described in the baseline. This indicates the positive effects of performance based grant in both project and control areas as the preparation of five year and annual plans were important performance measures imposed on the UPs.

87 Table 3.13: Availability of Annual and Five Year Plans (in % of UPs) Endline Project (n=120) Control (n=120) Availability of Plans Annual Plan Five year plan Annual Plan Five year plan 1. Yes 97.5 97.5 90.8 85.0 2. No 2.5 2.5 9.2 15.0 Total 100 100 100 100 Baseline Project (n=188) Control (n=188) Availability of Plans Annual Plan Five year plan Annual Plan Five year plan 1. Yes 90 71 79 54 2. No 10 29 21 46 Total 100 100 100 100

The highest priority scheme component in the annual plan for project area UPs was on infrastructural development (in 98.3 per cent UPs), education (in 98.3 per cent UPs), health care (in 95.7 per cent UPs) agriculture (91.5 percent), water and sanitation (93.2) and the lowest priority components were ICT (in 0.9 percent UPs), grant for the disabled (in 2.6 percent UPs) and tree plantation (in 2.6 percent UPs). On the other hand, the control area UP’s the top priority was on water and sanitation (in 90.8 percent UPs), infrastructural development (in 89.9 percent UPs), agriculture (in 89.9 percent UPs) and the lowest priority components are environment development (in 0.9 percent UPs), tree plantation (in 0.9 percent UPs) and grant for the disabled (in 1.8 percent UPs). However, in the project areas, there had been a general tendency towards undertaking and implementing multi- sectoral/MDG related schemes; Also, the project area UPs had a clear and higher level of focus on projects having bearing upon environmental protection (8.5 percent) compared to the control areas UPs (0.9 percent).

Table 3.14: Coverage of Annual Plan (% of UPs)

Items/components of annual plan Project area Control area Infrastructural development 98.3 89.9 Education 98.3 85.3 Health care 95.7 78 Water and sanitation 93.2 90.8 Agriculture 91.5 89.9 Women empowerment 84.6 65.1

88 Items/components of annual plan Project area Control area Schemes for hard core poor 78.6 74.3 Culture & sports 68.4 66.1 Child and Youth development 59 42.2 Program for socially marginalized people e.g. program 26.5 22.9 for low cast people or low level occupational groups Environment development 8.5 0.9 Tree Plantation 2.6 0.9 Grant for the disabled 2.6 1.8 ICT 0.9 2.8 N 117 109

From the table it also appears that the project area UPs were well ahead of their counterpart of control area UPs when the coverage of their annual plans compared. The annual plans of the project area UPs had focused more on schemes meant for the hard core poor, women empowerment and socially marginalized sections of the rural population. The control UPs seemed to have lagged behind the project area UPs on these fronts. The figure below shows the nature of the schemes which were undertaken during 2015-16.

Figure 3.28: Sectoral focus of the schemes implemented by UPs during 2015-2016 (% of UPs)

As the endline institutional survey data suggest in general, the inclusion of infrastructure development schemes in annual plan still dominated in both the project and control area UPs almost as much as their baseline benchmarks. This means that the UP functionaries still could not come out of their traditional mindsets. UP functionaries in both the project and control

89 areas while being interviewed during field visits admitted this reality. Many functionaries of the project area UPs informed that UPGP has been able to successfully motivate them to shift their focus in scheme selection—from uni-dimensional sectoral focus to multi-sectoral focus. A question was posed whether the link between five- year and annual plans was maintained? The functionaries representing the project area UPs informed that they strived to maintain this link between the five- year and annual plans as much as they could. However, they came up with an indicative 10 to 15 per-cent deviation each year on this front. On the other hand, for the control UPs this deviation was 20-25 per cent as informed by the functionaries of the control area UPs. Functionaries of both the project and control UPs suggested that UP annual plans were based on the five- year plans and the schemed propose by local citizens through Ward Shavas. It was also claimed by both the project and control area UP functionaries strived to secure mandated inputs from the standing committees while preparing annual plans. However, during the field visits the team members physically verified this claim and observed that there had been generally a very week linkage between the suggestions made by the standing committees and the percentage of their actual or direct incorporation into the annual plans. In 4 of 7 project UPs visited by the team members seemed not to have maintained such weak linkages, while the weak linkage on this front was found in all 7 control area UPs.

Awareness about and participation in annual planning process was found to be low in general. However, project area UPs demonstrated superior performance on this front compared to their control area counterparts. A total of 10 per cent of the household respondents of project area and 4 per cent respondents of control area were aware of the annual plan. A greater percentage of the respondents took part in the annual planning process in project area (26 per cent) than in control area (20).

Figure 3.29: Household respondent’s awareness of and participation in annual planning of UPs (in %)

90 The exit point survey (UP and Upaziila service seekers) also demonstrated that local citizens in the project area showed greater interests in attending the planning and budget meetings organised by the Union Parishads when compared to the responses received from the service seekers on these indicators representing the control area UPs and Upazilas.

Figure 3.30: Participation of exit point service recipients in planning and budget meetings

Findings from the focus group discussions and KIIs also suggest that local citizens generally had a low level of participation in and awareness level of UP planning process. However, the observations from the field visits reveal that the idea of participatory planning advocated by UPGP was getting increasingly popular among the local citizens who seemed to have understood the importance of such participation for good local governance and improved local service delivery.

Findings of endline institutional survey revealed that in the project areas, all the UPs had hundred per cent focus on ‘education’ in their five year plans but in the control areas, 87.4 per cent UPs had such focus in their five year plans. Second highest priority component in five- year plans of the project area UPs was infrastructure development (98.3 per cent UPs). Very similar trend was also apparent in the control area UPs (95.8 per cent UPs). It appeared from the findings that UPs under the UPGP took a multi-sectoral development approach while preparing their five year plans compared to the control UPs. For example, environment development had higher level of focus and coverage in project areas (8.5 per cent) than control areas (1.1 per cent).

91 Table 3.15: Coverage of five year plan Items/components of five year plan Project area Control area Education 100 87.4 Infrastructural development 98.3 95.8 Agriculture 96.6 92.6 Health care 95.7 88.4 Water and sanitation 94 93.7 Women empowerment 85.5 73.7 Program for hard core poor 77.8 74.7 Culture & sports 76.1 72.6 Child and Youth development 65.8 49.5 Program for socially marginalized people e.g. program for low cast people or low level 28.2 22.1 occupational groups Environment development 8.5 1.1 Tree Plantation 3.4 2.1 Grant for the disabled 1.7 2.1 ICT 0.9 2.1 n 117 95

The quality of UP’s Five- Year development plans could be determined against a few relevant objective conditions such as:  Plans prepared in a participatory manner after assessing the local needs prioritized by the local people  Mandated sectoral scheme proposals made by the standing committees included  Multi-sectoral focus emphasized and the multi-sectoral schemes included in the plans  Linkage between the five year plans and annual plans consistently maintained  Plans made accessible for local people’s review or existence of an effective disclosure mechanism

Field level qualitative evidence reveals that UPs under the UPGP performed better than the control area UPs on all the above conditions when compared. It was gathered by the study team members during the field visits that in project area many UPs prepared poverty profiles (mapping) and such information was subsequently used by them while making their five year plans. However, there has been a low level of awareness of local citizens about the existence of

92 UP five- year plans in general and the participation in such planning process by local citizens was also found to be low as revealed by our endline household survey findings.

Figure 3.31: Household respondent’s awareness of and participation in UP’s five year planning process

An attempt was made to assess the contribution of performance based grant to UP planning process. The following table provides a comparative detail in terms of the opinions of the UP functionaries representing both the project and control area UPs on the contribution of performance based grant to UP planning process.

Table 3.16: Performance grant's contribution to UP planning process

Indicator Project area Control area Create incentive and positive obligations to prepare five year and annual plan Fully agree 89.2 77.5 Partially agree 10.0 20.0 Disagree 0.8 2.5 Strongly disagree - - Maintain multi-sector (MDG) focused plans Fully agree 73.3 52.5 Partially agree 22.5 27.5 Disagree 4.2 20.0 Strongly disagree - - Maintain gender balance in expenditure and women empowerment Fully agree 86.7 72.5 Partially agree 12.5 25.0 Disagree 0.8 2.5 Strongly disagree - -

93 Achieve inclusive local governance Fully agree 81.7 70.8 Partially agree 17.5 25.8 Disagree 0.8 2.8 Strongly disagree - 0.8 N 120 120

The UPGP aimed to increase capacity of UPs to plan and implement the local development projects. The endline survey offers ample evidence to suggest that in the project areas, there had been clear indications that the UP’s capacity to plan and implement development schemes have increased compared to the control areas. For example, in the FY 2015-2016, the mean number for planned schemes were 48.24 in the project areas while 36.33 in the control areas. This can be considered an increase of the capacity for planning in the project areas. Evidence suggests that in the project areas UP’s capacity to implement projects had also increased significantly compared to the UP’s of the control areas. In the UPs of project areas, the mean number of implemented schemes was 31. 28, while the mean number of control area UPs was 24.72. The UPs under the project areas also demonstrated the achievement of higher level of capacity and also inclination towards including schemes proposed in the five- year plans in their annual plans when compared to the UPs of the control areas. The mean number of included projects in the annual plan from the five- year plan was higher in the project areas (28.72 in project areas and 17.00 in control areas).

Table 3.17: Capacity to plan and implement schemes and project Type of Union Indicators N Mean Minimum Maximum SD Parishad Number of schemes Project area 120 48.24 0 198 38.056 was planned FY 2015- Control area 120 36.33 0 315 40.211 2016 Number of schemes Project area 120 31.28 0 131 23.435 was fully implemented Control area 120 24.72 0 192 25.069 FY 2015-2016 Number of projects Project area 120 28.72 0 138 26.5 of the five year plan Control area 120 17.00 0 162 21.5 have been included in the annual plan

Source: End line Survey

94 3.2.3 Quality of financial and revenue management The UPGP had a sustained focus on the improvement in financial and revenue management. The endline institutional survey findings suggest that UP functionaries received training on financial management both in the project and the control areas which helped them develop their financial management capacities. Evidence also suggests that significant improvements have taken place within the core areas of PFM of UPs in project area generally.

Table 3.18 : Stakeholder’s Training on public financial management Indicator Project area Control area Training received on financial management Yes 88.5 71.2 No 11.5 28.8 N 113 104 Number of days training received Mean 4.6 3.6 Number of person/personnel received training Mean 6.3 4.5 Source: End line Survey

All UPs are now required to prepare and submit an Annual Financial Statement (AFS). During the field visits the study team members found out that UPs from the project area were better capacitated inthe preparation of AFS.. The UP secretaries had a clear idea as to how to prepare the AFS . Similarly, capacity on this front has also been built in the UPs of control areas. Training provided to the UP functionaries contributed to PFM related capacity improvement. The institutional survey findings suggest that performance grant created a special motivation for them first to learn and then institutionalize these practices. As high as 91.7 per cent UP functionaries from project area fully agreed to the fact that performance grant created a positive obligation for them to fulfill and contributed to the development of capacity and also sustain this. Similar views were expressed by 78.3 per cent UP functionaries representing the control area UPs.

Figure 3.32 (a): Role of performance grant in Figure 3.32 (b): Role of performance grant in preparing annual financial statement (Project areas) preparing annual financial statement (control areas)

95 The UPGP linked the EPBG to the improvement in core financial management areas. Performance based grant played the role of a catalyst in getting the overall financial and revenue management right for the UPs such as preparation of budget following the government guidelines, sharing the budget, maintain cash register, proper tax assessment updating the tax register, keep asset register and updating it, follow the procurement rules, maintain registers, prepare financial statements, follow procurement rules, generate more own source revenue, prepare tax defaulter’s list and make the list public if necessary and also reward the good tax payers, organize innovative events for raising the awareness of the local people to pay their holding taxes. Linking performance based grant with the core financial management areas had positive implications for both project and control area UPs. Survey findings revealed that PFM system improved significantly in the project areas than in the control areas because of the additional orientation and training made available to UP functionaries, special nature of local and central project management level facilitation, supervision conducted and other backstopping services provided to the UPs under the project.

Figure 3.33: Performance grant's contribution to financial management (opinions of the UP functionaries in percentage)

Since the implementation of revised UP performance Grant System in 2014 following the recommendations of consultants, the UP Performance Assessment Workbook enhanced capabilities of the UPs which helped to deliver the grants for implementation of investment. The performance based grant has induced to deliver pro-poor and MDGs oriented services and

96 therefore, contributed in helping the disadvantaged groups in the society like poor, women and marginalised people to reach a better position. The institutional survey data provide enough evidence to suggest that proactive disclosure of revenue and expenditure information was higher in the project area UPs compared to the UPs under control area.

Figure 3.34: Disclosure of information on revenue/expenditure of previous financial year by UPs

Maintaining registers is an important governance indicator which supports the financial as well as general management of UPs. Survey findings revealed that the project area UPs maintained higher number of registers (average 28.9 registers) than the control areas (average 23.9 registers). This provides evidence as to the project area UP’s better record keeping and financial management capacity when compared to the UPs of the control area.

Figure 3.35: Average number of registers maintained by UPs

Table 3.19: Availability of different registers in the sample UPs

Indicator Project area Control area Cash Book 100.0 99.2 Daily Collection Book of Tax, Rate 97.5 97.5 Tax and Rate collection receipt 98.3 98.3 Stock and Issue Register of receipt books 96.7 95.0

97 Indicator Project area Control area Register of imposed value added tax on land and building 84.2 85.0 Register of imposed tax on profession, trade and business 88.3 86.7 Register of imposed tax on transport etc. 55.0 48.3 Register of miscellaneous demand and collection 78 .3 63.3 Register of grant 80.8 75.0 Register of lone received 49.2 47.5 Register of subscription and donation 60.0 50.8 Register of permanent advance 67.5 46.7 Register of establishment bill 86.7 56.7 Register of establishment expenditure 82.5 56.7 Incidental bill register 77.5 70.0 Register of yearly Statement of Accounts 95.8 88.3 Investment register 60.0 55.8 Immovable asset register 95.0 63.3 Store stock register 51.7 40.8 Stamp register 54.2 38.3 N 120 120

Imposing tax burden on citizens for an elected official can be challenging in some cases. This is generally seen by elected representatives as an unpopular decision adversely impacting their reelection in future. Under such conditions, performance based grant played its role as a motivating factor for the UP functionaries to impose and collect taxes. The feedback of the respondents of the project area UPs support this idea. About 79.2 per cent functionaries representing the project area UPs were in full agreement to suggest that performance based grant helped enhancing UPs local tax efforts. It created an initiative to enhance own source revenue generation as well (77.5 fully supported this view from the project areas) and to undertake innovative initiatives for revenue mobilization (70.8 per cent fully supported in the project areas). Such proactive roles of the UPs contributed to enhancing the resource base of the UPs.

Table 3.20: Contribution of PBG to revenue mobilization Indicator Project area Control area Enhanced local tax efforts Fully agree 79.2 72.5 Partially agree 20.0 22.5

98 Indicator Project area Control area Disagree 0.8 4.2 Strongly disagree - 0.8 Helped Increase own source revenue generation Fully agree 77.5 70.0 Partially agree 20.8 23.3 Disagree 0.8 6.7 Strongly disagree 0.8 - Organize innovative initiatives for enhanced revenue generation Fully agree 70.8 56.7 Partially agree 24.2 33.3 Disagree 3.3 6.7 Strongly disagree 1.7 3.3

The PBG has contributed in the area of tax mobilisation. The local leaders now could say to community members that it was important to get grants and to improve local service delivery and therefore they need to pay taxes when imposed. All respondents met during the field visits mentioned that UPGP through its incentive framework has contributed to improved own source revenues and financial management of UPs. The imposition of performance measures had also generated a sense of competition among neighbouring UPs. The project area UPs considered the performance measures as an advantage and an important factor which made a difference in UP as an institution. It contributed to better performance of UPs as all of these institutions wanted to achieve higher scores, which they thought would help them secure more funds or continuation of funds for them as well as to deliver services demanded by members of the community.

Table 3.21: EPBG : Nature of the challenges identified by UP functionaries Nature of the challenges Project area Control area Shortage of manpower 77.5 84.6 Lack of training and skill 55.8 67.5 Lack of commitment of elected public representatives 24.2 49.6 Low honorarium of elected representatives - 0.9 Lack of efficiency of UP members 0.8 - Negative attitude of people with regard to paying tax 1.7 - Lack of awareness 1.7 1.7 Lack of logistics, i.e, computer - 0.9 N 120 117

99 By law, UPs are required to have their tax assessment done in the first instance, maintain those documents and update the tax assessment in every five years to enhance the tax base or for any other necessary revision. The findings of the endline institutional survey reveal that the hundred per cent of UPs in both the project and control areas had their tax assessment done. However, the findings also suggest that the project area UPs put up a greater level of efforts to make the tax assessment and related issues. The table below shows that 53.4 per cent of the UPs in project areas and 42.5 per cent UPs of the control area conducted their last assessment after 2013-14 fiscal year.

Table 3.22: UP Tax assessment trends Indicator Project area Control area Tax assessment done 2015 – 2016 financial year 11.7 15.00 2014 – 2015 financial year 19.2 13.3 2013 – 2014 financial year 22.5 14.2 Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 46.6 57.5 n 120 120

Having the tax assessment done is not enough. It is important that UPs objectively identify all the eligible taxpaying households and include their names in the tax register. And most importantly, collect tax accordingly. The performance of UPs under the UPGP districts had been better on these accounts compared to the UPs of control areas. It is evident from the survey findings that in the project area increasingly more and more households were assessed by the UPs for collecting the holding tax.

100 Sources of UP’s own revenues

Sources of UP Revenues

Under the 1976 Ordinance, UPs were vested with the power to mobilise resources from 28 sources. In 1983, the Local Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance drastically cut the sources of income from 28 to 5 only. These revenue sources included the holding tax (a tax on homestead and buildings); a village police rate; fees on birth, marriage, and feasts; a community tax on adult males living in the locality for the purposes of funding public welfare; and fees charged for some public welfare purposes. The current Local Government (Union Parishad) Act of 2009 provides UPs with the authority to assess and collect own source revenues as per the guidelines and rates stipulated by Appendix IV (section 65-70) of the Act. The permitted revenue sources include:  Tax on the annual value of homestead (land and building) [not exceeding 7%, except land and building owned by religious institutions those are run not for commercial purpose. Agricultural lands are excluded from such tax.]  Tax on professions, trades and callings  Tax on cinemas, dramatic and theatrical shows (10% of the collected entry fees)  Fees for licenses and permits granted by the Parishad on non-motorized vehicles, normal carrier boat and mechanised boat  Fees from selected hat-bazars (markets), ferries  Rate for the provision of water works  Tax on fair, agricultural and industrial exhibitions arranged on commercial motive within UP jurisdiction, will be 10% of the collected entry fees.  Tax on signboard within UP jurisdiction  Marriage registration fees  Part of immovable property transfer taxes  Part of land development taxes  Taxes on advertisements  Income from own property: markets, community centers, and bus stands  Other minor receipts, including fees from fairs, leases, and so on.

101

Figure 3.36: Household’s awareness of UP tax assessment

The figure exhibits a higher level of awareness of local citizens in the project area UPs compared to the control area UPs about the tax assessment. Out of the total households surveyed, 66 per cent respondents from the project area and 60 per cent from the control area have informed that tax assessment was done for their households by their UPs. This household level finding on tax assessment can be supplemented by findings from the institutional survey as presented in the following table.

Table 3.23 : Total number of households assessed for holding tax Indicator Project area Control area Total number of household assessed for holding tax Mean 5845.46 5684.02 Median 5356.50 5233.00 SD 2306.46 3564.83 Minimum 450 750 Maximum 14000 38920 Percent of HH eligible to pay holding tax (%) 97.4 90.6 N 120 113

The differential mean and median figures testify to this fact as revealed by the survey. In the project area UPs, the mean value of the total number of household assessed for holding tax was 5845.46 and 5684.02 for the control area UPs. Significant difference between the project (97.4 per cent) and control area UPs (90.6 per cent) was observed in terms of percentage of eligible household for paying holding tax.

102 The survey findings also suggest that the performance of the project area UPs has been better than the control area UPs with regard to serving notices to the households for the payment of holding tax. The mean value of the project area UPs was estimated to be 556.25 and for the control area UPs it was 167.58.

Table 3.24: Total number of households served with the notices for payment of holding tax Indicator Project area Control area Number of households served with the notices Mean 556.25 167.58 Median 115.00 00.00 SD 1209.37 629.50 Minimum 0 0 Maximum 7351 4358 N 118 106

The higher mean value on this indicator reveals project area UPs’ higher level of readiness and motivation for the collection of holding tax when compared to the control area UPs. It also provides evidence in support of the project area UPs’ enhanced capacity on the front of financial and revenue management.

Table 3.25: Total number of household paid holding tax Indicator Project area Control area Number of households paid holding tax (July 2015 – June 2016) Mean 4220.08 2959.75 Median 2262.50 1050.00 SD 12999.79 9384.97 Minimum 0 0 Maximum 130255 94755 Percent paid holding tax (those eligible to pay holding 70.60 44.16 taxes) (%) N 118 106

The above table shows that the mean value of the total number of households which paid holding tax in the fiscal year 2015-16. The mean value was found to be significantly higher in the project area UPs (4220.08) compared to the control area UPs (2959.75). In 2015-16, project area UPs were able to collect holding tax from the 70.60 per cent of the eligible households,

103 while control area UPs lagged far behind the project area UPs on this measure, as they were only able to collect taxes from 44.16 per cent of the eligible households. This demonstrates the relative efficiency and enhanced capacity of the project area UPs in mobilising own resource revenues compared to the control area UPs.

Figure 3.37: Household’s opinion about tax related issues

The above figures show that the respondents of households representing both the project and control households surveyed were satisfied with the appropriateness of the tax assessment exercise of their UPs. However, there was a variation in mean amount of taxes paid by the surveyed households. The UPs of the project areas collected 93 taka (mean amount paid by per household), on the other hand, the UPs of the control areas collected 85 taka (mean amount paid by per household). The relatively better position of the project area UPs on this front does not only indicate their higher level of tax collection efficiency. However, the field observations suggest that people in the project areas in particular had the increasing level of motivations to pay tax and also a realization that payment of taxes was directly linked to better service delivery and local development. The UP functionaries were of the similar views while they were interviewed.The capacity to mobilise higher level of own source revenue, was considered by the UP functionaries to be the key factor that directly helped UPs to be self-reliant. About 77.5 per cent of UP functionaries from the project areas fully agreed to the contribution of performance based grants to increase own source revenue mobilization. Extended performance based grant not only motivated the elected representatives and officials to collect revenues from traditional sources but also pushed officials to be innovative in their bid to collect own source revenues from other new sources.

104 Table 3.26: Number of areas UPs collected own source revenues from Indicator Project area Control area Number of sources UP uses to mobilize resources Mean 7.92 5.54 Median 5.00 5.00 N 118 118

The figure below shows the household respondent’s opinion about the types of payment made to UPs other than tax. This also offers indications as to the composition of the UP’s non-tax revenue. Interestingly, 24 per cent of the household respondents surveyed in the project area and 17 per cent of them representing the control areas paid ‘fees’ to the UPs for services they received, while about 4 per cent of the project area households and 3 per cent of the control area households reported to have paid tolls for using facilities built by the UPs. The household respondents also made other legitimate payments to UPs for other services they sought and received, the endline survey findings suggest that 12 per cent of the respondents of both the project and control areas made such payments to their respective UP’s coffers.

Figure 3.38: Types of payments made to UPs by the household respondents other than tax

The positive effect of the performance grant along with other sustained initiatives undertaken by UPGP was reflected on a gradual increase in the own source revenue mobilisation of the project UPs compared to control area UPs. In the year 2011-12, the average revenue earning of the project UPs was BDT 194101.21 which rose to BDT 496934.13 in the year 2015-16. There was also an increase of revenue earning in the control UPs and for them revenue mobilisation increased from BDT 136227.77 (2011-12) to BDT 459872.53 (2015-16).

105 Table 3.27: Growth in own source revenue mobilization of UPs

Project UPs Control UPs Comparing Base Year’s Increase Comparing Base Year’s Increase Growth Growth Year Year’ Revenue of Year’ Revenue of Rate (%) Rate (%) Revenue (Previous Year) Revenue Revenue (Previous Year) Revenue 2012-2013 282850.3 194101 88749.04 218.71 266834 136228 130605.8 104.30

2013-2014 347698.6 282850 64848.36 436.171 315817 266834 48983.12 544.74

2014-2015 424935.6 347699 77237.01 450.17 260558 315817 -55258.9 -571.52

2015-2016 496934.1 424936 71998.51 590.20 459873 260558 199314.8 130.73

From the above table, it appears that the revenue growth has been higher in all the years (except 2013-14) for the project UPs compared to the control UPs. The highest growth was achieved during the year 2015-16 by the project area UPs (590.20 percent) while for the control UPs, the highest growth was registered in fiscal year 2013-14 (544.74 per cent). Except for this year, the average growth has been below 130 per cent in the control UPs including a negative growth of -571.52 per cent suffered in 2014-15. On the other hand, the own source revenue growth has been more than 200 per cent consistently for the UPs under UPGP. These changes can be shown in terms of a graph to put this into perspective.

Figure 3.39: Average amount of revenue (in BDT) collected by the project and control UPs in different years

The above figures clearly show that in the project area, UPs have been able to achieve and maintain a steady state of high own source revenue growth compared to the control UPs. The project area UPs registered a significantly high revenue growth in 2012-2013 over the baseline period. This trend of high own source revenue growth was sustained by the UPs through the

106 entire project period in the project area. On the other hand, the higher own source revenue growth was also evident in the control area. The UPs of the control area failed to sustain this growth during the period under consideration. The control area UPs combined had a sudden negative growth on this front during 2014-2015 FY when compared to their 2013-2014 FY revenue collection records as evident from the above figure. It is important to identify and explain the reasons for the project area UP’s superior performance in own source revenue generation. In 2014, the project initiated a review of previous experiences on revenue mobilisation to identify good practices, which could be used to improve revenue mobilisation by Union Parishads. The pilot strategy to enhance revenue mobilisation was designed and initially implemented in 146 UPs, which included improved financial management with assistance of resource persons. While the awareness building tools were the same as that used for general awareness building, the focus of the special events for which specified resources were provided, were meant to improve compliance and incentivise timely and proper payment of taxes and revenues. The UPs under UPGP provided awards to ‘good payers’ in recognition of their contributions to the local development. This has generated a lot of enthusiasm among UP functionaries to pay attention to this crucially important area of UP governance. Besides, UPGP provided training on financial and revenue management to 2707 UP functionaries in seven districts. Implementing the pilot strategy to improve revenue mobilisation called for building capacity of key UP officials. A carefully chosen team of five persons per UP was identified to be trained in preparation for implementing the pilot – they were UP Chairperson, UP Secretary, and Chairperson of three Standing Committees: Finance and Establishment, Audit and Accounts, Tax Assessment and Collection. Orientation and training on financial management and revenue mobilisation was completed for 564 UPs by 2014.

Local level awareness raising campaign helps boost own source revenue

“Revenue of UPs is dependent on holding tax in the absence of not having industry, haat bazars, jalmahals within its territory. The amount of holding tax we can collect is poor and it is not because of the poor tax effort on our part but it is largely due to the local people’s reluctance to pay tax even if the amount is paltry. Our mindset has changed, but the mindset of the local people is changing slowly. We now assess tax as required by law and also impose it on the local people following the government’s rules. Earlier, the link of visible benefits from paying the tax was very weak. As UPGP has made additional funds available for us to undertake local development projects, we are now in a position to demonstrate a clear tax and benefit linkage for the local tax payers. The important lessons we have learned on this front is that the local level awareness raising campaign directly helps the UP motivate local people to pay tax”. (UP Chairman, Khulna, 2016)

107 The Union Parishad Revenue Revenue Mobilisation Enhanced in enhancement pilot was rolled out in 146 UPs, with support of 30 resource UPs under UPGP: Reasons identified persons. Each of the resource persons by UP functionaries provided support to, on an average, five UPs. They assisted the UP The relative rise in revenue collection ratio Secretary to complete updating books in UPs under the UPGP compared to the of accounts (regarding current control area UPs can be attributed to the transactions), update the asset following factors: register and other such registers, to upload information from the registers  Guidelines and related capacity building in the UP Accounting System, to support provided by the UPGP in the area of tax assessment and collection; generate reports and documents to back up the UP Accounting System  Linking eligibility for services to the payment (UPGP Annual Report, 2014). Besides, of local taxes has contributed to widening revenue base and increasing collection; a portfolio of information, education  Inclusion of regular assessment of the and communication (IEC) materials holding tax bases in the criteria for the are designed for 564 UPs for carrying evaluation of UP performance, and finally out promotional activities, which also  Rise in confidence among local community covered Own Revenue Raising members resulting from the openness of the activities. Templates and materials planning, budgeting, implementation were provided to District Facilitators processes introduced by the UPGP and the that assisted UPs in their districts to perceived responsiveness of UPs to the needs and priorities expressed by the disseminate them widely. The communities themselves during the materials were used in different planning process. events like street drama, musical programmes, rallies, discussions, etc. by UPs under the UPGP. The UPs under the UPGP undertook a number of special measures as revealed by the institutional survey which significantly contributed to an increase in the own source revenue mobilisation by UPs in the project area.

Also in 2015, UPGP trained 11 key persons each from 564 Union Parishads to increase their capacity on own source revenue mobilisation. The team trained from each UP were: UP Chairperson, UP Secretary, and Chairperson of nine Standing Committees: Finance and Establishment, Audit and Accounts, Tax Assessment and Collection, Education, Health & Family Planning, Agriculture, Fisheries & Livestock, Rural Infrastructure, Water, Sanitation and Sewerage, Social Welfare and Disaster Management and Environment preservation and development. The training covered relevant topics from the UP Act 2009, especially tax related

108 rules, orientation on registers and formats on tax assessment, tax collection and dealing with the tax defaulters, revenue of Union Parishad, scope to increase revenue through effective Ward Shava and open budget session, use of MIS for tax assessment and collection and use of taxes.

In both the project and control areas, the UPs organised various types of events with a view to motivating the local people to pay taxes. Field level observations reveal that in the project area UPs organised more innovative events than that of the control area UPs. These innovative events included organising tax fairs, community level awareness campaign, identification and marking of tax paying households, recognition of good tax payers through awards and also publicy through using amplifier devices. All these activities contributed to the spectacular own source revenue growth in the project area UPs in particular. During the field visit Chairmen of a number of project area UPs also reported, “Organsing tax fairs and recognition of good tax payers with awards paid off significantly, these events helped UPs generate more revenues alongside continuous communtiy mobilisation for the payment of taxes”. While conducting the communtiy level FGDs in the project areas, some participants who attended tax fairs informed, “We go to tax fairs to pay our taxes.Tax fairs create an enthusiam and these also have a huge demonstration effect in the locality to pay everyone’s dues in a festive mood. Everyone seems to enjoy the lively atmosphere with music and drama shows around”.

Figure 3.40: Types of events organised by UPs for stimulating own source revenue mobilisation

109 Increased financial capacity provides UP with the leverage to have more “The local people’s willingness to pay tax has increased as we have been able to demonstrate to money to meet its cost of recurrent them the visible local development everywhere administrative affairs. However, it was within the UP boundary being supported by UPGP. also expected that UPs would We generated more revenues and which also meant undertake local development projects more visible local development.” (Chairman of a UP using the part of the own source in Brahmanbaria, 2016.) revenue generated. Payment of taxes by citizens ensured their stronger ownership and their active concerns to ensure institutional accountability of UPs. Payment of taxes also stimulated interactions between local citizens and UPs and created community demand for strengthening of the service delivery (“when you pay, you can also demand”). Besides, development of the

OSR was also seen as crucial for operations and maintenance of the infrastructures (roads, culverts, buildings, etc.) already built. (based on the FGDs with local people in Kishoreganj district, 2016).

Table 3.28: Development projects undertaken using UP’s own source revenue Indicator Project area Control area Development projects undertaken by UP’s with own source revenue Yes 65.0 55.0 No 35.0 45.0 N 120 120

The above table shows that 65 per cent of the project area UPs and 55 per cent of the control area UPs undertook development projects financed from the own source revenues they mobilised. The UPs generally do not tend to undertake development projects using funds they generate locally. This is a relatively new phenomenon for them. It was gathered from KIIs during the field visits that functionaries particularly those representing the UPGP area UPs greatly supported the idea and also it appeared that they seemed to have understood the importance of undertaking such projects to demonstrate to local people that they were spending the tax revenue on local development activities. During the field visits, it was gathered from the local people that they were aware of the local development projects which were undertaken and implemented by the UPs with local people’s tax money. Some FGD participants suggested that “People’s willingness to pay tax will increase manifold if they see some local development projects being undertaken by UPs with the locally generated revenues”. Some participants claimed that “UPs hardly did this before and now they are doing this but projects they undertake on their own are very few and far between”.

110 3.2.4 Quality of budgeting, auditing and reporting practices A transparent and accountable local budget process is an important element of an effective local government system. An open local government budget process ensures (i) timely availability of budget information to the public at the local level; (ii) clarity and relevance of the information contained in the main budget reports available to citizens; (iii) effective mechanisms to disseminate budget information to citizens; and (iv) effective channels for participation of citizenship in the review and monitoring of the budget documents.

Justification for local budgeting stems from the realisation that conventional top-down approach to planning and budgeting has widened the gap between 'aspiration' and 'achievement'. Participation of local people in such approach in identifying their own problems and determining their practices is institutionally constrained. Therefore, there is an urgency for participatory planning and budgeting as it directly contributes to participatory local governance. Proper integration between the plan and the budget helps UPs enhance credibility of the budget and its process. The credibility of the budget process relies on its capacity to set priorities and allocate and manage resources as intended in order to reach the objectives. For ensuring this link it has to be kept in mind that what is not planned should not be budgeted. As seen already, UPs have learned to prepare five- year and annual development plans. Likewise, UPs are also, by law, required to prepare their budget following formats provided by the government clearly showing their income from various sources and expenditures for a given fiscal year. A budget document enables UPs to make a forecast about the possible sources of resources available to UPs to meet their expenditures. The table below presents the status on availability of annual budget in the project and control area UPs in terms of findings of the baseline and endline surveys.

Table 3.29: Status on the availability of annual budget at UPs (in %) Endline Availability of Annual Budget Project (n=120) Control (n=120) 1. Yes 100.0 98.3 2. No 0.0 1.7 Total 100 100 Baseline Availability of Annual Budget Project (n=115) Control (n=53) 1. Yes 100 100 2. No 0 0 Total 100 100

111 From the endline survey data, it appears that all the project areas had their annual budget prepared whereas in the control areas, 98.3 per cent UPs had annual budget prepared. This demonstrates project area UPs’ superior capacity in preparing budget compared to the control area UPs.

Figure3.41: Approval of UP’s annual budget

The UP Act (2009) has made it mandatory for UPs to have their annual budget approved by Union Parishad in general monthly meeting before sending it to the Upazila Nirbahi Officers by 31st May of a given financial year. Both the project and control UPs demonstrated almost equal level of performance on these accounts. Survey findings reveal that UPs in the project areas showed a higher level of compliance with this legal binding (99.2 per cent) compared to UPs in the control area (97.5 per cent). The availability of budget and its subsequent approval was linked to the performance measures and therefore it can be said that general higher level of performance on these measures by both the project and control UPs could be attributed to positive impact of performance based grant system that was operational in both the project and control areas.

Grant and revenue share in UP budget Union Parishad’s budget is composed of funds from two sources namely grant from the government and own source revenue. From the survey data, it appears that government contribution in terms of block grant constitutes the major part of UP budget in both the project and control areas. Although, the share of such grant in UP budget is showing a declining trend in both the project and control areas, the own source revenue share in the UP budget is showing a gradual upward trend in recent years. From the graphs, it also appears that the UPs in the project areas received higher percentage of grant than the control areas. It is mainly because of the fact that EPBG is a top-up grant provided to UPs in seven UPGP districts based on some special performance measures.

112

Figure 3.42(a): Government grant share in UP Figure 3.42(b): Own source revenue share in budget UP budget

Effectiveness of open budget meetings The Union Parishad Act (2009) under Section 57 (1 & 2) mentions the open budget and the role of Ward Shavas in the process of preparing the budget. A hallmark of participation and accountability is the involvement of the people in the budget formulation process. In Bangladesh, the UP Act makes it compulsory for UPs to organise open budget sessions. Furthermore, a participatory, open budget process is an eligibility requirement for receiving UPGP grants. Evidence from the field suggests that most of the UPs tend to routinely comply with the requirement of the law in these respects. These innovations have contributed to enhancing effectiveness of the UP operations, ensured public participation and made elected representatives more responsive and accountable than before. Figures below present information on the trend of open budget meeting in the fiscal year 2015-16.

Figure 3.43: Open budget meetings held in UPs during 2015-2016 (in percentage UPs)

113 It appears from the figure that about 94 per cent of the project UPs and 70 per cent of the control area UPs held open budget meetings to prepare the budget during FY2015-2016. Ideally, the provision of open budget meetings is expected to open up opportunities for local people to know about the revenue and expenditure plans, projects being supported by the budget in a given year by UPs. Local people tend to participate in the open budget meetings to express their opinion on the projects and also to provide constructive feedbacks. By attending open budget meetings people can judge how their demands were incorporated in the budget.

Open budget meetings make UP budget an actual planning tool

The system of participatory budgeting in UP has been facilitating democratisation of local planning including a process of decision making power that has a transfer effect from central to the local government. The UP functionaries said that the new system of budgeting and planning has induced local people to make strategic plans in using UP financial resources and realise taxes which were absent before. It is observed that the system has created local ownership and a stake in project selection and implementation with their local knowledge. Open budget discussion has brought about diverse views among local people which also command citizens’ learning for meaningful discussions and to make UP budget an actual planning tool.

Based on the KIIs with UP functionaries (UPGP project area)

The system of open budget has its own limitations. Open budget meetings generally serve as an engagement which empowers local people to better understand their rights and duties as well as responsibilities of the UP. Not all UPs are equally capable of holding or sustaining such practices in a consistent manner. When open budget meetings are organised only as a formality it is unlikely to function properly and the purpose of open budget meeting is defeated. At the UP level, it is often found that very few eligible people participate in open budget meetings. Getting people to attend open budget meetings remains a difficult proposition, for reasons that plague participation in any public setting. These include the time and financial cost of attending meetings, general apathy, the lack of awareness of the importance of open budget meeting, and the perception of partisanship within the participatory budgeting process. Open budget meetings will only deem successful when UPs are able to produce outputs that reflect decisions made through the process. In reality people are willing to give their time to this process if they believe that the outcomes will benefit them. While UP’s logic for organising open budget meetings is straightforward — to encourage public consultation on budgets — the extent to which these meetings have helped perfect budgetary processes is difficult to ascertain. First, the format in which budgets are presented to the public is too technical for the common people to understand. Second, open budget meetings cannot be considered a success because they are perceived to be cultural events as much as occasions

114 for deliberating issues of policy significance. In some UPs open budget meetings were attended by numerous citizens. Generally, open budget meetings are organised in a pompous and grandiose manner. People may therefore get attracted more to being entertained in a lively setting than contributing to budgetary discussions. Third, poverty and illiteracy often discourage many people from attending open budget meetings. Our household survey findings reveal that only 14 per cent of the respondents in the project area and 7 per cent in the control area were aware of the UP budget process. About 26 per cent of the respondents from the project area and 13 per cent from the control area participated in the open budget meetings which indicate that there is still a low level of awareness of and participation in the UP budget process.

Figure 3.44: Household respondent’s awareness of and participation in UP budget process

The household respondents who took part in the open budget meetings have expressed their higher level of satisfaction in general (in both the project and control area alike) with the content and outcome of the open budget meetings. The reasons they put forward for their satisfaction were as follows:  Participants felt important as they were invited by UPs  They felt that they were contributing to the local development  They had the idea about the UP’s revenue and expenditure plans

Figure 3.45: Household respondent’s level of satisfaction with the UP’s open budget meetings

115 It is important to see if these open budget meetings were attended by local female participants. Our institutional survey (involving UP functionaries) findings suggest that in some cases the women took part in open budget meetings.

Table 3.30: Participation of women in the open budget meetings Indicator Project area Control area Any female member present in the open budget meeting Yes 99.1 85.7 No 0.9 14.3 N 113 84 Issues raised by female members Yes 86.6 76.2 No 13.4 23.8 N 112 84 Issues raised by women reflected in the budget later on Yes 92.9 81.0 No 7.1 19.0 N 112 84

Institutional survey findings also suggest that women who took part in the open budget meetings have raised local development issues and those issues were also taken into account by UPs while revising their budget documents. Given the reality in rural Bangladesh, women like their male counterparts may not want to attend any meeting if they do not get anything out of their attendance either personally or collectively for their neighbours or community. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether this female participation in open budget meetings was cosmetic or real. The institutional findings reveal that women took part in the open budget meetings in 99 per cent of the project UPs and 86 per cent of the control UPs. Also, women raised issues concerning local development in 87 per cent of the project UPs and 76 per cent of the control UPs. The endline survey findings also noted that in 93 per cent of the project UPs and 81 per cent of the control UPs the issues raised by women were later reflected in the UP’s respective budgets. In another words, budgetary revisions were made based on the suggestions made by the women who participated in the open budget meetings. The household survey findings, however, present a different reality on this account as only 19 responses from the project UPs and 9 responses from the control UPs were received in support of the women’s participation in open budget meetings. The HH survey findings revealed that female participation in the open budget was on the lower side.

116

Figure 3.46: Female participants raised issues/made proposals in open budget meetings (Number of responses) Having the provision for open budget meetings is an important step forward. It was gathered from the KIIs and FGDs that citizens are increasingly being aware of open budget meetings, its potential benefits and therefore people’s participation in open budget meetings was also gradually increasing. A number of FGD participants informed, “We participate in the open budget meetings, UP invites us, although not all our suggestions are taken into account”. A few female participants stated,“We participate in the open budget meetings and UP now show respect to women and in some cases UP also pay attention to what we suggest”.

Proactive disclosure of budget The provision for public display of the draft budget, annual financial statement and audit report can be seen as important measures, especially from the standpoint of ensuring transparency and accountability of UPs and public representatives. As budget document provides a detailed account of what the UPs want to do in the coming year, local people can make an assessment of the performance of elected people’s representatives if the budget document is made public.. From the endline survey it appears that project UPs were quite ahead of control area UPs as far as proactive disclosure of budget was concerned. The findings suggest 80 per cent of the project UPs displayed their budget in the notice board, while only 69.20 per cent of the control area UPs were found to have done this. The project UPs (93.3 per cent) were well ahead of the control area UPs (79.2 per cent) in sharing the budget with local people through other means including Ward meetings, distribution of leaflets, posting it on the web portals, publishing it in the local newspapers etc.

117 Figure 3.47 (a): Annual budget posted on UP Figure 3.47 (b): Annual budget shared with notice board people through other means The following figures exhibit a comparative scenario of the proactive disclosure performance of project and control area UPs based on the findings of the baseline and endline survey. This figures show that project area UPs were well ahead of control area UPs on proactive disclosure performance.

Figure 3.48: Important information posted in the UP notice board

UP Auditing Practices The importance of auditing for effective local governance is well recognised. The UPGP put special emphasis on this important area of governance. The 564 UPs supported by UPGP

118 underwent a structured annual performance assessment and financial audit carried out by teams of external auditors, contracted by the Local Government Department (LGD) of the government of Bangladesh. The selection of assessment teams, training of teams and conduct of the assessment, was carried out in line with the instrument of cooperation signed between Local Government Division, UNCDF, UNDP and the World Bank. In total, 3844 auditors were trained between 2013 and 2015. While LGD contracted the firms, with support from LGSP- II/World Bank to conduct financial audits and performance assessments across the country, the training was organised and supported by UPGP/UNCDF, as specified in the instruction of cooperation.

The training organised by UPGP covered financial audit , performance assessment of UPs and compliance with environmental safeguards. Advanced training was provided to teams on the larger set of performance indicators for the teams that were to carry out assessments in the seven UPGP districts. Special training was also provided to teams that were assigned to conduct assessment of compliance with environmental safeguard. The performance assessment manual was translated into Bengali and made available to the teams for reference during the field work. Seven different companies carried out the performance assessment for the seven districts covered by UPGP, using the expanded set of performance indicators. The integrated training sought to ensure consistent understanding and application of tools by the auditors across the country. A two- member audit team worked in one union. A manager supervised them. A team took four days to audit a union. The Audit Review Firms reviewed the audit report before finalising the reports submitted by Audit Firms. After auditing of all unions of an Upazila, an exit meeting at Upazila level with the UNO was held with the participation of all UP chairmen, secretaries and one female UP member who is responsible for the operation of the bank account. The audit exit meeting provides an opportunity to share views on the audit matters of governance interest along with the strengths and weaknesses of the union financial management so that the UPs in the following years can maintain financial management in a proper manner. Survey findings suggest that about 4.6 per cent of the project area UPs and 20.3 per cent of the control area UPs faced audit objections during the fiscal year 2015-16.

Figure 3.49: Any audit objection made by the auditors

119 Such objections do not necessarily mean that the UPs were involved in serious extra-legal affairs. These could be the objections provided by the auditors on different small grounds. What is, however, important is that whether the UPs have made efforts to deal with the objections and whether they were taking rectifying measures. From the field level KIIs it was gathered that UPs have learned to deal with audit objections as they were given necessary training by UPGP. As seen already the UPs in general showed their inclinations to post the copy of the last audit report in the notice board. The project area UPs were well ahead of control area UPs regarding disclosure of financial management and budget related information. From the household survey it appeared that local people had a low level of awareness in general about the UP audit both in the project and control areas alike.

Figure 3.50: Household respondent’s knowledge about UP audit

UPGP reporting practices Reporting is an important governance function which directly contributes to upward and downward accountability and transparency of UPs. The UPGP has introduced its project specific reporting system and also provided training to UP functionaries along this line. The project area UPs were required to prepare and submit six-monthly financial and narrative reports to their respective DDLGs and UNOs, and made available to the public. A simple and standardised UP reporting format has been developed for this and its use is explained clearly in the UP Operational Manual. Through the six-monthly reports, UPs provided information on their activities, revenues and expenditures. DDLGs also followed up on UP reports. Grant transfer to UPs depended on timely reporting on the part of UPs. The UPGP has been able to institutionalise this reporting system and enhanced the capacity of UPs to report in time by linking this up to a few performance measures. The UPs learnt to prepare the reports on their own providing the details of their activities in terms of a quarterly, six-monthly and annual reports. The following figures present the reporting practices of UPs in both the project and control areas.

120 Table : Reports prepared by UPs

Figure 3.51: Reports prepared by UPs

3.2.5 Number and nature of gender focused projects Investing in women development has turned into one of the important focus of UP Plans in recent years. As revealed in the field data both Annual and Five Year Plans of UPs give significant focus on women empowerment and it is in increasing trend. Table 3.30 depicts that in the 2015-16, Annual Plans of 85 per cent of project UPs had focus on women empowerment while in the baseline 61 per cent of the UP Annual Plans had this focus. Similarly, the Five- Year Plans of 85.5 per cent of the project UPs had focus on women empowerment while in the baseline 71 per cent of the project UPs could demonstrate the similar focus.

Table 3.31: Gender focus in the Annual and Five Year Plans Endline Components including in the plans Annual Plan Five Year Plan Project Control Project Control Women empowerment 84.6 65.1 85.5 74.5 N 117 109 117 102 Baseline Women empowerment 61 55 71 59 N 188 188 188 188

121 Field data from the sample UPs reveals that in recent years (20115/16), on an average, the project UPs undertook two women focused projects while in the baseline year, on an average, one such project was undertaken by the project UPs. Thus, in recent years, the average number of women focused projects in project UPs look higher compared to the baseline year but it is lower than that in the control UPs (3). Presence of several other GO/NGO/donor funded development projects focusing on women development might explain the higher number of women focused projects in control UPs than in project UPs. Although the control UPs are having more gender focused projects than in project UPs the implementation rate in project UPs is higher than in control UPs. During the last financial year (FY 2015-2016) the project UPs could implement 73.3 per cent of the projects related to women development, while in control UPs this rate was only 45 per cent. Higher rate of implementation in project UPs is an indication of effective UPGP facilitation for this.

3.2.6 Right to Information at UP level The Right to Information Act can be effective if it is utilised properly especially at the Union Parishad level since this local government body is involved in distributing so many social safety net programmes through which a large number of people are getting redistributed national income in the form of cash and kind. Since these social safety net programmes can be obtained only if people belong to specific socio-economic conditions, the information about the beneficiaries and about the programme becomes inevitable to make these programmes effective. Appointment of a person for this purpose or assigning someone for this given job can supplement the needs of the people. A total of 240 Union Parishads have been studied under this endline assessment, 120 UPs each from Control and Project areas. The percentage of Union Parishads which have assigned any person for providing information to public are 62.5% and 45.8% respectively for project and control areas. The efficiency and efficacy of UPs also depend on the awareness of people. It has been studied that people have numerous queries about the benefits provided from UPs but they do not want to write applications for getting information. Only 42.5% UPs were found receiving applications from the people in the project areas whereas this rate is alarmingly very low in the control area (10% only).

Table 3.32: Access to information by the citizen of UP by type of area Indicator Project area Control area UP assigned any person for providing information to public Yes 62.5 45.8 No 37.5 54.2 Any one applied to UP for any information in last financial year (July 2015-June 2016) Yes 42.5 10.0 No 57.5 90.0

122 Number of applications for information Mean 11.6 10.1 Median 00.0 00.0 Number of request have addressed Mean 10.9 8.8 Median 00.0 00.0 Citizens charter in the UP Yes 82.5 75.0 No 17.5 25.0 N 120 120

Displaying information on the notice board is one of the means through which information can be disseminated and people can be aware of the facts. Project UPs were found to have displayed the copies of the budget, annual financial statements, audit reports, annual plans and scheme list etc, in the notice board.

Table 3.33: Information posted on UP notice board and other means of disseminating information by UP by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Information posted on UP notice board Annual plan 77.5 60.0 5-year-plan 67.5 50.8 Annual budget posted on board 80.0 69.2 Last audit report 65.0 50.8 Annual scheme list 76.7 59.2 Annual income & expenditure 73.3 51.7 Means of informing people about different UP planning Open budget meeting 37.6 15.7 Ward meeting 60.7 37.0 Leaflet distribution/ display of flip chart/ book 12.8 7.4 Displayed in the notice board 60.7 58.3 Miking 20.5 25.9 Website/ internet/ web portal 12.0 13.0 Committee meeting/different meeting/ standing 23.1 20.4 committee meeting Newspaper 1.7 8.3 Displaying on bill board/ banner/project board 0.9 9.3

123 Beating drum, verbal communication through village 4.3 7.4 police Letters 2.6 5.6 others (through open discuss/ courtyard meeting/ UP 9.4 6.5 member ) N 117 108

Apart from the notice board there are some other means through which people are informed about different issues and notices by the UPs. The UPs generally organise open budget meeting, Ward Shava, standing committee meeting, disseminate through leaflets, web portal, local newspapers, display on the billboard, verbal communication through village police, beating drum, letters, etc. But it has been studied that display on the notice board and Ward Shava are the two mostly used means of communicating people. In the project areas around 60% of the UPs generally use these means of communication for informing people.

3.2.7 Performance and Challenges of WDF Cross sectional key informant interviews and FGDs suggest that WDF appears to be playing a very effective role in facilitating women empowerment and thereby contributing to the overall development of the community.

Developing awareness among women WDF as a platform for supporting LGIs for ensuring effective participation of women representatives has been able to create a positive impact on improving the level of awareness among female members. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) revealed that female members in project areas are better informed about different aspects of governance of LGIs (eg., monitoring, transparency, community participation, effectiveness of performance grants) than their counterparts in the control areas. Alongside developing awareness among female representatives WDF also aims to develop awareness among women in the community.

With regard to organising awareness campaigns, members of WDF were found to be more active in project UPs compared to that in the control areas. During 2015-16, in project areas 61 per cent of the members organised various campaigns including courtyard meetings, rallies, street dramas to raise community’s awareness while this rate was found to be low in control areas (45%). While talking about the nature of advocacy WDF does for prohibition of child marriage at Dumuria Union, Khulna, a WDF member stated:

“Forum selected a Union to be declared child marriage free. We rallied against child marriage. In schools, we showed video on how child marriage negatively affects the lives of young girls --- how they are tortured by their husbands and in-laws if they are married off early and also their sufferings caused from being mother at early age. We have introduced ‘Red Card’ against child marriage. Now we are considering cards to adolescent girls when they are 18 years old signifying that they are eligible for marriage”.

124 Women development The WDF facilitates creation of community leaders. Its members have been functioning as effective “change agents” for community women. It has created a space for elected women members to assemble and join from different parts of the locality at the Upazila Vice Chairman’s office and hold meetings to discuss issues and be informed about problems communities are facing. During an interview, a Chair of WDF stated, “Every after two months we can meet members of different UPs. After being informed about problems of different localities, we go there and try to solve the problems”.

Women from ordinary families without any previous orientation or experience of leadership learn to organise and act in providing leadership to actions to improve condition of villages, particularly that of women. The rising number of leaders of various committees receive orientation and training on leadership and gender, legal rights and family law, social analysis and organisational development, Union Parishad and Upazila functions. Through their work in the community women have come to be accepted and respected as social activists and community leaders-- which in turn enhanced their status in families and also the family’s status in the community.

A large number of WDF members in FGDs claimed, “In recent times, community awareness has significantly increased about the curse of child marriage, need for female education and women rights due to the increased number of awareness campaigns organised by female members”.

WDF member : A change maker for the community

“Child marriage was a curse of our village even with last year. Now parents have become conscious about its consequences and we the women members have really worked hard to achieve it” said a happy Rahela, a WDF member in Dumuria Union. Rahela narrated how she stopped a child marriage in her village: In 2014, Obaidul, a poor day- labourer, arranged marriage of his 13 year old daughter called Nahida, a 6th grader with a man working in Oman. The family tried to arrange the marriage secretly but Nahida was opposing the marriage as she recollected watching a video showed in school by her neighbour Rahela, a WDF member demonstrating the consequent sufferings of child marriage. Failing to deal with her parents to stop the marriage she considered Rahela as the last resort to help. She sent one of her friends living close to the house of Rahela to inform about the marriage. Rahela narrated, “It was the wedding day, when I got this information. Without making any delay, I rushed to the girl’s house and tried to make her father understand about the consequences of child marriage but he did not pay any heed to me. Then I decided to seek help from the Upazila Women Development Officer and the UNO. I was fortunate enough that I could manage reaching them that day. Upon getting this information they rushed to the spot and stopped that marriage”. “Since then Nahida was allowed to continue her study and now she dreams to be a doctor and serve the community”, added Rahela.

125 According to interviews with the WDF members, community women are greatly assisted by them in addressing the problems they face. These women are mostly from economically backward and poor families and are vulnerable to be victimised by patriarchal norms and practices particularly by the dominant groups in the population. They are supported by the WDF members in cases of violence against them because of dowry issues, remarriage of husband, sexual harassment etc. In the process they learn to stand against such violence and cope with accompanying situations and also to join the leaders in dealing with other similar cases. Gender and other orientation of spouses of women have helped create understanding of women’s rights and roles in families. Through this the women and their families could gradually gain access to justice and other economically and socially beneficial services due to them which was not provided earlier.

Women as Community Leader : Life of a mother and her baby was saved

Marium, aged 16, was having delivery pain for three days at her home in Dumuria Union under Dumuria Upazila of Khulna district. She was to deliver her second child while her first baby was only two years old. Her husband was a poor carpenter and didn’t have the ability to take her to a clinic/hospital even in such a critical condition. The girl was passing her time alone at home with unbearable pain. No one was there to help her out. Proactive role of Amena Begum, a WDF member living next to her house, finally saved her from this misery. During interview, Amena said, “I was informed about her condition but didn’t go to help her out as she didn’t listen to my advice for not taking baby at this young age. After waiting for three days I couldn’t stop myself visiting her. Seeing her in a dying state, instantly I managed an ambulance from the UP to take her to a clinic. Upon my request doctor saw her instantly and told that the baby was in an abnormal position and Marium needed to undergo caesarean-section, which would cost Tk. 5000”. It was a big amount for this poor family! Amena herself paid the doctor’s visit but the clinic was refusing to get her admitted until the payment for c-section was made in advance! Then she started bargaining with the clinic authority to reduce the c-section charge and collecting money from the patients visiting the clinic and also from the people outside. Some people got surprised and asked her why she was asking for money. Amena replied, “It’s not for me, it’s for my neighbour”. With such a spirit of community service and leadership role, Amena could finally save Marium and her baby.

Quantitative data of the current study also suggest that WDF has significantly impacted decline of various social ills in both project and control areas. Among others, child marriage has been reported to be significantly reduced in almost all UPs in both project (100%) and control areas (97%). The other social issues, incidences of which have significantly been reduced due to the active role of female UP members include: sexual harassment of women, domestic violence against women and children, eve teasing, drug addiction and the practice of dowry, according to the FGDs.

126

Violence against women and children: The Accused Brought to Trial

When the people from all social strata and occupations take a united stand, it certainly helps in containing violence in the society and helps in bringing wrongdoers to justice. In 2013, one day, Shaymoli Khatun, aged 13, daughter of Intaj Ali of Barguna Sadar Union under Sadar Upazila of Barguna district, was alone at home. This gave Habibur Rahman, a guest of neighbouring house, an opportunity for a rape attempt. Hearing the cry of the girl for help, the people came and caught Habibur, who was trying to escape. In the afternoon, WDF members held a meeting on the spot. A few village Matbars (elders), who happened to be also the relatives of accused Habibur, advised the father of Shaymoli to refrain from going to the court and suggested for an amicable settlement. They imposed a penalty of Taka ten thousand on accused Habibur, but instead of giving the money to Shaymoli’s father, they embezzled the money. The incident was published in a newspaper on the next day at the initiative of the WDF members. The WDF extended its support to the violence victim Shaymoli and reported the case to police. Taking unanimous decision in the meeting to extend legal support to Shaymoli, WDF members filed a case with the local police station. The police arrested accused Habibur and sent him to the Jail. The case is under trial now in the court.

Political empowerment of women The WDF has been playing an effective role in improving political empowerment of women and thereby promoting inclusiveness in local governance. In recent times, political participation of the female members of UP has significantly increased. Women members are found to be vocal in UP meetings and a gender responsive culture seems to be developing in the local level governance system.

Current study reveals that in both project and control areas on an average 10 UP general meetings are attended by all female members. In addition, in 89 per cent of sample project UPs, female members have been reported to be vocal in Ward Shavas, which is significantly high compared to that in control UPs (73%). More importantly, in the project areas, 99 per cent of the issues raised by female members were reflected in the ADP while it was little low (97%) in control areas. Rate of implementation of issues proposed by women in project UPs was also found to be significantly higher in the project areas (95%) when compared to the control area UPs (87%).

In open budget session also, active participation of female members was significant. In 87 per cent of the project UPs, female members raised issues in open budget session while it was slightly lower in control area UPs (81%). Similarly, in 93 per cent of the project UPs the issues raised by female members in the budget session were finally reflected in the budget although it was little low in control areas (87%).

127

Figure 3.52: Political Empowerment of Women

Project input to SC

Training and orientation on UP Standing Committee system, leadership skill, community mobilisation, Planning and Office management, Gender sensitisation, Financial management & Audit, Developing upward linkages with line agencies, Partnership with WDF.

128 Empowerment Tree – Case Study of a Standing Committee & WDF Members

The UPGP was launched a few years back. We were brought together to attend a number of sessions held here at UP and also at Upazila and district levels. The project staff would narrate us the awareness raising and motivational stuff like bed time stories to inspire us to dream. We were oriented to with the Constitution, our rights, and responsibilities and our place in the UP management system. We were made to believe that “we matter”. We waited with great curiosity and interest to see what comes up from all these high and lofty words of wisdom. But now we truly believe that something has actually changed us. We feel that deep inside us “a seed of hope” has been sown. It took about a year or little more for the seed to germinate and turn out to be a plant. One day to our utter amasement, we found it was big enough to start giving us shed under which we all would get organised and mobilised. I simply love and care the tree and decided to fondly call it "Empowerment Tree".

We suddenly realised that we could also do many things now that we never thought of doing before, e.g. we are now enough empowered and better capacitated to take active part in the Standing Committees, lead community arbitration/Salish; chair the Project Management Committee, Ward Shavas, WDF meetings and activities; be vocal in taking positions on women's rights and participation of backward and under-privileged women and men; to voice our opinion and realise our demands and more importantly to protest against any deviation.

That little plant has now become an extra-ordinary productive fruit- bearing Tree. Whatever we have become today-we sincerely feel that this is all because of this Tree. The woodshed of this Empowerment Tree has nurtured us so well to make us feel we are human beings and capable of doing so many things ourselves. Owing to care and comfort bestowed upon us by that shack, we are now well prepared to face any challenge that comes in our way; claim our rights and to live a life with dignity and pride. We feel this from within now than ever before that human being with skills, knowledge and awareness of rights can become more confident, determined and powerful.

In addition to being politically active, women members are also getting more engaged in administrative activities in project areas than in control areas. FGDs reveal that female members in project UPs (40%) are more active in supervising the implementation of projects than in control UPs (22.5%).

129 Challenges faced by the WDF WDF suffers from various weaknesses and challenges. The greatest problem that WDF currently faces is that the female members seemingly lack motivation to attend the executive committee meetings. Although as per rule, the members are supposed to attend bi-monthly executive committee meetings six times a year, current study reveals that in project areas the female members, on an average, attended three meetings during the last year (2015-2016), while in control area UPs, the female members attended only a meeting on an average. The main reason for such apathy of female members to attend the meetings could largely be attributed to the lack of education, information and incentives. KIIs reveal that fund constraints, lack of authority, internal partisan conflicts among the UZP members, patriarchal attitude of the male members etc. act as the disincentives for the women members to become adequately active in WDF activities. The Forum members considered its funds to be insufficient for organising courtyard meetings with women, bringing women from different parts of the community for arranging awareness campaigns and imparting trainings for young girls. During the field study, a WDF President commented, “We could do more for the community had we been given more funds. Sometimes we cannot travel distant places due to lack of funds. Often we help the needy out of our own pocket but this cannot always be done. Moreover, we talk about hygienic sanitation, adolescent health but we cannot give them anything since we do not have funds” Besides, due to partisan conflicts within the UZP and the UZP Chairs, in some cases WDFs even fail to receive legally earmarked 3 per cent of the budgetary allocations for the development of women and children. Even if 3 per cent budgetary allocation is made, it does not always mean that the fund reaches the WDFs. Field level interviews revealed that partisan conflict and dominating attitude of the male members sometimes create barrier to reaching the allocated funds to the Forum and to allowing the women members to be fully productive. Socio-cultural barriers and stereotyping is an important barrier for political empowerment of women at the local level. Politics is inherently male dominated that often makes the role of women ornamental in different committees.

3.2.8 Use and Impact of Citizen Charter The Local Government (UP) Act, 2009 has made it mandatory for a UP to display a Citizen Charter that contains the list of services available, conditions, and waiting period for receiving such services. Under the initiative of UPGP, UPs have been given support to prepare and install CC on UP premises with the objective of making UP activities transparent and accountable to the community.

At the UP level, 82.5 per cent of project and 75 per cent of control UPs informed having CC while in the baseline study 58 per cent of project and 49 per cent of control UPs affirmed the presence of CC. This reveals a significant improvement over the baseline with regard to having CC by the UPs.

130

Figure 3.53: Citizen Charter at the UP office

On the other hand, although a large number of UPs were found displaying the CC on their premises only around a quarter (24%) of the household respondents in project UPs and only 18.4% of the respondents in control UPs informed that they saw the citizen charter at the UP Office. A large majority of the respondents in both project (63%) and in control UPs (65%) expressed their ignorance about the CC.

Figure 3.54: Respondents saw Citizen Charter in/outside UP office The reason for such a low response from household could be either of the three: i) randomly selected respondents might not include all of them who saw the CC; ii) due to illiteracy people might not be fully aware of the CC; and iii) UP initiative for developing community awareness regarding the CC is poor. On the other hand, the study found that to increase access to information by the community people, in 62.5 per cent of the project UPs and in 46 per cent of the control UPs, one person has been assigned to provide information to the public. During 2015-16, 42.5 per cent of the project UPs received application from the public seeking information from the UP. On the other hand,

131 only 10 per cent of the control UPs informed receiving this kind of application from the public. This indicates that the awareness level of people in project areas is higher than that in control areas. Field data also reveals that in 2015-16, the project UPs, on an average, received 12 such applications of which on an average 11 requests were attended. On the other hand, the control UPs received 10 applications of which around 9 were attended. Thus, it is observed that compared to the control UPs although larger number of project UPs informed receiving application for information in terms of the number of applications attended, project and control UPs appear to be close to each other. Thus, the field data indicate that as part of the initiative for ensuring transparency in local governance and increasing community engagement the UPGP has been able to establish a positive approach in capacitating the UPs to deliver and support information sharing with the community. However, the study found that the demand side was not at par with the supply side. Household data reveals that seeking information from UP still remains a less practiced issue in both the project and control UPs. Only 3 per cent of the household respondents in project UPs and 1.5 per cent of the respondents in control UPs informed that they approached the UP to provide some kind of information although in project areas 55 per cent and in control areas 43.5 per cent of those who approached the UP for information informed that they received the information required. The study findings thus indicate a need for giving attention to the demand side. Undertaking adequate communication strategies to stimulate demand for information among the community and to increase awareness among them is critical to ensure access to information by the community and thereby making local governance transparent, accountable and inclusive.

3.2.9 Assessment of the Quality of Service Delivery System Field data reveals that overall, the household visit to the UP for services in project areas has increased in the endline (81%) from the baseline (72%). In project UPs an overwhelming majority of the males (baseline—77%, endline—86%) and females (baseline--67%, endline— 61.5%) reported that they visited the UP office although in both cases males outnumbered the females. The exit interviews at the UP office also demonstrated higher number of male service recipients (77%) than the female (23%). On the other hand, visit to the project UPs by the poor and socially marginalised groups has also seen around 10 per cent increase in the endline compared to that in the baseline (Table 3.34).

Table 3.34: Distribution of visit to the UP Office by different categories of respondents: Baseline and Endline comparison Project UPs Baseline Socially Male Female Total Non poor Poor marginalized group Yes 77 67 72 76 68 69 No 23 33 28 24 32 31 N 940 940 1880 947 933 387

132 Endline Project UPs Yes 86.1 61.5 80.9 83.7 78.8 80.2 No 12.9 38.5 19.1 16.3 21.2 19.8 N 1216 325 1541 590 703 248

Overall, a great majority of the household respondents (46%) informed that their last visit to the UP office was within 3 months preceding the study while only 11 per cent of the respondents reported that their last visit to the UP office took place more than a year back. The principal reasons for visiting the UP office by the community people included: getting birth registered/obtaining birth certificate (55.4%); receiving relief/different kinds of allowances (VGD, VGF, TR, cheap price rice (30%); and to obtain different certificates such as character certificate, nationality certificate, testimonial, attestation, age correction, and succession certificate (26%). The exit interviews also informed the similar issues as the reason for visiting the UP office. In exit interviews also, a large majority of the service recipients in project UPs (64.5%) referred to birth registration and obtaining other certificates as the reason for visiting the UP office while in control UPs also majority of the respondents (55.3%) referred to the same as the reason for their visit.

Awareness of UP services and types of services received The current study attempted to explore the extent to which people were informed about the services delivered by the UP. In both project and control UPs around 85 per cent of the respondents were found to be aware about the services available in the UP while around 72 per cent of the respondents reported to have received some kind of services from UP. In both project and control UPs a large majority of the respondents (40%) reported receiving any kind of service from UP office 3 months preceding the survey. Community awareness is not the same about all kinds of services. Moreover, in case of some services, level of awareness was found to be high compared to the rate of obtaining the service and vice versa. Field data reveals that 65.5 per cent of the respondents in project UPs were found to be aware of different allowances/safety net services and 42.6 per cent of them reported receiving the similar services. Similar trend has also been observed in control UPs with regard to safety net services (aware of service:63%, service received: 40.3%) although the project UPs demonstrate higher level of awareness and receipt of services. Similarly, in project UPs 34.6 per cent of the respondents reported to be aware of the availability of various kinds of services including running village court, arbitration related services, distribution of tube well and sanitary latrine, land related services, supply of seeds and fertiliser, computer training, agriculture training and health service but lesser number of them (16%) informed receiving the service. With regard to these services control UPs also demonstrated the similar trend but an inferior position with regard to both level of awareness (20.3%) and receipt of these services (9.2%) compared to the project areas.

133 This trend of higher level of knowledge about services and low level of receipt can be explained by the fact that all the respondents who were aware of the availability of the services might not in need of obtaining them. An opposite trend of low level of awareness of services but high level of their receipt has been observed in case of issuance of different certificates/licenses in both project (aware of service: 36%, service received: 66%) and control (aware 39%, service received:68%) UPs although the project UPs demonstrate better position with regard to both awareness of services and their receipt (Table 3.35). This trend indicates that although obtaining different certificates is the most widely used/required service in UP it is not yet widely publicised among the community.

Table 3.35 : Distribution of respondents by level of awareness and by types of services received from UP Awareness about services Received services Types of services from UP available in UP (in%) from UP (in %) Project Control Project Control (n=1541) (n=1562) (n=1170) (n=1120) Allowances like VGD, VGF, TR, information 65.5 62.6 42.6 40.3 about safety net programs, disability card Different certificates and license such as: 35.8 38.9 65.9 67.9 birth registration/certificates, character certificates, nationality certificate, succession certificate, NID card, trade license Construction of roads, culverts 38.2 30.7 2.6 0.3 Village court and arbitration related services 17.3 8.1 6.0 2.9 Services like running distribution of tube- 17.3 12.2 10.0 6.3 well and sanitary latrine, land related services, supply of seeds and fertiliser, computer training, agriculture training and health service

Benefits received from services Almost all the household respondents in both project (98.3%) and control UPs (99.7%) reported receiving some benefits from the UP office. With regard to the perception of benefit obtained from the UP services project UPs demonstrated slightly better response than that in control UPs. This happened because the control UPs were also facilitated by LGSP and other projects with similar kind of focus as of UPGP. When asked about the benefits received from UP services majority of the respondents in both project and control UPs referred to almost similar kinds of services. Among all, respondents in both project (58.4%) and control (57%) UPs reported that obtaining different kinds of certificates from the UP office benefitted them most as they helped them get jobs and other things done. The second most beneficial service referred by the respondents in project (40.1%)

134 and control (39.1%) UPs was receiving different kinds of allowances and other safety net services, which helped them survive and tackle abject poverty. The third significant service that benefitted the respondents in both project (6.2%) and control (5%) UPs was arbitration offered by village courts as they helped them settle land and other family related disputes.

Table 3.36: Respondents benefitted from services provided by UP by type of area Type of benefits received Project area Control area Birth/nationality certificates 58.4 56.9 Allowances including VGF/VGD/TR and rice at fair price 40.1 39.1 Arbitration service through village court 6.2 4.7 Agricultural training and other services facilitating 1.6 2.2 cultivation Tube well 0.4 0.2 Sanitary latrine facilities 0.8 0.2 Others* 3.6 4.7 No benefit received 1.7 0.3 N 1170 1120 Note Others*: health service, right awareness of women, electricity,

The current study also tried to explore who were benefitted most by the services rendered by the UP. A respondent noted, “I myself, my family and the community people are benefitted from various services provided by the UP. My family received medicine and treatment cost, electricity and sanitary latrine from UP. Children in the community are protected from various diseases due to vaccination provided by the health centre. Women have become more aware of their rights and duties towards the community than before due to various awareness programmes of UP.” The survey data also validates this comment as the findings show that the UP services benefit all- the individual, family and community. In both project and control UPs, household respondents informed that family benefits from the services the most (project: 91%, control: 92%), then comes individuals (project: 40%, control: 57%) and then the community (project: 5.4%, control: 12.5%). Male family members also reported to be benefitted in higher number (project: 91.3%, control: 88%) than the female members of the family (project: 91%, control: 89.4%). Family members receiving benefit from the UP was found to be slightly higher in project UPs (91.2%) than in control UPs (88%). The poor and socially marginalised groups in both project and control UPs were found to be benefitted almost same as the non-poor groups. In project UPs 87 per cent of the families receiving different services were non-poor while 95 per cent of the families receiving services represented the poor while 91.5 per cent represented the socially

135 marginalised groups. Likewise, in control UPs, 85 per cent of the families receiving services belonged to the non-poor, while 90 per cent of the families belonged to the poor and marginalised groups each (Table 3.37).

Table 3.37: Beneficiaries of UP services Project area Socially Responses Non Male Female Total Poor marginalized poor group Respondent himself/herself 53.5 49.5 52.8 56.7 48.0 56.3 Family 91.3 90.8 91.2 87.0 94.7 91.5 Community 15.1 7.3 13.7 17.1 11.9 9.5 N 951 206 1157 446 512 199 Responses Control area Respondent himself/herself 50.6 48.6 50.1 54.6 44.4 54.9 Family 87.6 89.4 88.1 84.6 89.7 89.8 Community 8.7 11.3 9.3 11.2 8.9 7.5 N 832 284 1116 357 504 255

Beneficiary satisfaction On an average, delivery of services like issuance of different certificates, birth registration and distribution of allowances take 2 days and people need to make 2 visits to the UP office for these services. Delivery of land related services and village court/ arbitration take more than 3 days on an average and people need to make around 3 visits to the UP office for these services. Overall, with respect to timeliness of services, respondents of exit interviews demonstrated high level of satisfaction and this rate is higher in project UPs (93.2%) than in control UPs (88.1%).

Figure 3.55: Level of satisfaction with the timelines of UP services

136 A large number of respondents of exit interviews also informed that they need to spend money to get UP services although in project UPs this rate is lower (36%) than in control UPs (57%). In terms of responsiveness also, respondents rated greater number of providers in project UPs as sincere (50%) and friendly (61%) than in control UPs (sincere: 34%, friendly behaviour:44%). Discrimination in providing services to women in UPs was insignificant. In project UPs, only 3 per cent while in control UPs 9 per cent of the recipients reported discrimination against women in service provision. Rate of lodging complaints against service provider was found to be negligible in both project (2%) and in control (1.4%) UPs. This clearly reveals a weak demand side for efficient service delivery. Similarly, the rate of redressal of grievances was also found too low. In project UPs 5 out of 7 persons while in control UPs 4 out of 6 persons reported redressal of their grievances. Respondents were mostly satisfied with the services they received from the UP. In project UPs 44 per cent of the service recipients expressed their satisfaction while in control UPs 36 per cent of the recipients showed satisfaction about the overall quality of UP services. In exit interviews, the service recipients were also prompted to offer some suggestions to improve the nature and quality of services available at the UP level. The prime suggestions of respondents in both project and control areas included: making service delivery faster and customer friendly, responsible behaviour of the elected representatives, wide publicity about the services available at the UP, eliminating nepotism in beneficiary selection for VGD, VGF and other safety net services, making the elected representatives more available at the UP, regular repair of roads culverts, irrigation system, and electricity, ensuring increased community participation in UP activities and increased supervision of UP activities.

Figure 3.56: Level of satisfaction with overall performance of UP (%)

137

PART – IV UZGP: OVERVIEW OF IMPACT AND RESULTS

4.1. Impact Assessment of Results – UZGP Output 1

4.1.1. Key Findings

(i) Accountability and transparency: Capacity building and technical assistance support backed up by UFF contributed to making Upazila Parishads accountable. The UZGP has contributed to functional and institutional capacities of Upazilas in the project areas by ensuring effective and accountable delivery of services and responsive governance. It has also contributed to improved performance of Upazilas nationwide through general capacity building. Issue-based workshops and special sessions on plan and budget preparation as well as awareness campaigns were found to be an effective instrument to ensure citizen engagement and people’s participation. Due to the project intervention citizen charter has been institutionalised well but the beneficiary side still remains neglected. To make the implementation of CC effective, beneficiary/demand side should be given adequate attention. There has been a high degree of sensitisation of anti-corruption measures among the UZP functionaries.

(ii) Capacity building: Six monthly progress review meetings organised by UZGP acted as the platform for continuous monitoring, sharing ideas and improvement in coordination. The design of the UZGP project and the activities undertaken contributed to the “demonstration eﬀect” for rest of the Upazilas of the country. UZGP initiated Upazila Performance Grant and the most project Upazilas had been able to demonstrate spectacular rate of performance improvements on almost each and every measure. In general a signiﬁcantly upward performance trend was noticeable.

138  The project Upazilas have been able to comply remarkably well with the performance conditions on mandated structures, administrative processes, and financial management. The most visible impact of performance grant was registered on the front of Upazila planning and budgeting.  The UZGP has been successful in changing the mindsets and priorities of the Upazila Parishads to focus not only on hard-core infrastructure, especially roads, but also on the MDGs and activities within education, health, water and sanitation etc.

(iii) Women empowerment:  WDF is evolving as a platform for women to establish a linkage between the LGIs. Increasing number of WDFs is being registered at the district level in both project and control areas compared to that in the baseline (87.5% endline vs 46.5% baseline).  Greater number of WDF members informed attending the UZP budget meeting in project areas than in control areas and women tend to play an active role in meetings through proposing development schemes there.  For being systematically exposed to various trainings, overall rate of awareness of Acts/Rules related to functioning of LGIs among the WDF members was found to be higher in project areas compared to that in control areas.  Current study reveals significantly higher use of Citizen Charter (CC) in project Upazilas (90%) than in control Upazilas (60%) but the degree of citizen awareness about the CC is still extremely low in both project (8%) and control (5.2%) Upazilas.

4.1.2. Capacity and Role of UZP Members Local Government Institutions (LGIs) in general and Upazila Parishad (UZP) in particular had been facing a number of challenges affecting their efficiency and effectiveness. The broad range of challenges included capacity constraints, limited institutional practice of processes under law and non-availability of elaborate rules and regulations. It has been observed that poor coordination existed between Upazila Parishads (councils) and the devolved departments.. The UZGP was commissioned to assist the government of Bangladesh in implementation of the local governance reforms and to help it deal with inherent weaknesses and challenges in a systematic manner. The project was designed to improve the functional and institutional capacities of Upazila Parishads for effective, efficient and accountable delivery of pro-poor infrastructures and services.

The project udertook a deliberate initiatives to develop a “Comprehensive Capacity Development Framework for LGIs” in order to establish discipline, consistency and efficiency among LGIs for better service delivery. Under the Output 1, UZGP a two-pronged capacity

139 building approach was adopted which focused on and significantly contributed to enhancing institutional and individual capacity of stakeholders which ultimately impacted institutional strengthening of Upazilas within the project area and beyond. Evidence suggests that UZGP’s continuous capacity building initiatives were found to be highly useful in ensuring the effective functioning of the Upazila Parishad (UZP) in compliance with the Upazila Act which eventually helped Upazilas in project areas to promote MDG-oriented planning, budgeting and service delivery improvement. The institutional capacity development of UZP together with Fiscal Facility support contributed to attaining of results in output 2. In promoting democracy, the output supported the development of local democracy at Upazila level contributing to the Parishads’ functioning as institutions of local representative democracy. This helped them realise rights of people to participate in governance with a specific focus on women and marginalised groups. To this effect strong focus was put in supporting the contribution of the elected Parishads to increase democratic space, particularly in relation to citizen-state engagement both at horizontal and downward accountability levels. Various interventions undertaken by UZGP have helped the Upazila Parishads to grow stronger and deliver its services effectively. Functional and institutional capacity of Upazilas have improved to a great extent with 100 per cent of project UZPs holding their mandated monthly meetings on a regular basis, 100 per cent of formation of UZP committees within a month of newly- elected 4th Upazila Parishads. The continued capacity development efforts and backstopping support provided by the UZGP has helped them groom new leadership in running their offices efficiently and effectively, and also boost their confidence.

Stakeholder Training under UZGP The general and specialised training provided by the project, to more than 5000 elected public representatives and government officers helped the UZP functionaries enhance their understanding of legal, administrative and institutional functions and their corresponding roles, promoting the UZPs in holding their meetings regularly and effectively. Despite a new leadership (4th Upazila Parishad), 100 per cent of UZPs in project areas have been able to regularly hold mandated monthly meetings in project areas compared to the control areas as gathered from the KIIs during field visit. It was captured from the field level KIIs with the elected representatives and line department officers that because of systematic facilitation of UGZP, the UZP committee meetings were functional in the project areas; also the monthly and bi- monthly committee meetings were being held regularly which indicates a significant improvement in democratic practices in UZPs. The Mid-term evaluation report also confirmed that “the project has contributed to functional and institutional capacities of Upazilas in the project areas by ensuring the effective and accountable delivery of services and responsive governance. The project has contributed to the improved performance of Upazilas nationwide through general capacity building”.

140 The table below presents an overview of the training provided by UZGP to a total number of UZP stakeholders between 2012 and 2016. Those who were given training included Upazila Chairs, Vice-chairs, UNOs, line department officers, UZP staff officers, WDF members, Upazila Committee members, civil society members etc.

Table 4.1: Yearly training received by UZP stakeholders (2012-2016) Year Male Female Total 2012-2013 4829 1512 6341 2014 3150 716 3866 2015 3091 987 4078 2016 3056 1035 4849 WDF training in 2015 99 81 180 Total 14225 4331 19314

The table shows that a total of 19314 UZP stakeholders were given training between 2012 and 2016, of which 4331 were female and 14225 were male.

Table 4.2: General Training to 3rd Uapzila Parishad members (2012-13)

Training Title UNO Chairman Vice chairman Male Female Total 3-day General (refresher) training on 474 418 843 1232 503 1735 UZP Law, rules and regulations

During the initial period of UZGP’s operation 1735 Upazila Parishad members received training which included 474 UNOs, 418 Upazila Chairs, and 843 Vice-Chairs.

th Table 4.3: General Training to 4 Uapzila Parishad members (2014)

to 4th Uapzila Parishad members Vice GoB Training Title Chairman Male Female Total chairman Officials General Training on UZP Law & 462 941 2282 2979 706 3685 Administration for 4th Upazila Parishad

141 In 2014, similar training was organised by UZGP for the newly elected 4th Upazila Parishad members. A total of 3685 Upazila Parishad members were given training of which 462 Chairs, 941 Vice-Chairs and about 22 line department officers were also given training considering the fact that it would help create a stronger linkage between the government officers and the Parishad.

Keeping in view UZGP’s special focus on enhancing skills and capacity of the members of the Upazila in planning, budgeting and financial management special training was also organised.

Table 4.4: Specialised Training to 3rd Uapzila Parishad members UP Chair/WDF Vice GoB representative Training Title UNO Chair Male Female Total chairman Officials /Project staff/others 9-day Specialised trainings on UZP planning and budgeting,Team Building and 48 101 269 25 371 72 443 Management Skill development,and Financial Management and Public Procurement Rules

From the table it appears that UZGP provided a 9-day specialised technical training to members of the Upazila Parishad during 2012-13 after inception of the project. A total of 443 Upazila stakeholders received such training which included 48 Upazila Chairs, 101 Vice-Chairs, 269 line department officers and 25 UP Chairs/WDF representatives/project staff etc. These individuals later contributed to the preparation of FYPs and budget in their respective Upazilas and also helped introduce effective system of financial and procurement management in project area Upazilas. The table below presents an overview of various types of training which were offered to the Upazila’s elected representatives, government officers and other stakeholders between 2012 and 2016.

Table 4.5: Types of training received by Upazila Parishad functionaries

Training Title Male Female Total 3 days training on improving Coaching, Mentoring and backstopping support 69 1 70 skills of DLGs and DDLGs Duties and Responsibilities of UZPs Committee (NILG 31 Batch) 1072 271 1343

142 Training Title Male Female Total 2-day training in Sensitisation of 7 UZP functionaries on Performance based Grants 20 8 28 3 days refresher training on Upazila law and administration 1746 484 2230 3-day General (refresher) training on UZP Law, rules and regulations 1232 503 1735 3-day orientation workshop for DLGs, DDLGs and project staff on UZGP project 38 4 42 3-day training for DLGs, DDLGs on UZP Act and their roles and responsibilities 58 2 60 5- day Training for 14 UZ Officials in Sensitization on Gender Issues in LG 28 38 66 5 Days Leadership Training for WDF President and Secretary 271 271

5-days review workshop for resource persons of 5 training institutes (NILG, 46 7 53 BARD, RDA, NAPD and BIM) 9-day Specialized trainings on UZP planning and budgeting,Team Building and Management Skill development, and Financial Management and Public 371 72 443 Procurement Rules General Training on UZP Law & Administration for 4th Upazila Parishad 2979 706 3685 Inception Workshop 180 40 220 One-day Orientation on Right to Information Act and digital Vision 12 0 12 Orientation for Divisional level relevant officials on UZGP activities 228 22 250 Orientation on UZP for 7 district level concerned officials and public representatives 324 44 368 Three days specialized training on finance, Audit, PPR to 487 UZP (UNO, PIO, 1892 492 2384 Eng, Chairman and 2 Vice Chairs) Training on Activation of UZP committee for UZP Vice Chairs, DLG and DDLGs 398 396 794 Training on office management filing and documentation for Upazila 210 13 223 Training on Right to Information Act and digital Vision for UZP information 56 2 58 Officers and UZP Chairs Training on UZP Planning, Budgeting and resource mobilization 591 86 677 WDF TOT 99 81 180 Web base accounts integrated MIS training, 65 UZP 238 9 247 Web base accounts integrated MIS training, 7 division (CA, UZP technicians, 758 Computer Operator) Workshop on Mapping and Orientation of Local level CSOs, NGOs and CBOs 200 38 238 for Capacity Development at 7 UZPs Workshop on UZP-led Development Need Assessment and Identification of 415 0 415 Resources Workshop to review the provisions and potentials of Service Delivery at UZP level 1723 741 2464 Total 14225 4331 19314

It appears that initial capacity building initiatives included a wider set of institutional challenges that covered areas related to Parishad members’ representative functions and requirements, formulating and operationalising rules and regulations. The UZGP also aimed at enhancing transparency, and

143 downwards accountability; as well as strategic capacities relating to fair and equitable development; social inclusion and social cohesion etc. As the programme went along, capacity building started to focus on broader development roles of elected representatives in terms of addressing shortfalls in UZP MDG targets and addressing poverty and vulnerability; combating gender-based violence; climate change and other issues identified by elected representatives themselves as important within their UZP. At this stage, the capacity building used a range of methods such as through formal training, peer-to-peer learning; practice based training, coaching and mentoring.

UGZP Capacity Building Methods

Figure 4.1: Methods adopted by UZGP for capacity building

Effects of capacity building on creating democratic space and governance improvement at Upazila The UZP is statutorily required to meet at least once a month. There is, however, no bar on the UZP meeting more than once. The minimum requirement has been set to ensure regularity in the working of the UZP. Much of what the UZP is required to do is decided in meetings. As a natural rule, the UZP has to convene meetings at regular intervals. The less is the number of meetings, the greater is the risk of backlog in the administration of Parishad activities. The table below shows a comparative scenario regarding performance of holding general meetings in both the project and control area UZPs based on the endline survey findings.

Table 4.6: Holding of Upazila Parishad’s General meetings

Characteristics Project area Control area Financial years 2013-2014 12.0 5.0 Financial years 2014-2015 12.0 4.9 Financial years 2015-2016 12.0 4.7

144 The table demonstrates a clear distinction between the project and control area UZPs in terms of mean number of general meetings. The table indicates the higher level of capacity of the project area UZPs in holding general meetings compared to the control area UZPs. This can be attributed to UZGP’s continuous capacity building initiatives in the project areas. This also had its impact on the project area UZPs’ higher level of preparedness than the control area UZPs in preparing and recording the meeting minutes as shown in the table below.

Table 4.7: Preparation of the meeting minutes Characteristics Project area Control area Preparation of the meeting minutes of Upazila Parishad Yes 100.00 (40) 87.5 (35) No - 12.5 (5) n 40 40

The above table shows that hundred per cent of the project UZPs were in a positon to prepare the meeting minutes as a result of the systematic capacity building support they received from the UZGP. The project UZPs also showed better performance in preparing the meeting agenda in advance compared to the UZPs in the control area. The KIIs with the UZP functionaries during the field visits indicate that the setting of agenda generally remains the prerogative of the chairman. Usually the head of an organisation is given this privilege. The Upazila Parishads have to depend on different actors for a variety of things; their opinion thus matters in the setting of agenda. Field data reveal that the UNO has a special role to play in this regard. All UZP members interviewed have admitted sharing of this power with the UNO, with some observing that consultation with local MPs on the issues to be included in the agenda has to be made as a matter of necessity. Transferred officers also sometimes try to have their say in the setting of agenda; so do representative members including vice-chairs.

Table 4.8: Preparation of the meeting agenda in advance Characteristics Project area Control area Yes 100.0 (40) 85.0 (34) No - 15.0 (6) n 40 40

The above table depicts the fact that UZGP had been able to sensitise members of the Upazila Parishads to comply with the rules and regulations setforth in the Upazila Act. From the table, it also appears that the hundred per cent UZPs under the project areas were able to prepare the meeting agendas in advance compared to the 85 per cent of the control area UZPs. The law requires that the members are informed of the holding of a meeting sufficiently in advance and be also supplied necessary documents (e.g. working papers) so that they can prepare themselves to play an active role.

145 Table 4.9: Serving of meeting notices about the Upazila meetings Characteristics Project area Control area Mean 7.46 6.93 n 39 40

The endline survey findings demonstrate that project area UZPs were able to inform members of Upazila Parishads about meetings well in advance. The findings show that in the project area the UZPs informed the members through proper notification to attend on an average 7.46 days prior to the scheduled date of meetings. The control area UZP also demonstrated better performance on this front and they were able to inform their members to attend meetings on an average 6.93 days in advance. The relative superior performance of the project area UZPs could be attributed to the sustained capacity building of UZP members by the UZGP to uphold the local democratic processes and practices.

Figure 4.2: Upazila Parishad members received training on the conduct of meetings and other governance related issues

The above figures reveal that 90 per cent members of the UZPs in the project areas received training on the conduct of meetings and other democratic governance related issues, whereas only 67.5 per cent members of the control area UZPs received such training and orientation. Because of the continuous capacity building focus of the UZGP the project area UZPs were more familiar with the local institutional democratic governance practices compared to the UZPs representing the control areas. This was confirmed by findings of the endline survey which revealed that hundred per cent of the project area UZPs proactively distributed resolutions to

146 members after the meeting within a short span of time, whereas only 70 per cent of the control area UZPs were found to have distributed such resolutions proactively. A UP Chairman while being interviewed during the field visit, confirmed the improved governance of UZGP. He claimed, “Things are in order now, Upazila Parisahd serves us notices with agendas to be discussed well before the meetings and also send us meeting resolutions soon after the meeting; everything is done in a transparent manner”.

Figure 4.3: Proactive distribution of resolutions after the meeting

As mentioned earlier, UZGP emphasised the capacity building of the UZP mainly to transform it into a fully functional institution and to promote democracy first from within, and then to empower people, in particular the women representatives to participate in the policy debate of the UZP. The capacity building efforts included making the UZP functionaries (elected and non- elected) understand their basic roles and functions.

Figure 4.4: Number of training female vice chairs received

147 The above figures show that 63.9 per cent of project area Upazila’s female Vice Chairs and 76.5 of the control area Upazila female Chairs received training between 1 and 2 times during their tenure in the office. It is interesting to note that 36.1 per cent of the female Upazila Vice-chairs representing the project area received training 3 times more than the control area Upazila’s female Vice-Chairs (23.5 per cent). This indicates the UZGP’s sustained focus on capacity building of the elected women representatives in the project areas. Based on the findings of the endline survey, the table below shows the areas of training organised by the UZGP for the female Vice-Chairs.

Table 4.10: Types of training received by the Female Vice-Chairs Characteristics Project area Control area Standing Committee 17.3 (21) 32.4 (22) Financial and office Management 18.0 (22) 14.7 (10) Upazila Manual of Local Government Department 17.2 (21) 23.5 (16) Gender related 3.3 (4) 1.5 (1) Child marriage 3.3 (4) 2.9 (2) Budget and planning 18.9 (23) 11.8 (8) Women Development Forum Activities 15.6 (19) 13.2 (9) SDG 1.6 (2) - Dowry 2.5 (3) - Sexual harassment/Woman oppression 1.6 (2) - Health Education 0.8 (2) - n 122 77

The table shows the types of training received by the female representatives in both the project and control areas. What appears from the table is that in the project area UZPs the female representatives received various types of training and there had been special emphasis on social sector and women development related issues. In control area, female Vice-Chairs were given training more on the conventional areas. Table below exhibits the allowance of time for the women members in the UZP’s meetings.

Table 4.11: Allowance of time for the women members in the UZP meetings Characteristics Project area Control area Yes 100.0 (40) 82.5 (33) No - 17.5 (7) n 40 40

148 The above table indicates that hundred per cent of the UZPs provided the female members with the opportunity to raise and discuss issues in the UZP meetings, whereas about 82.5 per cent of the control area UZPs provided such opportunities to their female members. This difference is indicative of the female member’s enhanced capacity on the one hand and changed attitudes of the male members towards them on the other. The figures below present the findings of the end line survey which reveal the difference that was found between the project and control area UZPs on the ability of women members to share opinions in the meetings. The UZGP has been able to create a democratic atmosphere and space for women members of the Parishads to spontaneously share their opinions, ideas and views.

Figure 4.5: Women members offered opinions spontaneously in the meetings

The figures show that hundred per cent women members of the project area and 71.8 per cent women members of the control area UZPs were in a position to offer their opinions spontaneously in the meetings they attended. This has been possible due to the capacity building initiatives taken by UZGP throughout the year and its sustained focus on enhancing the institutional and individual capacity of key stakeholders at UZP level. UZGP’s Mid-term Evaluation (MTE) also confirmed that the project supported UZPs were more compliant with the national legislation; were better in record keeping and maintaining, and were able to show greater parity in the participation of both genders in decision-making and governance process than the control UZPs from control districts. The MTE concluded that the UZP Chair and Vice- Chairs and members were more actively involved in UZP affairs and standing committees and those operational Line Ministry linkages were stronger in the project UZPs than the control UZPs. The outreach of Generalised and Specialised training programmes to over 5000 stakeholders together with backstopping support by the project teams at the Divisional and District level helped the elected and government officials in enhancing their understanding of legal, administrative and institutional functions and their corresponding roles which in turn, resulted in promoting pro-poor service delivery and strengthening democracy at the local level. The project published an Upazila Parishad Manual, a compendium of Rules, Circulars, and

149 Government Orders (GOs) related to UZP to facilitate effective functioning of UZP. Besides, by 2015, in line with project’s communication strategy, community awareness was raised through installation of 551 UZP Information Billboards at 487 UZP offices and 64 Deputy Commissioner’s office premises having complete details of roles and responsibilities. Project also operationalised 23 knowledge based Resource Corners (RCs) at the Divisional and District level.

UZGP: Introduction of a new MIS Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) designed and developed MIS to collect Web based Field UZGP: Introduced Web-based Monitoring Reports from all around Field Monitoring Reports Bangladesh. However, it was first piloted in 65 Upazilas in seven districts and the data were Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) collected from the Upazila on a monthly basis. designed and developed MIS to collect There was a manual reporting system in place Web based Field Monitoring Reports earlier. Before the introduction of the new MIS, for the Divisional Field Monitoring from all around Bangladesh. However, it Reports the project depended on visits of was first piloted in 65 Upazilas in seven Upazilas by Divisional Facilitators (DFs) along districts and the data were collected with Director of Local Governments (DLGs). At from the Upazila on a monthly basis. the end of the month, the project officers A Upazila Chair of Khulna district claimed compiled data with basic analysis and that “the new MIS is a real blessing for produced reports by MIS Officer based on us. It has not only made the reporting submitted data for the top management and easier but also helped establish a all other stakeholders. This new MIS system was designed along with a unique reporting relationship of trust between the system. So once data are submitted reports Upazilas and the higher authorities” could be produced in single click by the system A UNO of a Upazila in Sirajganj opined admin. Software users can update/edit their that “the introduction of the new MIS inputs up to a certain period of time but once system has helped establish discipline at system admin approved their submission they the Upazila level in financial reporting are not allowed to edit or update any further and overall financial management and from their end. This kind of mechanism was established to avoid data manipulation as well this also helped avoid data manipulation as security concerns. Database server was as well as related security concerns of maintained by MIS Officer of UZGP. Regular the project management.” backups were taken by the IT team for avoiding any kind of inconvenience. UGZP Monitoring and Evaluation professionals supported installation of a database and provided hands on training on the MIS database and MIS software to project staff (DVFs, DFs and project assistants). A prototype has been developed to capture data in four customised forms. These forms were being piloted with assistance of DVFs, DFs and DDLGs from seven

150 districts. In addition, a prototype has also been developed to capture data on UFF schemes, WDF training workshops and WDF Master Trainers, and general training information. Such installations and trainings have helped improve the capacity of district and divisional offices to collect information and produce relevant outputs. It also enabled the DLGs and DDLGs to take necessary actions to improve performance of UZPs based on reliable and adequate information and evidence. An Operational M&E strategy and a toolkit for monitoring the performance of key local governance indicators/mechanisms were developed with support from UZGP. Quarterly reviews and joint monitoring were organised at district level using these monitoring tools which helped UZGP to act based on the hard evidence and data, and thus strategically contribute to the improvement in democratic governance in the project area UZPs.

The UPGP and UZGP’s ToT on Sustainable Development Goals

Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) and Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) had jointly organised the ToT on Sustainable Development Goals in late 2016 which aimed at orienting the

important local government stakeholders with SDGs and prepare them as the” Master Trainers. Through this training, these Master Trainers were given the responsibilities to make the key local government functionaries aware of new global 17 goals and 169 targets and roles and responsibilities of local government institutions (LGIs) in implementing and localising the goals. A total of 70 Master Trainers drawn from NILG, Bangladesh Institute of Management (BIM), Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (BARD) and Rural Development Academy (RDA), Bogra, government officials from different ministries, seven Directors, Local Government (DLGs), seven Deputy Directors, Local Government (DDLGs) from seven UZGP and UPGP districts and

staff from UZGP and UPGP took part in the training in two batches. Through the training, the projects aimed to orient the trainers with linking the local level planning and budgeting with SDGs, role of local government institutions (LGIs) in implementing the SDGs at local level and preparing action plans for Upazila and Union Parishads. The trainers later started providing seven district-level and 65 Upazila level orientations to field-level local government functionaries in a cascade manner. One DDLG who participated in the ToT on SDGs stated “We really needed this training. Bangladesh has become a role model for developing world. We have many successes in achieving MDGs and we want to continue it through achieving SDGs.” A DLG

also commented on the effectiveness of the ToT. He observed, “It was a timely and useful intervention, the government has already aligned the global goals and targets with its 7th Five- Year Plan and we have already started our work to reach these goals. These Master Trainers will be working as the active links between the LGD and the UPs and Upazilas. With the knowledge they acquired through this training programme, they will be able to make important contributions and help the local government functionaries to be aware of their roles in achieving the SDG targets.”

151 The Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) and the Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) had jointly organised the ToT on Sustainable Development Goals in late 2016 which aimed at orienting the important local government stakeholders with SDGs and prepare them as the” Master Trainers.

From the beginning of the UZGP’s existence, UZGP supported DLG offices in seven divisions to take initiatives to have project progress reviewed on a regular basis inviting concerned DDLGs and other senior officials of transferred line departments. DDLGs were asked to come up with a brief report on UZPs performance using a prescribed format to capture information on UZP meetings, committee meetings, planning and budgeting as well as utilisation of resources.

In addition, coordination and cooperation from line departments were reviewed in presence of the Divisional Commissioners and senior officials. These meetings were found to be useful as these contributed to the coordination as well as increased monitoring of UZPs by DDLGs. Also the workshops and local level meetings organised by UZGP contributed to overall governance and capacity building of the UZPs in the project areas.

As the MTE stated “democratic oversight, civic engagement, transparency and accountability have improved significantly in project Upazilas compared to control Upazilas due to workshops organised at the Upazila level by UZGP by involving local Upazila elected representatives and line department officials, civil society, NGOs and CBOs.

The utilisation of UZGP’s UFF has led to the implementation of schemes focused on achievement of MDGs at the local level and the combination of capacity building support, incentives and grants have been instrumental in achieving a greater level of schemes targeting MDGs. According to an independent performance assessment, the seven pilot UZPs completed 104 schemes in 2013 of which 65 (62 per cent) directly focused on addressing MDGs particularly in primary education, health and poverty alleviation issues, scheme focusing on skill training. Such practices demonstrated that UZPs had been able to increase capacities in terms of planning, and also that their accountability to constituents. Many workshops and training programmes were organised by the UZGP management to orient the Upazila’s elected and appointed officials with a focus on MDG and social sector projects. At the Upazila level, many ‘soft schemes’ were undertaken through which local men and women were provided skill training with a view to helping them acquire certain skills and involving themselves in income generating activities so that they can come out of poverty.

152

UZGP helps turn Sabu’s life around

The UZGP by design wanted the Upazila Parishads to focus on inclusive local development and target the poorer section of the community through different social sector schemes. Nabinagar Upazila under the Brahmanbaria district undertook many social sector schemes and under these schemes both poor men and women from the community were given training orientation programmes on skill development for different income generating activities. The men and women from poorer sections brought under the training programmes were then linked to the government service providing agencies at the Upazila level, such as the BRDB, Shamaj Sheba or Social Welfare Department, agriculture department etc. They learned to approach the departments and to access services from the programmes. Md. Shahjahan Alam Sabu (40) of Ibrahimpur village under the Nabinagar Upazila of Brahmanbaria district was a direct beneficiary of such training programmes. Sabu comes of a middle class rural family who inherited .5 acres of cultivable land after his father’s sudden demise. He was struggling in maintaining his family consisting of his wife, 2 daughters and a son and the whole family was undergoing a serious economic hardship. Amid abject poverty, Sabu was forced to sale part of the family owned land that he inherited and with the money Sabu started a rice business in a local market on his own. But within a short span of time he suffered a massive loss in the business and went bankrupt. Meanwhile, Sabu attended a number of training programmes on income generating activities and related skills organised by the Nabinagar Upazila with the funding support received from the UZGP. Upazila Vice-Chair introduced Sabu to the social welfare officer. He then applied for a loan from the Upazila social welfare office and received a loan of taka 20,000 by the end of 2013. He started cultivating vegetables in the homestead and also in the little agricultural land he possessed. He regularly consulted the agriculture officer and also the informed villagers as to how his vegetables production can be increased. Alongside, he started procuring vegetables from other villagers and selling these in the market next to the UP premise. After two years of struggle, now he is earning a lot of money and making profit. Sabu stated “now I can save some money and also I have been able to buy back the piece of land which I once sold out. I am well-respected locally as a vegetable grower and businessman. All my children are going to school and I hope that my children will go to colleges for higher education one day. The Upazila Vice chair of the Nabinagar Upazila stated, “Sabu is a great success, we invite him to our Upazila workshops to share his success stories with others. A lot of local youths are now following his path”. Sabu further stated, “the training programmes of UZGP helped the poorer participants gain confidence and also raise their awareness of having the capacity to access rights and services. Through the trainings on income generation and subsequent arrangement of loans from the Upazila social welfare office many men and women started to venture into small income generating projects such as small business, poultry raising, goat rearing, kitchen gardening etc. and improve their economic and social conditions”.

153 4.1.3 Women Development Forum Through a strong advocacy from UZGP, the LGD for the first time in its history facilitated the holding of elections to the women reserved seats at Upazila Parishads in June, 2015. The current study found that this election was held in 95 per cent of the project and in 92.5 per cent of the control areas (Table 1). More than 1500 women representatives from UP and Paurashava levels were elected in those seats in 4th Upazila Parishad. Reportedly, 65 per cent of the Executive members of WDF were elected to the Upazila Parishad women-reserved seats in the local government elections in 20151. The current study finds that in 87.5 per cent of the project Upazilas, WDFs got registered at the district level while only in 52.5 per cent of the control upazilas WDFs have registered at the district level. Compared to the baseline the number of WDFs registered at the district level in both project and control areas stands higher in the endline study.

Table 4.12: WDF at Upazila level Endline Baseline Project Area Control Area Project Area Control Area Election held to reserved seat for women for Upazila Parishad Yes 95.0 (38) 92.5 (37) 0.0 0.0 No 5.0 (2) 7.5 (3) 100.0 100.0 N 40 40 - - Upazila Woman Development Forum registered at district level Yes 87.5 (35) 52.5 (21) 46.5 39.3 No 12.5 (5) 47.5 (19) 53.5 60.7 N 40 40 - -

Along with the increased number of registered WDFs, the current study reveals that the project Upazilas have also been making more budgetary allocations (3%) for women and children compared to that in control Upazilas (2%).

Capacity development of female members The level of marginalisation increases when a woman lacks individual capacity (leadership skill, confidence) and technical capacity (knowledge/education) to understand and contribute to respective LGI’s functioning2. With the objective of developing capacity of the female

1 GOB (2016) Results Report: Upazila Governance Project, 2012-16; Local Government Division, MOLGRD, Dhaka 2 Government of Bangladesh, Gender Strategy, Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) 2012-2016, LGD, MOLGRD.

154 representatives of the LGIs, the members of WDFs are imparted varied kinds of training. Current study finds that the members of the executive committee of WDF received on an average three days of training in both project and control areas while the duration of training is little higher in project areas (3.20) than in control areas (3.16). In project areas 60 per cent of the executive committee members received training while in control areas 43.2 per cent of them received it. Among other issues, in both areas, training for WDF members mostly focused on woman empowerment; prevention of woman oppression, child marriage and dowry; local government Acts and role of LGIs. In majority cases, training was found to be organised by the DC office in both project (50%) and control Upazilas (13.6%).

In addition to the training, especially designed for members of WDF, 35 per cent of the female Upazila Vice Chairmen who are the ex-officio Chairs of WDFs were also found to have received at least one round of training on UZP governance and gender sensitisation strategy including operation of standing committees, Upazila Manual and Upazila management, planning and budgeting, WDF activities, gender sensitisation, prohibition of child marriage and dowry, women oppression etc. The duration of such training in both project and control areas was 4 days on an average. In addition to the Ministry of Local Government, there had been NGOs which were also providing various kinds of governance and gender related training at the community level in both the project and the control areas. These capacity building initiatives have proved very effective in making rural women aware of their political and administrative roles at the local level. Current study finds that in both project and control areas the members of WDF were aware of various Acts/Rules related to local government while the overall rate of awareness is higher in project areas compared to that in control areas (Table 4.13 ).

Table 4.13: Awareness of WDF members on Local Government Acts/Rules Local Government Acts/ Regulatory framework Project Control Upazila Parishad Act 2009 91.4 81.5 Upazila Parishad Act 2011 Amendment 62.9 (22) 59.3 (16) Upazila Parisad budget Act 2010 91.5 85.2 Upazila Parisad Revenue utilization rule 2014 74.3 59.3 Upazila Parisad Manual 48.6 55.6 N 40 40

A number of WDF members also informed that the rate of attendancein the UZP budget meetings is higher in project areas (87.5%) than in control areas (65%). Their participation is not mere passive. The field data reveals that during the last one year (2015-16), in project areas, on an average WDF proposed 5 development projects and around half of them (2.34)

155 were finally implemented. On the contrary, in control areas the average number of proposed projects by the female members was 2 while 1.26 of them were implemented.

Developing awareness among women The WDF as a platform for supporting LGIs to ensure effective participation of women representatives has been able to create a positive impact on improving the level of awareness among female members. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) revealed that female members in project areas are better informed about various aspects in governance of LGIs (eg., monitoring, transparency, community participation, effectiveness of performance grants) than their counterparts in the control areas. Alongside developing awareness among the female representatives WDF also aims to develop awareness among women in the community.

In project Upazilas (97.5%) WDF members were found to be more active in participating in community awareness raising programmes than in control areas (77.5%). In both project and control areas WDF plays a significant role in organising courtyard meetings on women’s rights and campaigns against the social ills including child marriage, eve teasing, dowry, drug addiction and oppression on women, facilitating women and child education and women development (Table 4.14).

Table 4.14: Types of awareness raising programs organized by WDF at Upazilas

Types of awareness raising programs at UZ Area Project Area Control Area Prevention of early marriage 64.7 (22) 68.0 (17) Prevention of eve-teasing and sexual harassment 29.4 (10) 28.0 (7) Courtyard meeting on women rights 23.5 (8) 24.0 (6) Arbitration of cases related to oppression of woman 2.9 (1) 24.0 (6) Dowry prevention 17.6 (6) 36.0 (9) Prevention of drug addiction 2.9 (1) 12.0 (3) Prevention of woman and child oppression 26.5 (9) 24.0 (6) Social awareness raising program on woman development 11.8 (4) 12.0 (3) Observance of different national days 26.5 (9) 16.0 (4) Mothers’ gathering 5.9 (2) 4.0 (1) Distribution of school bags 2.9 (1) 4.0 (1) Training - 4.0 (1) Improvement of woman education 2.9 (1) 8.0 (2) N 34 25

156 4.1.4 Citizen Charter The current study found that 90 per cent of project UZPs and 60 per cent of control UZPs have prepared Citizen Charter (CC). Only 4 out of 40 sample project UZPs did not have CC and 3 of them did not consider having it important (Table 4.15). On the other hand, 16 out of 40 control UZPs did not have CC and around half of them (7) did not consider having it “necessary” or “important”. Thus, the study reveals a better state of the use of CC in project UZPs compared to the control UZPs. However, 90 per cent of both project and control UZPs were found having the CC customised about services provided by the UZP.

Table 4.15: Reasons for not having Citizen’s Charter Reasons Project Control Has not been prepared yet 25% (1) 44%(7) Has not deemed important 75% (3) 25% (4) Don’t think it is necessary 19% (3) Under preparation /process - 19% (3) N 4 16

The CC is being made available to citizens through various means. Interestingly, similar trend has been observed in both project and control UZPs in this regard. Interviews with the UZP functionaries in both the project (85%) and control UZPs (70%) informed that UZP website was the most widely used means for making the CC available to citizens while the UZP signboard was referred to as the second most widely used mechanism for displaying the CC by both the project (62.5%) and control (47.5%) UZPs.

Figure 4.6: Availability of Citizen Charter

157 The Household survey reveals a grim picture about the use of CC at the local level. Only 8 per cent of the households interviewed in project and 5.2 per cent in control Upazilas answered positive when asked if they knew about the availability of CC at the UZP. On the other hand, in both project and control areas 86.4 per cent of the respondents expressed their ignorance about the availability of CC displayed at the UZP office.

Table 4.16: Household awareness about Citizen’s Charter at the UZP Household responses Project Control No 5.5 5.8 Yes 8.1 5.2 Don’t know 86.4 86.4 N 1541 1562

The extent of internalisation of the content of CC among those who saw this was found to be extremely low. Respondents could hardly mention its content. In project areas 77 per cent and in control areas 80 per cent of the household respondents could not say anything about the content of the CC. This reflects the lower degree of effectiveness of CC at the local level. However, 86.4 per cent of the household respondents in project Upazilas and 91.4 per cent of the respondents in control Upazilas who were aware of the availability of CC informed that they saw it displayed at the UZP office. On the other hand, an equal number of respondents (81.5%) in project and control Upazilas referred to the sign board in front of the UZP where they saw it. Although UZP survey findings demonstrated that the UZP website was the most widely used means of making CC available to the citizen but the household survey demonstrated a grim reality by showing that less than 1% of the respondents in both project and control Upazilas saw it on the UZP website. This data exhibit a wide communication gap between the service providers and the recipients.

Table 4.17: Places where Citizen Charter was seen by the respondents Household responses Project Control Notice Board of Upazila Parishad 17.6 20.3 Signboard in front of Upazila Parishad 81.5 81.5 Website of Upazila Parishad 0.9 0.9 N 108 108

While respondents were asked as to whether any anti-corruption strategy (plans) was prepared, positive response was found in all project UZPs (100%) and in 80 per cent of the control UZPs. This is an area where UZPs have achieved a great improvement as in the baseline study the answer to this query was negative in both project and control UZPs. Although in both the

158 baseline and the current study the respondents (the UZP functionaries) referred to the availability of certain measures for combating corruption a striking improvement has taken place with respect to the level of their understanding of the measures for combating corruption. For instance, in the baseline study, the highest majority of the respondents in project UZPs referred to preparing citizen charter (85.7%) as a measure for tackling corruption while in the current study, internal auditing received the highest response (100%) in this regard. Internal auditing here refers to the internal preparation/arrangement taken by the UZPs for being audited annually by the audit firms as a requirement of the UZGP. Keeping complaint box was referred to as a measure for fighting corruption by the second highest majority of the respondents in project UZPs (92.5%) while in the baseline this issue received the lowest response (21.43%) in project UZPs. In addition, in the current study, public hearing has been termed an anti-corruption measure by the third majority of the respondents (87.5%) while inspection of project sites has been referred to as an anti-corruption measure by the fourth majority of the respondents (80%). These responses are indicative of a high degree of sensitisation of anti-corruption measures among the UZP functionaries. Other anti-corruption strategies mentioned by the project Upazilas in both the endline and the baseline studies include: arranging discussion on budget (endline-75% baseline- 71.43%), opinion sharing meeting (endline-60%, baseline-79%) and following public procurement rules (endline-75%, baseline-71%).

Effectiveness: In an attempt to ensure quality in the delivery of public services and to hold the service providers accountable and transparent, CC was introduced by the government of Bangladesh in 2007. The UZGP and UPGP also adopted CC as one of its important tools for improving service delivery. During Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), 90 per cent of the UNOs opined that display of CC at the Upazila office can referred to as one of the important contributions of the project towards improving local level governance. The current study reveals higher use of CC in project areas (90%) than in control areas (60%), degree of citizen awareness about the CC is still extremely low in both project (8%) and control (5.2%) Upazilas. Moreover, a large number of citizens expressed ignorance about the content of the CC. There also remains a wide communication gap between the UZP and the households about its availability. The UZPs are using their websites the most to make the CC available for the community people but the households hardly (.9%) use the websites for this.

Thus, it can be said that due to the project intervention CC has been institutionalised well but the beneficiary side still remains neglected. To make the implementation of CC effective, beneficiary/demand side should be given adequate attention. For this, the local level institutions should develop a culture of responsiveness and participation. A national level study noted, “members of the Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) need relevant training on how to

159 internalise the value and culture of CC (i.e., accountability, transparency, responsiveness and participation), and to subsequently practice these principles” (Rajjaque, 2016)3.

Anti-corruption measures undertaken by the UZPs have seen a significant improvement as found in the current study compared to the baseline. All the project areas were found to have adopted anti-corruption strategies and more importantly, a significant improvement in the level of understanding about the anti- corruption measures was observed in project areas compared to that in the baseline. Thus, it may be concluded that the project was able to effectively sensitise the UZP functionaries about the anti-corruption measures.

4.1.5 Performance Grants and Improvement in Core Governance Areas The Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) was launched in 2012 with a view to strengthening the capacity of Upazila Parishads and other stakeholders to promote participatory decision for local development and foster public service delivery with special emphasis on Upazila Parishads’ coordination role in achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The UZGP was conceived on the lessons learned from especially the Preparatory Assistance Project (PAP) from 2009-2011, which contained support to capacity needs assessment, TA/CB support, support to the regulatory framework and planning as well as policy advocacy and awareness raising on the roles and functions of the UZPs and the MDG piloting on planning in selected UZPs. It was based on a solid analysis of the fiscal and governance challenges for this level of government. However, compared to previous interventions, the new performance- based Upazila Fiscal Facility (UFF) and the enhanced focus on planning, budgeting, accountability and up-scaling of gender aspects, especially support to WDFs were interventions, which aimed at deepening and strengthening of the reform process and the capacity of the UZP to fulfil their mandatory role.

The UZGP aimed at targeting capacity constraints faced by the respective tier of government to demonstrate improved absorption capacity to manage an increase in resource envelope in a transparent, accountable and participatory manner. The strategic interventions were directly linked to development objectives within the sixth Five-Year Plan (6FYP) and related strategic policy documents. The objective was to assist the GoB in improving the functional, institutional and democratic capacities of LGIs and strengthen their capacity to deliver pro-poor development planning and MDG related services links-up with these plans as well as the UNDAF 2006-2011 in force at the time of the project design. The project was implemented in seven pilot districts and UZPs were selected according to poverty and MDG ranking, considerations to ensure that some of the previously supported LIC districts were captured and needed to ensure a variation of the geographical coverage (one

3 Razzaque, F. (2016). “Reality of Citizen Engagement in the Development Activities at Local Level in Bangladesh: A Study of Union Parishads”, Asian Journal of Development and Governance, 1 (1) .

160 district from each division). The UZGP provided Upazilas with additional funds in the form of Performance Based Grants (PBG) which allowed eligible Upazilas to expand the financial resources they normally receive in the form of transfers from the central government. The UZGP provided capacity building support to all UZPs in the country, but was topping up with special training to the 65 UZPs in the seven pilot districts. A special annual performance grant- the Upazila Fiscal Facility (UFF) -had been allocated to seven UZPs in FY 2012/13 and 14 UZPs in FY 2013/14, respectively and the selection of 14 UZPs for the 2014 and 2015 fiscal year’s allocations were based on competition among the 65 UZPs in the seven districts. In order to access the PBG, the Upazilas were to comply with a number of performance conditions and undergo an external performance assessment.

The performance of the seven Upazilas under the first year of funding support was assessed on 4 composite performance measures against a total score of 40 and for the Upazilas under the second year of support, in addition to these 4 composite performance measures additional 6 composite performance measures were added and against those indicators Upazila’s performance was assessed out of a total of 100 within the core areas of governance as presented in the table below.

Table 4.18: An Overview of the Performance Indicators

Indicators Performance Areas Score Structures mandated by UZ Act and LGD have been established and 1 10 are operational 2 Administrative processes related to planning and budgeting carried out 10 Financial management by the Upazila Parishad (revenue and 3 10 expenditure) in line with the guidelines 4 Management and Utilization of Grants 10 5 Preparation and reporting of Upazila Development Plans 10 Standing Committees of the Upazila Parishad provide directions in 6 10 preparing schemes Social sectors (related to MDGs) adequately addressed in Upazila’s 7 10 annual expenditure 8 Co-financing of Upazila’s development schemes from multiple sources 10 9 Coverage of multiple Union Parishads by Upazila’s development schemes 10 10 Upazila Parishad Community oversight and transparency 10 Total Score 100

161 The last external assessment of Upazila performance which took place in 2015 showed a remarkable performance improvement on the part of the Upazilas when the performance scores were compared with that of the previous assessment.

Figure 4.7: District- wise percentage of governance performance improvement in 2015 as against 2014 (average score)

Mean score of performance improvement 84.4 (percentage)

Source: 65 Upazila Performance Assessment Report, University of Dhaka, 2015.

From the assessment findings it appeared that most Upazilas had been able to demonstrate a spectacular rate of performance improvements on almost each and every measure. Some have performed better than the others but in general a significantly upward performance trend was noticeable between performance scores obtained by different Upazilas in 2015 performance assessments. The conditions on performance imposed by the system had generated a sense of competition among the Upazilas under UZGP-- which directly contributed to UZPs’ improved performance in general. Ownership of the project by both the elected and appointed officials also played a significantly important role in achieving higher scores by the Upazilas. Besides, a friendly and healthy relationship among the UZP Chair, the UNO and the Member of Parliament was also an important determinant of the performance of the UZPs. The system was praised as the assessment of both MCs and PMs were relatively simple and related to the existing legal framework. It was noticeable that Upazilas were committed to UZGP in general and significant improvements have taken place in the project area having a snowball effect over other Upazilas of the country.

162 Table 4.19: Indicator wise relative performance scores obtained by Upazilas under UZGP Scores Composite Indicators 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Scores Obtained by Number of Upazilas 1: Mandated structures 16 21 17 6 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2: Administrative processes 35 13 8 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 3: Financial management 18 6 18 7 9 3 2 1 1 0 0 4: Utilization of grants 7 0 17 0 27 0 12 0 2 0 0 5: Upazila development plans 7 8 20 6 9 6 6 1 0 0 2 6: Standing committees provide directions 3 1 16 2 2 3 4 0 21 4 9 7: Social sectors (related to MDGs) 7 2 11 3 7 9 8 0 7 2 9 8: Co-financing of UZP’s development projects 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 58 9: Coverage of multiple UPs 9 3 7 5 6 4 6 8 7 0 10 10: UZP Community oversight 13 3 3 2 12 11 14 2 4 1 0 Source: 65 Upazila Performance Assessment Report, University of Dhaka, 2015.

The table shows that on an average, the Upazilas had been able to comply remarkably well with the performance conditions on mandated structures, administrative processes, and financial management. Their average performance score on the composite measure of preparation and reporting of Upazila Development Plans have also been satisfactory. On the other hand, the performance has remained relatively shy on the measures of Utilisation of grants, UZP community oversight and transparency. However, most of the Upazilas (58 out of 65) scored ‘zero’ on the performance measure on undertaking collaborative co-financed projects. Similarly, performances on the measures of Upazila Committees of providing directions in preparing schemes, coverage of multiple Union Parishads and adequately addressing social sectors (related to MDGs) in Upazila’s annual expenditure by Upazila’s development schemes have also been less than satisfactory.

Figure 4.8: Endline Survey: Performance grant system was an effective mechanism (Opinion of the Upazila functionaries)

163 The grant (UFF) under UZGP can be seen as a new innovation which aimed to strengthen the links between UZPs and the Line Departments and the cross UP-coordination with stronger focus on MDGs and focus on vulnerable groups in the allocation of funds. The system demonstrated that a combination of incentives, clear guidelines and technical support could directly contribute to reduction in some of the challenges observed at this level and strengthen the mandatory roles of the UZP as a corporate body, and address some of the challenges and problems with the existing system, although it had to operate in a challenging structure with unclear responsibilities and authorities, including conflicts between UZP as a corporate body and the roles and perceptions of the MPs. Furthermore, the introduction of co-financing between the UZPs and UPs along with community participation should be mentioned as an innovative approach in local development taken by the project under its fiscal facility component.

Innovations at the local level: The UZGP way

1. Introduced a pilot fiscal facility for the Upazila Parishads which enabled the new Parishads to draw programme activities co-financed with the Union Parishads and the line agencies at the local level, thus providing a ‘glue’ that brings together currently disparate resources under local accountability, and enables the UZP to further its development mandate – with a particular focus on MDG acceleration. 2. Provided grants called Upazila Fiscal Facility (UFF) to the UZPs to promote the financing of MDG related activities under an integrated UZP planning framework. Assessment tools were also developed and used to monitor MDG achievements. 3. Used a wide range of participatory mechanisms and methods to strengthen the local democracy, accountability and functioning of the Upazila Parishads. 4. Promoted an effective local level planning and service delivery system by bringing all the government, non-government and private sector initiatives under an integrated local level planning and management framework. Through this process environmental and climate change issues were also taken into account.

The endline survey findings reveal that the provision of providing performance grant to Upazilas was extremely useful and effective in stimulating the Upazila governance in the project area as perceived by functionaries of the Upazila Parishads. The most visible impact of performance grant was registered on the front of Upazila planning and budgeting. This was confirmed by a significantly high 97 per cent of the Upazila functionaries who reported that the conditions of the performance grant made an excellent or good contribution to improve the Upazila planning and budgeting quality and processes.

164 3%

22%

75%

Average Good Excellent Figure 4.9: End- line Survey: Contribution of performance grant to Upazila planning, budgeting and good governance (using scores obtained on the perceptions of the functionaries)

Number and nature of projects implemented and beneficiaries served The official data show that the Upazilas under UZGP implemented a total of 554 MDG focused schemes between 2012-2013 and 2015-2016 and served 1734067 beneficiaries directly (of which 835874 were women) and 1391247 indirectly (of which 672141 were women). Focusing on poor female beneficiaries can be seen as one of the finest achievements of UZGP.

Table 4.20: Nature of projects implemented and beneficiaries

Number Direct Beneficiaries Indirect Beneficiaries Fiscal years of schemes Female Male Total Female Male Total 2012-2013 104 166168 150287 316455 183280 158050 341330 2013-2014 120 147562 158094 304666 99237 115879 215236 2014-2015 152 201268 179087 380355 204390 246590 450980 2015-2016 178 320876 413620 732591 185234 176457 383701 Total 554 835874 901088 1734067 672141 696976 1391247 Source: Upazila Governance Project, UNDP 2016.

The UZGP has been successful in changing the mindsets and priorities of the Upazila Parishads to focus not only on hard-core infrastructure, especially roads, but also on the MDGs and activities within education, health, water and sanitation etc. This has been achieved through soft incentives in the PBGS, awareness raising and CB and the combination of CB and PBGS

165 created synergies and stronger impact than using CB and grants allocations as separate support modalities. There was also a limit to this, as some Upazilas had needed for investments in areas benefitting local economic development such as roads, markets etc. But UZGP did not want to leave too much of discretion at the UZP level as it was assumed that this might result in UZPs not adhering to the guidelines at all and focusing on the physical infrastructure schemes only as before. Below is the total number of sector-wise schemes implemented by Upazilas under the UZGP in different years of its operation.

Table 4.21: Total number of schemes implemented by sectors

Total number of schemes by Sectors

Fiscal Health

years Others Poverty Women Women & Youth Planning Fisheries Livestock reduction Irrigation Education Agriculture development development Environ ment Environ ment infrastructure schemes Total Depat. Foresty Depat. Public Health Social welfare Smal industries industries Smal Health & Family & Family Health Social Safety net Social Safety 2012-2013 24 16 6 0 0 9 0 9 12 1 6 2 2 1 0 16 0 104 2013-2014 38 14 4 0 0 8 3 16 5 2 6 8 1 0 0 11 4 120 2014-2015 45 16 5 1 2 12 7 14 13 6 3 16 3 0 5 4 0 152 2015-2016 57 14 4 10 7 18 19 10 4 9 8 9 5 4 178 Total 164 60 19 1 12 36 28 58 40 13 24 34 15 1 10 35 4 554 Source: Source: Upazila Governance Project, UNDP 2016.

What appears from the table is that the UZGP has been able to orient the Upazilas to focus on investing in social sector projects with the funds which it made available to the Upazilas. Out of the total schemes implemented 164 schemes had their focus on education sector, 100 schemes on health and public health and 58 on women empowerment. Upazilas under the project gradually increased their investment in social sector each year of operation and on the other hand their focus on undertaking and implementing infrastructure project decreased gradually each year. This indicates a significant shift in attitudes of the members of the Upazila Parishads in making their sectoral investment choices while undertaking projects using UFF. However, the end line survey findings provide somewhat limited evidence in this respect when their choices of schemes using the ADP funds were separately considered. Not much difference can be observed between the project and control area Upazila’s year-wise project selection, implementation decisions and sectoral focus.

166

Figure 4.10: Nature of average number of projects implemented by sector (Project UPZs)

Figure 4.11: Nature of average number of projects implemented by sector (control UPZs)

The UZGP’s one of the objectives was to stimulate the traditional mindset of the functionaries so that they undertake and implement pro-poor and MDG linked social sector projects more than the physical infrastructure project. The evidence suggests that it was difficult to achieve within such a short span of time. The project has been able to sensitise the Upazila functionaries to make a shift from their traditional way of thinking to a state where they understand the importance of investing in social sectors. This was apparent from the statements made by the Upazila functionaries while being interviewed during the field visits.

167 Many of them admitted this reality and informed that the project has contributed to “rethink their focus and choice of schemes” and also to “make them understand the importance of undertaking social sector projects for balanced local development”. Even when they are considering projects to be implemented by ADP funds they tend to include social sector projects more than before which they considered “an important contribution that UZGP has made”.

Digholia Upazila Parishad Provides Health Cards to Young Children

Digholia Upazila under Khulna district is remotely located and the health care facilities are in a dismal state. The Upazila Parishad with the support it received from the UZGP undertook a unique health card scheme in which 1000 primary school children of the Upazila had their health checked up by a panel of doctors and they also delivered informative speeches in each school visited on health and hygiene. They set up a temporary medical screening camp base within the Upazila health complex and the doctors visited the selected primary schools for children’s health check-up in accordance with the schedule prepared and pre-announced by the Upazila Parishad. The Upazila female Vice-Chair stated, “This project has helped promote preventive health care. We knew that several childhood diseases could be easily avoided if detected at an early stage. But the challenge was to raise awareness of this in the community”. The Upazila Nirbahi Officer claimed, “A total of 1000 poor children aged between 6 and 12 were given a medical examination.” Dr. Kabir, a doctor of the Upazila Health Complex, who was involved in the scheme, informed, “This check-up initiative aimed at detecting any medical problems the children might have, particularly in relation to their vision, hearing, weight or teeth. Tests were also run on their blood group detection and nutritional status”. The female Vice- Chair stated, “It was my idea to launch a health scheme and fortunately I got everyone’s support. Thanks to UZGP for supporting such a noble project. In order to encourage families to monitor the health of their children and to make them attend regular check-ups, each child was given a health-care card with all the important medical information including their vaccination records. Local children are already getting its benefits. I always believe that a healthy child will be able to contribute to the economic and social development of the country in future”. A local farmer Shahidul explained the benefits his family received from this health card, he maintained, “Now I know when I would have to take my young girl to the Upazila health complex for the next round of vaccination.” Moinuddin a local autorickshaw driver stated, “My son recently had a serious road accident. It was a head injury and he was bleeding profusely. We rushed him to the hospital, and my son required a quick surgery and for that also a bag of blood was necessary. A doctor told us that he can try and manage a bag of blood if we knew the blood group of the patient. Luckily for us, my wife was carrying my son’s health card with her and she presented it to the doctor--who seemed to be very pleased to see the card with the blood group information and the rest was taken care of by him without any delay. Everything went on well, at night we could return home happily”. Nazeen Islam, a local primary school teacher, stated, “As we now have the children’s health cards with important health information, as a mother I can keep my eye on the height, weight and the growth of my young children, I can take them to the local health complex for a check-up, if required. This initiative is a blessing for me and also for many poor families of Digholia Upazila who will continue to receive its benefits in the years to come”.

168 Availability of secondary legislative instruments at the Upazila Parishad

UZGP required the Upazilas to follow the rules and regulations envisaged in the Upazila Act. The KIIs with the Upazila functionaries (both the elected and deputed) reveal that the project has been able to make an impact on this front. Now the Upazila Parishad meetings are held on a regular basis, meeting notices are sent to the Parhshad members well in advance, resolutions are now recorded and maintained properly.

Table 4.22: Time taken to serve the meeting notices

Endline Baseline Characteristics Control Project area Control area Project area area 0-6 2.6 5.0 21.43 32.14 7 84.6 87.5 57.14 53.57 8-10 12.8 7.5 21.43 14.29 n 40 40 14 28

The Endline survey findings suggest that a greater percentage of project UZPs had Upazila manuals and other important documents relevant to Upazila governance than the control UZPs. The project area UZPs showed relatively superior capacities compared to the control area UZPs in keeping important documents in their possessions that included UP operational manual, Guidelines for budget preparation, Guidelines for preparation of five- year plan, by laws (Upazila Parishad), Guidelines for tendering and Plan book. The control area UZPs were lagging far behind the project area UZPs on account of having plan books. Only 30 per cent of the control UZPs was found to have this in their possession, while 95 per cent of the project UZPs had this in their possession as revealed by institutional survey findings.

Table 4.23: Availability of laws, manuals, and by laws in the Upazila Parishads by type of area

Characteristics Project area Control area Upazila Parishad Manual 97.5 (39) 97.5 (39) UP operational manual 95.0 (38) 92.5 (37) Guidelines for the preparation for budget 100.0 (40) 97.5 (39) Guidelines for the preparation of five year plan 95.0 (38) 87.5 (35) Guidelines for the preparation of annual plan 90.0 (36) 37.5 (15) RTI Act 75.0 (30) 77.5 (31) Any by-law 77.5 (31) 35.0 (14) Guidelines for tendering 90.0 (36) 85.0 (34) Guidelines for procurement 87.5 (35) 87.5 (35) Plan book 95.0 (38) 30.0 (12) n 40 40

169 The positive effect of availability of such of laws, guidelines and manuals had been well manifested in better capacity of the project Upazila Parishads compared to the control area UPs on the front of their compliance with the public procurement rules. Endline institutional survey findings reveal that 75 per cent of the project area UZPs followed the procurement rules while 72.5 per cent of the control UZPs managed to comply with such rules.

Figure 4.12: Upazila Parishad’s compliance with the public procurement rules

4.2 Impact Assessment of Results – UZGP 2

4.2.1 Key Findings

Weaknesses:  Line department based at the project Upazilas were supposed to analyse their problems and prepare their sectoral priorities for their inclusion in the Upazila Five- Year Plans. But the challenge the UZPs faced was in making the transferred departments of the respective Upazilas agree to share the departmental information for creation of a sectoral vision such as a vision on education, health, agriculture, fisheries, livestock, social forestry, safe water supply etc.  A coordination gap existed between the Parishad and the line department officersls in general.  The project area Upazila stakeholders were given special training, facilitation and backstopping support by the UZGP with a view to activating the already formed Upazila Committees. The end line survey findings reveal that even in the project area not all the Upazila Committees could hold the required number of meetings. The control area

170 Upazilas were lagging far behind the project area Upazilas on this measure.  One of the important functions of the Upazila Parishads (UZP) was to coordinate activities of the UPs and those of the line agencies at the grassroots level. However, such coordination was found to be far from being effective.  Rate of lodging complaints against service provider was found to be negligible in both project (2%) and in control (0.6%) UZPs. Similarly, the rate of redressal of grievances was also found to be too low.

Strengths:  All project Upazilas had their Annual Plans, Five- Year Plans prepared following a participatory process  All project Upazilas had their annual budget prepared following the formats and procedures provided by the government . The Upazilas were found to be proactive in disclosing budgets through different means.  Upazila Governance Project introduced the innovative idea co-financing at the Upazila level. Co-financed schemes were found to be better managed and implemented than others because of strict monitoring from financiers. Also, the management process was more accountable and transparent as ownership was built on it.  UNCDF’s pilot intervention on improving the fiscal space of Upazila Parishads through a joint programme with UNDP with a budget of about US$19 million, which was initiated in 2012 has achieved major policy impact with the approach being scaled up for nationwide implementation by the government of Bangladesh with a JICA loan of US$154 million.  Overall quality of services provided by the line departments at the Upazila level has seen little improvement in endline compared to the baseline. In most cases, respondents graded the quality of services as “average” while in the baseline most were graded as “bad” meaning poor.  Quality of all the civic facilities at the Upazila level has also improved as they were rated as ‘average’ while in the baseline overall quality of them was rated as ‘bad’.  Accessibility to the UZP functionaries has significantly increased in both project and control areas compared to the baseline. In both project and control areas, Upazila Chairman was found to be the most accessible person to the community people.

4.2.2 Extent of Links of the Plans with the Line Departments The planning guidelines (2014) of the government suggest that activities and manpower of seventeen government directorates have been transferred to Upazila Parishad. Their respective directorate activities will be implemented under mid-term integrated plan of the Upazila

171 Parishad at the Upazila. Each line department will analyse their problems and prepare their sectoral priorities for their inclusion in the Upazila five- year plan. The UZP and the transferred departments are related to each other in a number of ways. The Upazila level KIIs reveal “Although officials no longer can attend meetings of the UZP as members as in the past, they still remain present whenever meetings are held. Their very presence can be considered an important step towards synchronising their activities”. Officials have to express their operational loyalty to the UZP which has certain reserved powers including recommending disciplinary actions. Theoretically, relation between the two is hierarchic, with the UZP enjoying power to require the transferred departments to account for their actions. The power is, however, limited in practice. The transferred departments provide the main source of expert advice to the UZP five- year plans. As the UZP has only a limited capacity to employ people with technical background, it has to depend on these central departments for support and services. It has the statutory responsibility to ensure that the activities of different departments are not done at random, but according to a plan of coordinated actions to the benefit of the people of the Upazila.

All Upazila Parishads attempted annual development plans under a five- year vision and scheme with the support from UZGP since 2012. During the field visits it was gathered that the main challenge those UZPs faced was in making the transferred departments of the respective Upazilas to agree to share the departmental information for creation of a sectoral vision such as, a vision on education, health, agriculture, fisheries, livestock, social forestry, safe water supply etc. The departments at Upazilas did not have any sectoral vision and plan of their own. When UZPs initiated such an exercise of making sectoral data base, vision, plan, and budget, in some cases necessary co-operation was not extended to the Parishads in time or it was not properly understood. Despite such limitations plan books were published which could be used as a reference in the future for having full-fledged UZP level development plans.

According to interviews with the key informants in preparing the five-year plan, the respective departments tried to focus on their departmental issues based on their own experiences and field observations. The evidence suggests that the most frequently appeared line departments which submitted their five-year plans to the Upazila Parishad. These included: LGED, Upazila Eduation Office, Upazila Youth Development Office, Upazila Women Affairs Office, Secondary Education Department, Upazila Livestock Office, and Upazila Agriculture Office, Upazila health office etc. During the field visits the UZP functionaries informed that guidelines have been developed and passed on to them to integrate the proposals of the line departments into the general operations and priorities of the UZP through the planning and budgeting process, and with funding arrangements from the UFF. Guidelines have also been developed on the UFF to guide the planning, budgeting and implementation process. A question was posed to the UZP functionaries as to whether the inputs from the line departments were sought before the preparation of the five- year plans. A significant number of functionaries representing both the

172 UZGP and control Upazilas alike answered in the affirmative. The line department officials informed that departments duly recommended schemes from their respective sectors and generally the Upazila Parishads also incorporated them as a matter of principle.

4.2.3 Upazila Committees: Effectiveness and Impact The roles of Upazila committees in Upazila Parishads were important to ensure effective service delivery at the grassroots level. Making the Upazila committees functional and more effective was one of the paramount agendas of the UZGP to promote UZPs’ transparency and accountability to people. The underlying assumption was that the truly functional Upazila Committees would assist UZPs to emerge as more participatory and democratic in their management and decision making process. According to the law, each of the Upazila Parishads is supposed to form one Upazila (standing) committee on each of subjects 'transferred' under the Upazila Parishads. The law allows the Upazila Parishads to define the terms of reference of these committees, including monitoring of subject services and the relevant Upazila officer will be the member-secretary of the respective Upazila Committee. The committee could also co- opt an expert on the related subject for its convenience of functioning. The Planning Guidelines (2014) suggest that each Upazila has to form 17 Upazila Committees following the Upazila Parishads Act. Each Upazila committee would deal with a specific sector and they are expected to collect information, process information, analyse and also preserve the collected information and assist the UZP in preparing the information book and five- year plan. Particularly, Upazila committees are supposed to contribute to the five- year plan by determining the long- term sectoral priorities and also by making relevant sectoral recommendations. Ideally, the Upazila committees are expected to play an significantly important role in the process of formulation as well as implementation of the Upazila five- year and annual plans. The deputed officials of different departments are supposed to convene the Upazila Committee meetings and act as the member secretary of such committees. The UZGP had a very strong focus on strengthening the Upazila Committees. Special training programmes were organised in different points in time for the Upazila Parishad stakeholders during the project period to make sure that all the Upazila Committees were formed and then made functional by the Upazila Parishads. The endline institutional survey findings suggest that in the UZGP project areas all the Upazila Parishads formed the Upazila committees. On the other hand, not all the Upazilas in the control area could complete the formation of the Upazila Committees at the time of the data collection as it is evident from the table below.

The survey findings also suggest that most of the project area Upazilas formed most of the Upazila Committees between 2013 and 2015. But the control area Upazilas took more time to form these Committees. This is indicative of the efforts made by the UZGP to form and activate the Upazila committees within the first few years of its operation.

173 Table 4.24 : Average number of committees formed during fiscal years of 2013 to 2016 or before

Year of formation of Upazila Project area n Control area n Committees 2015 – 2016 financial year 6.3 3 15.5 14 2014 – 2015 financial year 12.4 5 13.6 25 2013 – 2014 financial year 16.5 35 7.8 5 Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 17.0 1 - -

Note: n is number of Upazila

The following table shows that in the project area the Upazila Parishads completed the formation of the most important Upazila Committees compared to the control area Upazilas at the time of the survey which took place during the late 2016.

Table 4.25: Formation of important Upazila Committees

Important Upazila Committees formed meetings Project area Control area Communication and infrastructure development 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Agriculture and irrigation 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Primary and mass education 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Health and family welfare 100.0 (40) 84.6 (33) Youth and sports 100.0 (40) 84.6 (33) Women and children development 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Social welfare 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Fisheries and livestock 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Rural development and cooperative 97.5 (39) 89.7 (35) Financial management budget, planning and mobilisation 97.5 (39) 87.2 (34) of local resources Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking water 100.0 (40) 87.2 (34) n 40 39*

Note: * 1 case missing

Formation of the Upazila Committees was important, but the most important thing was to make these committees effectively functional. The project area Upazila stakeholders were given special training, facilitation and backstopping support by the UZGP with a view to activating the already formed Upazila Committees. The end line survey findings, however, reveal that even in the project area not all the Upazila Committees could hold the required number of meetings. The control area Upazilas were lagging far behind the project area Upazilas on this measure.

174 The table demonstrates that in the project area Upazilas on an average 85 per cent of the Upazila Committees could hold more than one meeting during the 2015-2016, whereas only about 65 per cent Upazila Committees were able to hold more than one meeting in the control area Upazilas. The superior performance of the project area Upazilas on this measure can be attributed to the UZGP’s systematic intervention to strengthen the Upazila Committees in the project area.

Table 4.26: Upazila Committee meetings (more than one) held during 2015-2016 (in %)

Project Control Upazila Committees area area Communication and infrastructure development 78.1 (25) 58.6 (17) Agriculture and irrigation 81.8 (27) 70.0 (21) Primary and mass education 84.4 (27) 71.4 (20) Health and family welfare 81.3 (26) 61.5 (16) Youth and sports 84.4 (27) - Women and children development 87.5 (28) 69.0 (20) Social welfare 80.6 (25) 64.3 (18) Fisheries and livestock 78.1 (25) 57.1 (16) Rural development and cooperative 87.1 (27) 62.1 (18) Financial management budget, planning and mobilization of local resources 80.0 (24) 38.5 (10) Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking water 90.6 (29) 64.3 (18) n 33 32

The UZGP imposed a few performance measures on making Upazila Committees functional so that these Committees could provide directions in preparing sectoral schemes. This indicator was very useful to enhance the democratic culture in the Upazila. The average scores obtained by the project area Upazilas in two rounds of independent annual performance assessments suggest that all the districts’ average scores on this measure have either increased or remained constant.

Table 4.27: Direction of Upazila Committees on sectoral schemes (average score)

Number of Average score obtained in Average score obtained in Districts Upazilas 2013 (out of 10) 2014 (out of 10) Barguna 6 0 3.00 Brahmanbaria 9 1.11 1.11 Khulna 9 0.33 3.89 Kishoreganj 13 0.54 1.08

175 Rangpur 8 0 2.88 Sirajganj 9 1.22 1.22 Sunamganj 11 1.45 1.45

It was a difficult indicator for the Upazilas to comply with, in general, given the complex dynamics of Upazila governance. However, there was a clear indication that the project Upazilas were gradually showing their relative better performance on this front. During the field visits it was informed by the functionaries of the project Upazilas that they provided sectoral recommendations to the UZPs and those recommendations were included in the FYPs without any distortion whatsoever. However, later they witnessed that only a few of their recommendations were considered while the Upazilas were implementing their annual plans. This was evident from the review of the documents during the field visits to Ullapara Upazila (Sirjaganj). It was gathered that the Upazila Committees recommended 86 sectoral proposals during 2014-15 out of which 19 scheme proposals were included in their annual plan which represented about 22 per cent of the total proposals made. The functionaries representing the UZGP Upazilas informed that most Upazila committees held coordination meetings with the line departments of the Upazilas to identify the sectoral priorities jointly. However, according to some close and face- to- face encounters with some key informants, separate coordination meetings did not take place in all the Upazilas visited, for ensuring sectoral coordination prior to the preparation of the five- year plan. The elected representatives indicated a general non-cooperation of officers to convene such meetings. In some cases, the elected representatives (UZP Vice-chairs) were not very keen to hold such meetings either. It seemed that they were not fully aware of the fact that proper functioning of these Committees would help them establish more control over activities of different departments at the Upazila level. On the other hand, an Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) stated, “UP chairperson did not want to attend Upazila committee meetings. They did not want the Upazila Committees to be active and functional as they feared that recommendations of these committees might override their own recommendations based on their own personal agendas”. Besides, a line department official pointed out, “UZP elected representatives tended to co-opt his/her “own men” in the Committee based on political considerations which forced the Committee structure to function properly and produce what was actually expected”. One of the important functions of the Upazila Parishads (UZP) was to coordinate activities of the UPs and those of the line agencies at the grassroots level. The issue of coordination was usually discussed in monthly meetings of the UZP where Chairmen of different UPs (as members) and officials of various Upazila level government departments had an opportunity to discuss issues related to the delivery of services at the local level. In practice, as it was gathered through KIIs during visits to the control area Upazilas, the UZP coordination meetings were far from being effective. Many UP chairperson observed that although they raised the issues of irregularities by Line Agency Officers (LAOs) in the delivery of services and/or lack of availabilities of services, rarely were these addressed in different Committee meetings. They

176 expressed dissatisfaction about the way their complaints were handled. However, in the project area because of the incentive structure developed through the medium of the performance grant the Upazila Parishads were found to have been more proactive in creating synergies between the activities of the Upazila Committees and the line departments. They also paid a lot more attention to this coordination function for ensuring the local sectoral service delivery as it was evident from the case study below.

A Remarkable Achievement on Promotion of Agriculture Services

The majority of the people of Zalma Union of Batiaghata Upazila under Khulna district are farmers, but due to poor service delivery by the Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officers (UP level agriculture extension officer), they used to follow the primitive methods of farming. They were ignorant about the existence of an Agriculture Officer posted at the Upazila level who could help them. When this union was included in the Union Parishad Governance Project, with the assistance from the district facilitator a few meetings were organised at the Union and Upazila levels. In these initial meetings, they discussed about the functions and responsibilities of different government service providing departments especially health, education and agriculture. In those discussion meetings, the problems, especially of the agriculture sector, were identified. Moreover, the members of the relevant Standing Committees also had meetings with the farmers to identify their problems. Once the problem identification was completed, relevant Chairs of Upazila and Union Parishad jointly took initiative to sit for a discussion meeting with both the Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officers (SAAO) posted to the Union. Then they also discussed the issue with the Upazila Agriculture Officer in presence of the district facilitators of the Union and Upazila Governance projects. In the meeting, the deliberate negligence and non-cooperation of the Agriculture Officers at the union level were pointed out but the meeting remained inconclusive. They decided to meet again. In the next meeting, after extensive discussion on the problem, the UAO invited suggestions on how to improve the service of the agriculture officials at the union level. The Upazila Chair placed before him block wise duty schedule for SAAOs prepared on the basis of their field survey. The UAO assured that their schedule would be strictly followed by the concerned Agriculture Officers. Since then both the SAAOs are rendering their services following the duty schedule and keeping close contact with the members of the local UP Chair. “It was a sigh of relief for the farmers and the villagers. Agricultural assistance was brought close to the community”, the UP members observed. This remarkable achievement to establish the rights of the farmers was the result of constant efforts and collaboration of the Upazila and Union Parishads and the support extended to them by the Upazila and Union Parishad Governance Projects. “The farmers of Zalma Union are now well aware of their rights and the functions and responsibilities of the government service providers” claimed the UP members.

177 4.2.3 Quality of Plan and Budget Making and Execution The UZGP focused on the qualities and the processes of planning and budgeting of Upazilas. The quality of plan and budget can be determined by its composition, the extent to which the existing legislations were followed in preparing plan and budget of UZPs. Quality of the UZP plans depends on many elements, among other factors, like vision, compliance with the rules, inclusiveness, reflection on multi-sectoral priorities and also on the level of integration of budget and plan with other LGIs and line departments. However, most importantly UZGP ensured the formulation of plan and budget first within the UZGP project area and then technical and financial resources were extended to other Upazilas of the country with a view to sensitising them towards the formulation of plan and budget. Following figures show the end line survey findings on the relative performance of the control and project UPs in terms of the formulation of five- year plans. The project area UZPs (98 per cent) were found to be way ahead of control area UZPs (58 per cent) on this account.

Figure 4.13: Upazila Parishad and formulation of five-year plan

When we compare the findings of the endline survey with the baseline it appears that significant positive changes have taken place in the project area UZPs.

Table 4.28: Formulation of Five-Year Plan

Endline Baseline Characteristics Project area Control area Project area Control area Yes 97.5 (39) 57.5 (23) 0.0 10.5 No 2.5 (1) 42.5 (17) 100.0 89.5 n 40 40 - -

None of the project area UZPs had their five- year plans before the UZGP interventions. Progress on this front was also noticeable in the control area UZPs when the baseline and endline findings are considered. The rate of change is observed to be lower than that of the

178 project area. According to field level visits and observations, plan documents existed in all the UZGP Upazilas. But the evidence suggests that the plans were prepared in haste to comply with the requirements imposed by the government. Therefore, in most cases they seemed to have lacked consistency, coherence and logical sequence. One important contribution of UZGP was that it offered capacity development training to the Upazila elected representatives and selected number of officials deputed at the Upazila level on planning and budgeting. The figures below show that officials of 95 per cent of project area UZPs and 73 per cent of the control area UZPs claimed to have received this training.

Figure 4.14: Elected representatives and Upazila officials received training on planning and budgeting

As a matter of fact, progress made in both the project and control area UZPs can be attributed to the positive role UZGP played in terms of undertaking capacity development initiatives of the Upazila officials. The Upazilas will retain such capacity even if the project is discontinued. The Upazila manual clearly envisaged that the Upazila Parishads are required to prepare five- year plans and also separate annual development plans. The legal framework also suggests that annual plans are to be prepared on the basis of the five- year plan and there should not be changes or serious deviation without valid reasons between these two documents (Upazila Parishad Act 2009, amended in 2011).

Table 4.29: Preparation of annual development plan by Upazila Parishad

Endline Baseline Characteristics Project area Control area Project area Control area Preparation of annual development plan Yes 90.0 (36) 75.0 (30) 42.9 48.2 No 10.0 (4) 25.0 (10) 57.1 51.9 n 40 40 - -

179 Endline Baseline Characteristics Project area Control area Project area Control area Availability of plan and budget guidelines Yes 100.0 (40) 92.5 (37) 100.0 96.0 No - 7.5 (3) 0.0 4.0 n 40 40 - -

The above table compares findings of the baseline and endline studies. The endline findings reveal that significant progress have been made by the project area UZPs compared to the control area UZPs over the period of last four years. Even in the control UZPs there is a clear indication of progress between the baseline and endline study period. In project areas 42.9 per cent UZPs prepared annual plan as it was revealed by the baseline survey, whereas 90 per cent of the project UZPs prepared their annual development plans as revealed by the endline survey. For the control area 48.2 per cent UZPs were found to have prepared annual plans (baseline) and endline survey reported that 75 per cent of them prepared such plans. These positive developments are directly linked with the UZGP’s sustained capacity building support to Upazilas along with its innovative Upazila level performance grant mechanism. Field visits reveal that in the control areas some Upazilas only prepared an annual budget document which they termed their ‘annual development plan’. In some Upazilas it was fouced the functionaries did not have clear knowledge about legal provisions on the preparation of annual plans. In some Upazilas the functionaries thought it was an unnecessary exercise to prepare the annual plan separately as annual plans were part of the five- year plans.

Now it is important to assess the situation on the front of vertical and horizontal integration of Upazila plans and also the linkage between the five- year and annual plans that were prepared by Upazilas. It is important to focus on the vertical and horizontal integration if a plan is to be an effective tool to achieve sound local development. It is widely believed that coordination enhances synergies between plans of different local government institutions and thus increases efficiency of the implementation of their plans. There are different coordination approaches such as dialogue, communication, finding mutual interest and management etc. which could be employed to this end. From the key informant interviews it was found that no direct coordination or synergy was found between the plans of Upazila and other tiers of local government namely Pourashavas and the Zila Parishads on account of identification, formulation, screening, ranking of development interventions.The UPs contribute to the formulation of five- year plans. The findings of our survey also confirm this reality.

180

Source: Mobasser Monem, An action research on the process and quality of budgeting and planning of Upazila Parishads, UNDP, 2016.

Figure 4.15: Vertical and Horizontal Integration of Upazila Plans

There was a clear lack of coordination observed among LGIs at different levels such as UZP and Zilla Parishad on the one hand, and Pourashava and UZP on the other. While important and considerable achievements have been made with regard to UP and UZP planning, the tiers of local governments are still not fully interlinked when it comes to planning. It is important to realise that with a view to ensuring an environment of inclusive and effective local development, the horizontal and vertical integration of the plans involving all the tiers of local governments is to be strengthened. But at present there is no such linkage within the plans of LGIs apart from UP and UZP plans. Besides, somewhat weak linkage was also found between the Upazila five- year plan and annual plan especially when utilising the ADP funds (Monem, 2016).

Table 4.30: Linkage between the Five Year Plan and Annual Plan-2014-15 (ADP Funded)

Number of Number of Percentage of the Total Number of proposed proposed schemes proposed Schemes proposed Name of schemes which of five year plan of the five year schemes in the Upazila were included in which were actually plan were actually five year plan the annual plan implemented implemented (2014-15)) (2014-15) (2014-15) (2014-15) Ullapara 46 36 36 78.3 Jagannatpur 33 11 11 33.3 Kishorganj Sadar 67 28 28 41.8 Betagi 22 6 4 18.2 Dumuria 31 18 7 22.6 Bancharampur 37 7 7 18.9 Pirganj There was no sector wise & year wise schemes found in the five year plan book of Pirganj Upazila. Source: Mobasser Monem (2016).

181 From the above table it appears that there was a weak linkage between the five- year and annual plans in case of utilisation of ADP funds. Now what explains this weak linkage? The UZPs prepare five- year plans with a host of schemes provided by the line departments and UPs. But while preparing their annual plans they tend to include schemes which were not proposed in the five- year plans. This is a clear violation of the existing laws which suggest that no budgetary allocation can be made for implementation of the schemes which were not part of the plan book of the Upazila (Upazila Parishad Act of 2009, amended in 2011). According to KIIs, sometimes these new schemes were superimposed by the MPs or by the elected representatives of the UZPs. On both occasions, the new schemes are included on political considerations and at times bypassing the standard approval procedures of the UZP. Many Upazilas of both the project and control areas also fell short of integrating their plans properly with the budget. The situation was found to be much worse in the control area than in the project area when an objective assessment was done. The credibility of the budget process relies on its capacity to set priorities, and allocate and manage resources as intended in order to reach the objectives. For ensuring this link it has to be kept in mind that what is not planned should not be budgeted. The Upazila Parishad Act (2009, amended in 2011) states that UZPs while preparing their budget should not allocate fund for the schemes which were not taken from the approved plan document. However, this stipulation was not always followed by all Upazilas as it was gathered from the KIIs with the Upazila officials during the field visits. New schemes always popped-up which required budgetary allocations. The UNO of a project area Upazila expressed his opinion in the following manner: “Upazila’s elected representatives still have a tendency to break rules and have their own way both in case of planning and budgeting. They do not tend to abide by the rule as they can get away with this”. Similar frustration was expressed by an engineer of a control area Upazila, as he stated, “Plans are plans, in most cases budget does not follow the plan. Whether the five- year plan will be followed or budget would be prepared based on it depends on the whim of the Upazila chairs”. But it is to be noted that although the budget and plans are generally prepared separately, some common actors remain engaged in both the processes including Upazila Chair, Upazila Nirbahi officer, Upazila Engineer, Upazila agriculture officer etc. The 2009 Upazila Act requires that the UZP prepare a budget, in accordance with directives made by the Ministry, at least sixty days before the commencement of a new financial year. The UZP budget is prepared with participation of officials of the line departments and UP chair which is approved in the UZP meeting with the consent of all members of UZP. Before finalising the budget, the UZP is required to seek public opinion, comments and suggestions about its draft budget by attaching a copy of it on the notice board of the UZP. After fifteen days of public display, the UZP shall consider the comments and suggestions of the public and approve the budget at least one month before the commencement of the next fiscal year. The Government has formulated rules prescribing the procedure to be followed in making the budget. According to the rules, known as Upazila Parishad Budget (Formulation and Approval) Rules 2010, the budget needs to have two parts: revenue account and development account.

182 Different forms are to be used to show income and expenditure separately. Table below compares the findings of the baseline and endline surveys on budget.

Table 4.31: Preparation of annual budget by Upazila Parishads Endline Baseline Characteristics Project area Control area Project area Control area Prepare budget each year Yes 100.0 (40) 100.0 (40) 57.1 39.3 No 0.0 0.0 42.9 60.7 n 40 40 - - Upazilas used the budget formats provided by the government Yes 100.0 (40) 85.0 (34) 50.0 39.3 No - 15.0 (6) 50.0 60.7

The table shows that hundred per cent of the Upazilas of both the control and project Upazilas have prepared their budget each year. A significant difference can be observed on this front when the findings of the baseline and endline studies are compared for both the project and control areas. However, the table also demonstrates that a higher level of capacity has been built within the project area UZPs on the front of preparing budget using the five formats provided by the government than the control area UZPs. This can also be seen as the UZGP’s direct contribution to effective Upazila governance in Bangladesh. Comprehensive but short duration training programmes on preparation of budget and plan were organised by the UZGP for the elected and deputed officers of the project area. Later on, the project also supported LGD’s initiative to provide training to all the Upazila officers of the country. 97.5 100 90 77.5 80 70 60 50

Percent 40 30 22.5 20 10 2.5 0 Project area Control area (n=40) (n=40) Yes No

Figure 4.16: Training received by elected representatives and officials of Upazila Parishad on budget preparation

183 By law, the budget is to be considered and sanctioned at a special meeting of the UZP by 31st May preceding the financial year to which the budget relates and a copy of it has to be submitted to the Ministry, the MP and the Deputy Commissioner as required under the Upazila budget rule of 2010. The Rules allow the formulation of a revised budget and re-appropriation from one head of account to another under certain conditions. No expenditure, however, can be incurred by the UZP in excess of the amount provided under each head in the budget. During the field visits a question was asked if the sampled Upazilas complied with the budget related legal provisions. The table below demonstrates the superior capacities of the project area UZPs compared to control area UZPs on account of compliance with the important budgetary procedures. When the baseline and endline findings were compared a significant progress was observed in project area UZPs in sending the draft copy of the budget to MP, each UP, Pourashava and local press club. As high as 90 per cent of the project area UZPs have been able to do this, while 88.2 per cent control area UZPs were in a position to do this. 4 higher level of performance of both the project and control UZPs was observed when the findings of the endline survey were compared with that of baseline on this account.

Table 4.32: Upazila’s compliance with other important budgetary procedure Endline Baseline Characteristics Project Control Project Control area area area area Sent the draft copy of budget to MP, each Union 90.0 88.2 71.4 42.9 Parishad, Pourashava, local press club etc. (36) (30) Published the draft budget in the own website of 90.0 29 21.4 14.3 Upazila Parishad. (36) (85.3) Discussion on the draft budget held in a special budget sessions held with the presence all the UP 80.0 55.9 members, Pourashava councilors, head of the 50.0 39.3 (32) (19) educational institutions, private organizations, bank, private entrepreneurs, and civil society. Budget was finalized after the discussion meeting 52.5 41.2 64.3 50.0 (21) (14) n 40 34 - -

The most spectacular progress has been demonstrated by the control area UZPs on account of sharing of budget on the own web portal of the Upazila Parishads. While only 21 per cent of the project area UZPs could comply with this at the time when baseline survey was conducted. A significantly high 90 per cent of the project area UZPs complied with this legal provision as revealed by the endline survey. However, in the control area, only 14.3 per cent of the UZPs

184 complied with this legal provision at the time of baseline survey and 21.4 per cent of the UZPs were in a position to comply with this provision at the time of endline survey. The superior performance of the project area UPs can be attributed to the special nature of facilitation and capacity building initiatives undertaken by the UZGP on this utterly important front. This progress can be visualised more clearly in terms of the graph presented below comparing the findings of the endline survey concerning the both project and control area UZPs.

Figure 4.17: Upazila Parishad's compliance with other important budgetary procedures as per rules

Another important area of compliance was with the provision of holding special budget meetings to have a discussion on the draft involving different Upazila level stakeholders. The graph shows that 80 per cent (endline survey) of the project area UZPs have been able to organise special budget meetings compared to 56 per cent of the control area UZPs (endline survey). At the time of baseline survey only 39.3 per cent of the control UZPs and 50 per cent of the project area UZPs were reported to have done this. UZGP encouraged the Upazilas to focus more on own source revenue mobilisation and also provided facilitation, technical advice and training to the Upazila officials. These initiatives directly contributed to the higher level of efforts and discipline on the part of the project area UZPs on own source revenue mobilisation and related issues. It was revealed by the endline survey that 90 per cent of the project area UZPs put special emphasis on enhancing own source revenue while only 56 per cent of the control area UPs were found to have given such a special attention. It appears from the table that 67 per cent of the project area UZPs had undertaken development projects using the own source revenue, while only 44 per cent of the control area UZPs reported to have done this.

185 100 90 90 80 67 70 56 60 50 44 40 Percent 30 20 10 0 Project area Control area Project area Control area

(n=40) (n=39) (n=24) (n=10)

Special emphasis on own source revenue Development project undertaken with own mobilization source revenue

Figure 4.18: Development projects undertaken by Upazilas using OSR

The figures below present the relative performance of the control and project area UZPs on the own source revenue mobilisation front based on the endline survey findings. From the figure it appears that average own source revenue generation increased significantly for the project area UZPs in each fiscal year during the UZGP intervention period compared to the control area UZPs. This extra revenue generation efforts made by the Upazilas in the project areas can very well be attributed to the UZGP’s sustained focus on improving the fiscal capacity of the Upazila

Parishads for ensuring effective local governance and local development.

Figure 4.19: Average amount of revenue (in BDT) collected by the project and control UZP (different years)

Findings of the institutional survey reveal that 88 per cent Upazilas of the project area provided higher level of priority to the MDG linked projects while making their budgetary allocations compared to the control area UZPs (67 per cent). This qualitative change achieved in terms of higher level of MDG linked budgetary allocations within the project area of UZPs in such a short time can largely be seen as one of the important contributions of UZGP.

186

Figure 4.20: Priority of MDGs in Upazila budget

Below is focus of the area of social sectors made their budgetary allocations during the 2015-16 fiscal year.

Figure 4.21: Relative budgetary allocations for MDG related schemes in the Upazila budget 2015-2016 (by percentage of Upazila)

The above figure shows the relative budgetary allocations for MDG related schemes in the budgets of both the project and control area UZPs. It appears from the figure that the project area UZPs are well ahead of their control area UZPs on all counts when their MDG related investment patterns are compared and this has been possible because of the UZGP’s strong

187 focus of changing the expenditure and the investment patterns at the Upazila level by backing it up with a systematically designed unique Upazila level performance based grant mechanism— which was first of its kind in the country at that level. One other important contribution of UZGP was creating an impact on promoting the idea of introducing open budget system at the Upazila level. Although government regulations do not require the Upazilas to hold open budget meetings. This was an initiative emphasised first by the UZGP to share the Upazila budget with the local stakeholders to solicit their opinions and comments before finalising it.

Figure 4.22: Open budget meeting

The above figures demonstrate the findings of the endline survey on relative performance of Upazilas on this front. It appears from the figures that 75 per cent of the project area UZPs took initiatives to organise open budget meetings for sharing their annual budget, while 59 per cent of the control area UZPs organised such meetings. From the Upazila level focus group discussion findings it appears that selective invitations were sent to citizens to attend open budget meetings organised by Upazilas. Generally, individuals who were close to the Upazila Chair or UP chairs or UNOs or vice-chairs were selectively invited to those meetings. Sometimes individuals’ political orientations were taken into consideration in decisions about who would be invited. However, the Upazilas were not always at fault, local people in some cases did not want to attend open budget meetings despite open invitations to all citizens. Some respondents “did not have interest in such meetings” and others opined that “they did not know if they would be able to play any meaningful role in such meetings” or “they were not given importance in the past when they attended such meetings”. Some respondents indicated that “the budget was too technical for them to understand” and therefore they were not interested in attending open budget meetings. Open budget meetings were not a completely effective mechanism to ensure citizens’ participation at the Upazila level. Either Upazilas did not make serious efforts to make meetings truly participatory processes or citizens were not keen to attend these meetings for one reason or another. Our Upazila level FGD findings are in line with the findings of the household

188 respondents and the Upazila service recipient’s exit point interviews on this front. Findings of both surveys indicate the general low level of local people’s awareness of and participation in the Upazila budget process.

Figure 4.23: Household Respondent's awareness of and participation in Upazila budget process

The above table compares the household respondent’s awareness of and their level of participation in the Upazila budget process. Only 4 per cent of the respondents of the project area UZPs and 2 per cent of the control area UZPs had idea about their Upazila’s budget. However, about 40 of those had some ideas about the budget in project area and 21 per cent of the control area also reported to have seen budget getting published in the local newspapers. With regard to attending the Upazila budget meetings the project area residents (8 per cent) seemed to have shown more interests in attending budget meetings than the control area residents (4 per cent). However, in both the cases the overall situation on this front indicates extremely low level of citizen’s awareness and participation. This was also confirmed by findings of the Upazila service seeker’s exit point survey.

Figure 4.24: Respondent's awareness of and participation in Upazila Parishad plan and budget meetings: Exit Point Survey

189 The exit point survey findings also show low level of awareness and participation in the budget and planning meetings organised by both the project and control area Upazilas. The findings demonstrate a higher level of citizen’s awareness level about Upazila budget and planning processes when the responses from the project and control areas were compared.

4.2.5. Co-financed Upazila Level Projects Upazila Governance Project introduced the innovative idea co-financing at the Upazila level. Co- financing is the act of participation of one or more stakeholders with financial contribution along with the main financer in a well thought out development intervention. The purpose was to make it economically and financially viable with ownership being spilt among multiple stakeholders for perpetuating benefit over a long period of time. Co-financing, in the context of LGIs, was the ‘additional fund’ that was leveraged in cash/kind from multiple sources. It could be in many forms such as finances, technology, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled manpower, knowledge, information, etc. The figure below shows the number of schemes co-financed by fiscal year.

Source: UZGP project data. Figure 4.25: UZGP Upazilas: Number of schemes co-financed by fiscal year

Each fiscal year a number of projects were co-financed in the project area. Out of the 554 schemes implemented with Upazila Governance project grant 278 projects were co-financed which represented about 50 per cent of the total. This was a new phenomenon in local government financing in Bangladesh. In the UFF guidelines it has been made mandatory to undertake infrastructure related schemes under co-financing mechanism. In addition to this, it was gathered from the KIIs with the Upazila functionaries that some co-financing initiatives were undertaken in other sectors including education. Some trust funds were created at the Upazila level to finance various schemes with funding from individuals, private organisations and NGOs.

190

Co-financing-- a life changer for the poor people of Annadanagar UP of Pirgaccha Upazila

Rangpur is one of the most poverty stricken regions of the country. Among different poor and disadvantaged Upazilas of this district Pirgaccha stands at the top. Upazila Health Complex of Pirgaccha did not have any ambulance which was considered the lifesaving component of a rural health service system. Only richer sections of the rural population could take advantage of the ambulance services on their own which they used to avail from the district town. In the absence of such a facility, rural poor had to depend on auto- rickshaws, rickshaw vans or scooters to carry the emergency patients to the Upazila health complex or other nearby hospitals. Two years ago, Rawshan Ara Begum of Rangpur’s remote Annadanagar village became pregnant for the first time, she sought no antenatal care. It was not the lack of awareness that stopped Rawshan Ara from visiting the Upazila Health Complex in Pirgaccha, about 10km from Annadanagar, for check-ups during her pregnancy. Rather, she dreaded the hour-long bumpy ride on a rickshaw-van. “It was a hassle to hire a rickshaw-van whenever I wanted to take her to the health complex, because vans were not always available in our neighbourhood,” said Rowshan Ara's husband Sirajul Islam. The situation would turn worse at night, when almost no transport was available, he added. “But those days are gone. Now the villagers have an ambulance,” Sirajul said. The Chair of the Annadanagar Union Parishad informed that “there had been numerous instances over the years in which many critically ill patients died while being carried by the slow moving rickshaw vans to the distantly located district hospitals”. The Union Parishad Chair felt the need to do something immediately on this front. He discussed this with the members of the UP standing committee on health. In a meeting they assessed the feasibility of buying an ambulance for providing emergency health services to the community. They decided to purchase an ambulance. To this end, the Chairman of Annadanagar Union Parishad Anwar Hossain, with the support from members of the UP Standing Committee (Health)decided to raise their own source revenue by organizing tax fairs and also by undertaking other measures in this UP. Finally, the UP was able to purchase an ambulance at Tk 12.73 lakh in 2015. Annadanagar Union Parishad provided over Tk 6 lakh from its own resources and combined it with the extended block grant it received from the UPGP, while Pirgachha Upazila Parishad added rest of the amount to purchase the ambulance with a view to reaching the government's health services to the people's doorsteps. The success of Annadanagar union Parishad in purchasing the ambulance with money of the common people to provide them with healthcare services at their doorsteps with a meagre hiring fee is seen as the milestone by the poor people of Anandanagar. More importantly, the UP provides free ambulance service to the poor families. The Chairman admitted, “I got the idea of purchasing the ambulance after I received training on the concept of co-financing which was introduced by the Upazila Governance Project and I was also influenced by the frequent advocacy done and workshop organised by the UZGP project officials on co-financing”.

191 The sectoral focuses of the co-financed projects varied significantly across Upazilas under the UZGP, according to KIIs. However, in general the co-financed projects were undertaken in education, public health and family planning, infrastructure, social welfare, agriculture and fisheries, women affairs and youth development sectors. The field level qualitative findings suggest that co-financed schemes were better managed and implemented than others because of strict monitoring from financiers. Also, the management process was more accountable and transparent as ownership is built on it. Therefore, it may have encouraged Upazila functionaries to intensify their efforts to mobilise more resources from private sectors to finance public goods. Co-financing aspect made the UFF schemes more transparent and it created ownership of scheme among the people as reported by elected and deputed officials while being interviewed during the field visits. They pointed out that the peer pressure worked there to make the schemes more successful.

Ullapara Upazila Education and Welfare Trust

Ullapara Upazila formed an education welfare trust in 2014. The trust's main objective was to improve the quality of the education as a whole at the Upazila. This education welfare trust aimed to inspire the poor brighter students and provide them with financial assistance. The trust was project co-financed. Upazila itself provided 8 lac take from its own source revenue as the seed money, different local NGOs and local philanthropists also came forward when the unique idea of UZGP was shared with them and they contributed 2 lacs. Upazila Parishad also used 10 lac taka from the Upazila Governance Project. The fund made available to them was provided under UFF grant. There was a provision for the local individuals to become life or general member of the trust. The subscription rate for being a life was set at taka 10,000 and taka 4,000 for a general member of the trust. A lot of enthusiastic local individuals made financial contributions to the trust fund and took the membership. The trust members were highly respected locally. As the trust funds started to increase it was decided in a Board meeting that the principal amount of this trust will never be spent under any circumstances. Board members decided to deposit the principal amount in a scheduled bank or post office bank-- wherever interest rate was higher. It was also decided that each year 80 per cent of the total interest received on the principal would be spent on the scholarship schemes and also on financing initiatives undertaken by the Upazila to improve the overall quality education within the Upazila boundary. The remaining 20 per cent of the interest was deposited to the principal amount for re-rolling. Through the medium of the Ullapara Upazila Education and Welfare Trust a lot of girl student’s education was supported, scholarships were offered to the poor but meritorious students. Upazila Parishad organised adult computer education programmes and also helped schools employ part-time teachers where there was a dire need for this. This is an amazing and unique model for other Upazilas to follow.

192 Most Upazilas, however, found it difficult to meet the requirements on developing partnerships with other entities for co-financed projects. Partnering with NGOs was an option for the Upazila Parishads. But some Upazilas were largely unaware of or unwilling to take advantage of the NGOs operating within the boundary of the Upazilas. A few UNOs pointed out that “NGOs were not interested to collaborate with the Upazilas”. They also reported that the indicators on this composite performance area were seen to be the most difficult ones to achieve by most Upazilas. A number of Upazilas could implement co-financed projects in the past years, but they failed to sustain this collaboration for a longer period of time for different reasons-- ranging from partner’s unwillingness to continue with the partnership to shift in the partner’s spending portfolios or partner’s budgetary crunch. Some of these situations in questions were beyond the direct control of Upazilas. Both the elected and the appointed officials alike in most Upazilas under the purview of this assessment held the views that finding partners on a constant basis or for a longer period of time was a real challenge for them.

4.2.6 Impact of Performance Based UFF on Upazila and how the Good Practices have been Replicated in other Interventions The UNCDF has supported a series of fiscal decentralisation interventions in Bangladesh. Its pilot interventions on improving the fiscal space of Upazila Parishads through a joint programme with UNDP with a budget of about US$19 million, which was initiated in 2012, has achieved major policy impact with the approach being scaled up for nationwide implementation by the government of Bangladesh with a JICA loan for US$154 million. In short period of four years, the UNCDF assisted the establishment of the Upazila Governance Project, and a grant financing mechanism for Upazilas, through which it disbursed about US$3.5 million over the period to support 14 Upazilas. The new project which was scaled up to the UNCDF pilot is named the Upazila Governance and Development Project (UGDP), and covering all 489 Upazilas of the country. The major elements of the new project are: performance based grants, capacity development and support services. The UZGP piloted a system of performance based grants to Upazilas consisting of three minimum conditions and 21 performance conditions. From the indicators used, JICA-supported UGDP has added one more minimum condition making it four minimum conditions and 16 performance conditions in four broad areas. The UZGP adopted a formula-based allocation, where pre-selected 14 Upazilas received an equal amount and additional performance-based grants on the basis of performance in governance areas. In open competition, 35 Upazilas received grants purely on performance basis. In JICA supported UGDP, both “absolute values” of scores and “year-on-year changes” in scores are taken into account, thus giving some due recognition to those Upazilas which can rapidly improve their performance but whose overall scores remain relatively low.

193

Figure 4.26: Mainstreaming of performance based grant at the Upazila level

Like UZGP, JICA-supported UGDP also adopts a direct fiscal transfer to Upazila Parishad account. Like UZGP, JICA-supported UGDP has focused on local infrastructure investments. They are broadly categorised into rural roads, educational and medical facilities, educational and medical equipment, water supply equipment, agriculture, disaster prevention, capacity development and other activities. Additionally, UZGP has flexibility of investing in soft-schemes (mid-day meal for school students, driving training for rural women) for MDG achievements, which have been included in JICA-supported UGDP project as non-infrastructure capacity building schemes. In UZGP, direct fiscal transfer was tested initially in 14 pre-selected Upazilas. Based on the lessons learned, it was opened for competitive process and thus expanded to a total 49 Upazilas in three years. Similarly, UGDP project has taken a phased approach, where 100 Upazilas will be provided with grants in the first year, and adding additional 100 Upazilas each year, covering all 489 Upazilas in five years. The key advantages that JICA-supported UGDP would enjoy from inputs of UZGP is the ready availability of five- year plans developed by all Upazilas and other governance improvement related capacity already built at the Upazila level by the UZGP.

4.2.7 Assessment of the Quality of Service Delivery System Filed data reveals that greater number of people visit project Upazilas (54%) compared to the control Upazilas (50%) on different occasions and on an average they visited the UZP office

194 twice in last 3 months. On the other hand, in exit interviews, lesser number of respondents in project Upazilas (18%) informed that it was their first visit to the UZP compared to those in control areas (25%). However, in both project and control areas people mostly visit the UZP in the morning.

In project areas, the most cited reasons for visiting the UZP was to receive health services (49%), followed by land related service (37%) and banking service (33%), law and order service (13%), fisheries and livestock service (12%). Other major purposes of visiting Upazila by the households were conflict resolution (9%), education related service (8.3%), family planning and agricultural services (7%). The baseline study also informed the similar issues as the reason for visiting the Upazila.

Awareness of services of UZP and types of services received The current study attempted to explore the extent to which people were informed about the services delivered by the line departments at the Upazila level. Field data reveals that the households in project upazilas are slightly better aware (73%) of the services of line departments than those in control Upazilas (72%). Respondents were asked to evaluate the quality of services of line departments at the Upazila level on a 5-point scale (Evaluation score-1. Very Good 2. Good 3. Average 4. Bad 5. Very bad) as it was done in the baseline. In most cases, respondents graded the quality of services as ‘average’ while in the baseline most of the services were graded as ‘bad’ meaning poor. This indicates a little improvement of the overall quality of services provided by the line departments at the Upazila level. No significant difference was found in the rating of services in project and control Upazilas.

Table 4.33: Respondent’s evaluation of services provided by the line departments Endline Baseline Characteristics Project Control Project Control area* area* area* area* Law and order 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Communication and infrastructure development 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Agriculture and irrigation 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Secondary and madrasa education 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Primary and mass education 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Health and family welfare 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Youth and sports 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Women and children development 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0

195 Endline Baseline Characteristics Project Control Project Control area* area* area* area* Social welfare 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Freedom fighter 2.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 Fisheries and livestock 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Rural development and cooperative 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Culture 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Forest and environment 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Observation, monitoring and controlling of 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 market price Finance, budget, planning and mobilisation of 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 local resources Public health, sanitation and supply of safe 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 drinking water Land related service 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0

Note: * Average score ; Note: Evaluation Score--1.Very Good, 2.Good 3. Average 4. Bad 5. Very Bad

Field data reveals that the services rendered by law and order, primary and mass education, secondary and madrasa education were rated by the households as “good” while these services were rated as “average” in the baseline and were termed as doing “better” than other departments. In addition to these, services provided by the department of freedom fighters were rated as “good” while its rating in the baseline was “bad”. On the other hand, rating of the quality of services including: communication and infrastructure, agriculture and irrigation, land, fisheries and livestock and public health has improved to “average” from “bad” in the baseline. In the endline rating of quality of services of health and family welfare department has remained unchanged to “average” while the quality of services of the departments of public health, sanitation and supply of water has improved to “average” from “bad” in the baseline. Around three- fourth of the community population were found to be unaware of the quality of services provided by some line departments. The departments of social welfare, freedom fighter, rural development and cooperatives, culture and sports, forest and environment are the examples of these departments. In addition, respondents gave their opinion on their satisfaction about certain civic facilities available at the Upazila level. Overall, the quality of all the facilities has been rated as “average” while in the baseline it was rated as “bad” (Table 4.30). Thus, an improvement of the quality of facilities in both project and control Upazilas has taken place over the baseline. In the baseline, respondents rated the quality of bus/truck/tempo stand and market/hat bazar as

196 “bad”, while in the endline these have been rated as “average”. Others including Upazila library and entertainment facilities were rated as “very bad” in the baseline while they have been rated as “average” in the endline.

Table 4.34: Household satisfaction on civic facilities Endline Baseline Characteristics Control Project Project area* Control area* area* area* Upazila Library 3.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 Entertainment 3.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 Sports field 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle congestion - - 4.0 3.0 Bus/ truck/tempo stand 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Market place 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Note: * Average score; Evaluation Score--1.Very Good, 2.Good 3. Average 4. Bad 5. Very Bad

Accessibility to the UZP functionaries has significantly increased in both project and control areas compared to the baseline (Table 4.31). Among all, similar to the baseline, in both project and control areas, Upazila Chairperson was found to be the most accessible person to the community people. The second most available person was Upazila Vice chair while the third next was Upazila Nirbahi Officer. Accessibility to Upazila woman Vice Chair was found to be slightly lesser than that of UNO while in the baseline UNO was less accessible than the woman Vice Chair.

Table 4.35: Household perception about accessibility to UZP functionaries/ officials Endline Baseline Characteristics Project area Control area Project area Control area Upazila Chair 79.8 79.9 56.4 59.6 Upazila Vice-chair 62.5 48.9 32.3 39.4 Upazila Woman vice-chair 44.7 38.4 27.34 35.7 Upazila Nirbahi Officer/UNO 49.5 50.6 25.6 27.6

Besides the peoples’ representatives, accessibility to the line department officials was found to be extremely low in both project and control Upazilas. However, overall accessibility to UZP functionaries and the officials was found to be higher in project Upazilas (37%) compared to that in control Upazilas (30%).

197 Beneficiary satisfaction: Households were asked to inform their expectations about the services from UZP. A number of them in project (30%) and control (18%) Upazilas expressed inability to express any demand for the services available at UZP. Among those who answered, majority of them in both project (17%) and control (18.3%) areas gave emphasis on infrastructure development while the second most preferred service in both project (14%) and control (13%) Upazilas was providing safety nets, grants and relief and the third most preferred service was seed and fertiliser assistance for agricultural development in both project (5.3%) and in control (4%) Upazilas. On an average, delivery of services provided by the UZP takes from 1 day to 2 months and requires 1-8 visits by the beneficiaries. No significant difference was found between the project and control areas in this regard. Exit interviews informed that issuance of ration card, land records, school related services, and internet service, take on an average 16 days and require on an average 3 visits to the UZP office by the beneficiaries. Providing the community with irrigation and spray machine, loan/grant and sewing machine takes longer—i.e. on an average, 36 days and requires on an average 4 visits to the UZP office. Besides, getting agricultural training/information, advice from social welfare office, health service requires 1-2 days and 1-2 visits by citizens. However, in project areas 54 per cent while in control areas 40 per cent of the respondents expressed their satisfaction over the timeliness of service provided at the UZP.

Figure 4.27: Level of satisfaction with the timeliness of services received from Upazila Parishad

A smaller number of respondents of exit interviews also informed that they need to spend money to get UZP services and this rate was lower (6%) in project UZPs than in control UZPs (17%). The study observed that the practice of spending money for service exists more in UPs than in UZPs. In terms of responsiveness also, providers of project UZPs were rated as more sincere (43%) and friendly (54%) than they are in control UZPs (sincere: 20%, friendly behavior:35%). Project

198 Upazilas also reported no discrimination in service provision for women although in control UZPs a small portion of the respondents (2.3%) reported so. It is worth noting that women face discrimination in receiving services more from UPs than from UZPs.

Rate of lodging complaints against service providers was found to be negligible in both project (2%) and in control (0.6%) UZPs. Similarly, the rate of redressal of grievances was also found to be negligible. In project UZPs 4 out of 6 persons while in control UZPs 1 out of 2 persons reported redressal of their grievances.

Thus overall service provisions in project Upazilas were found to be better than that of control Upazilas. In project Upazilas 62 per cent of the respondents expressed satisfaction over the quality of services they receive while in control Upazilas 42 per cent of them expressed satisfaction.

Figure 4.28: Satisfaction with overall quality of services received from Upazila Parishad

Respondents were also prompted to offer some suggestions to improve the nature and quality of services at the local level. The prime suggestions of respondents in both project and control areas included making service delivery faster, pro-people attitude of the elected representatives and their responsible behavior, wide publicity about the services available at the UZP, increased community participation in UZP activities and increased supervision of UZP activities.

199 4.3 Output 3 – Impact output of Results Output 3

4.3.1: Key Findings

 The PAG has been formed and over the years, it seems to have been fairly institutionalised. The PAG has taken pro-active initiatives to identify some critical areas of policy research.  The PAG has reviewed all major research works and provided critical and specific feedback to the research and policy review exercise.  The PAG seems to have been evolved as an internal body for intellectual exercise and policy research work for the LGD.  Major policy decisions on the regulatory framework, reform initiatives, new innovations, and interventions are regularly reported to and discussed in the PAG.  Secretary of LGD himself recognised the importance and the need for engagement of the PAG in various meetings and requested the PAG members for necessary insights and ideas for further reforms and innovations to ensure good governance in the local government.

4.3.2 Policy Advisory Group (PAG) In order to ensure a broadly informed and participation based policy development around the LG framework, a Policy Advisory Group with experts from government and academia has been formed under the auspices of the project.

The TOR of the PAG includes: a. Review and recommend the existing rules, regulations, law and suggest necessary amendments, addition and revisions and omissions; b. Propose necessary policies, regulations and suggest approaches to capacity building of Local Government institutions (LGIs) at various levels; c. Act as a platform to review and analyze applied issues as regards Local government, suggest critical and priority areas of policy research on LG affairs, explore areas of discourses and issues for consultative sessions with various stakeholders; d. Advise and support the formulation of various rules, regulations, and by-laws on local governance issues; e. Undertake review and advise the LGD as regards various lessons learned and best practices drawn from the UPGP and UZGP projects for the wider implementations and replications. The PAG will also assist the LGD with methodological approaches in undertaking such replication exercises;

200 f. Provide suggestions/ recommendations to the LGD for further strengthening the local government system. g. Advise the LGD with ideas and innovations for appropriate and innovative utilisation of international development assistance for good governance at local level.

Members of the PAG have been drawn from experts from academia, researchers, civil society and professionals of the government. In addition, the senior members of the management of LGD are ex-officio members of PAG. The Secretary LGD acts as the Chair of the PAG and representatives from relevant ministries are also inducted as members of the PAG

As per the project design, the PAG has developed a national framework for policy and capacity development for local governance – which is currently under active review. The PAG meetings have reviewed and discussed various issues like the appropriate use of M&E data and its use for enhancing the quality of local governance. Furthermore, the PAG has reviewed all policy research papers being prepared under the projects.

The PAG has also reviewed the research papers on laws, rules and regulations, policy studies on service delivery, fiscal management, capacity building, institutional reforms and innovations and has provided necessary recommendations for further improvements/ modifications. Furthermore, the PAG acts as the think- tank of the LGD.

The PAG has played a strategic role in bringing in a number of institutional and procedural reforms within LGD. Under the guidance and active support of the Secretary LGD, the PAG has played a catalyst role in pursuing the decision for the creation of an additional position of an accountant cum computer assistant at the UP. The roll-out of this decision will take place over the coming years, according to the ministerial order.(Minister of Finance Order, Reference No: 07.00.0000.129.15.005.12-73, Date 03.06.2014) Another important initiative of the committee is the reallocation of funds flow to LD salaries at UZP level to go through the UZP. If realised, this enhancement of UZP discretion could change the dynamics of the relationships between UZPs/UPs and the LDs by strengthening horizontal accountability and oversight in favor of the elected UZPs and UPs and assist the standing committees of being more responsive to the needs and demands of the constituents. The PAG has reviewed the following legislative or regulatory instruments that have been designed with the technical assistance from the projects:

201 List of Rules and Regulations drafted by UZGP and UPGP Sl Title Category Project Upazila Parishad (Maintenance and Publication of Record, 1 Rule UZGP Reports, etc.) Rules, 2014 Upazila Parishad Fund (Custody, Administration, 2 Rule UZGP regulation and Investment) Rules, 2014 Upazila Parishad (Maintenance of Accounts and Audit) 3 Rule UZGP Rules, 2014 4 Upazila Parishad Employees (Service) Rules, 2010; Rule UZGP 5 Upazila Parishad (Appeal against Orders) Rules, 2014 Rule UZGP Upazila Parishad Chairmen, Vice Chairmen and Members 6 Rule UZGP (Resignation, Removal and Vacation of Office) Rules, 2014 7 Upazila Parishad (Tax) Rules, 2014 Rule UZGP Upazila Parishad (Conduct of Business) Model Regulations, 8 Regulation UZGP 2014 Upazila Parishad (Conduct of Meetings) Model 9 Regulation UZGP Regulations, 2014 Upazila Parishad (Delegation of Power) Model Regulations, 10 Regulation UZGP 2014 11 Union Parishad Regulation, 2014 Regulation UPGP 12 Union Parishad Disclosure Guideline, 2014 Guideline UPGP 13 MDG Planning Guidelines Guideline UPGP

202

PART – V ECONOMIC ANLALYSIS OF THE PROJECT [UPGP/UZGP]

5.1 Key Findings

The project has achieved value for money – the es mated rela ve BCR has been recorded as 8% in UPGP and 18% in UZGP. Such high values suggest the project has been very successful in achieving value for money. Poverty es mates suggest that the incidence of poverty in project households has reduced by about 5 percentage points in project household compared to the control household. It is evident that some form of new fiscal space seems to have been created in the project interven on areas. A marginal increase of 2.6% in the Gross Fixed Capital forma on (GFC) has been no ced in the treatment UZP as against the control UZP. Revenue growth has been impressive. An average revenue growth in project UP 26.8 % compared to average revenue growth of 18.0 % for control UP. The 8.8 percentage point difference in revenue growth may be a ributed to the interven ons in the project areas. UZP revenue growth has also been impressive. Average revenue size (i.e. 18 million BDT) of project UZP is substan ally higher than the average revenue size of control UZP (i.e. 9 million BDT). The size difference (almost 2 mes) in revenue growth may be a ributed to the interven ons in the project areas.

5.1.2 Economic Analysis of the Project (UPGP) Na onal development strategies largely depend on resources (ﬁnancial/physical/knowledge) because without them carrying out development ac vi es become quite impossible. In order to con nue development and prosperity, stable and reliable sources of resources are really important. It does not ma er whether resources are collected from the local administra ve area or the na onal budget fund.

203 5.1.2 Trend Analysis of Grants, Revenues and Investments in Programme and Control Areas Stable sources of resources are the precondition for sustainable institution building. Local governments normally generate fund by collecting their own revenues through taxation, charging fees, rents, and receiving grants from government, and development assistance from other internal and external agencies.

5.1.3 Resource Mobilisation and Fiscal Space Output 2 of the UPGP focuses on strengthening innovations in ‘Pro-Poor and MDG-Oriented Planning, Financing and Implementation of Service Delivery by Union Parishads. An important instrument to achieve such goal is to increase resource mobilising from local sources. Revenue mobilisation trends for FY12 to FY16 both for ‘project’ UP and ‘control’ UP are presented in Figure 1. Revenue mobilisation has increased in both the areas. The main source of revenue is revenue base - local income (or local GDP). Sustained and strong economic expansion in Bangladesh over the last decade (i.e. more than 6 per cent real economic growth or real GDP growth; 14 per cent nominal economic growth and nominal GDP growth) has trickled down to local economy leading to an expanded local economy base. Ceteris paribus, the expanded local economy base led the increase of revenue both in ‘project’ areas and ‘control’ areas. In both of these areas, a high revenue growth rates in the range of 38 (control) - 46 (project) per cent has been observed for FY13 – the rates thereafter stabilise between 8 (control UPs) and 20 (project UPs) for remaining fiscal years. The jump in revenue growth in FY13 is perhaps due to the move from a very low base to relatively higher base. One could argue that in the project area such a rise may be due to project interventions. What could then explain the jump in the control areas? This may be due to improvement in revenue collection effort as well as a result of better documentations. However, average revenue growth in project UP has been found 26.8 per cent1 compared to average revenue growth of 18.0 per cent for control UP. The 8.8 percentage point difference in revenue growth in ‘project’ UP over ‘control’ UP may be attributed to interventions in the project areas.

Figure 1: Revenue Mobilisation Trends-Project and Control Union Parishad Source: Endline Survey 2016

1 Consolidated Annual Report on Activities Implemented under theJoint Programme “Union Parishad Governance Programme(UPGP)” in Bangladesh (March 2015), stated that ‘Revenue mobilization by the UPs improved, with average revenue mobilization increasing by 25%.’

204 Box 1: Success story in revenue generation2

A review of selected success stories envisages the importance of interventions in raising local level revenue. For instance, Annodanogor UP, Pirgacha of Rangpur, has been able to raise the local revenue from BDT 58,228 in FY12 to BDT 819,643 in FY16 recording more than 1300 per cent growth in 4 years. The underlying factors behind such a significant growth could be attributed to specific UPGP interventions. These include: (i) Relevant training and (ii) Awareness campaign and collection processes.

Training: The Project designed two- day training programme on planning and management for the UP Chairmen, Secretaries, Members and Union Information Service Center Entrepreneurs with special focus on tax assessment and collection process in 2012-2013. Such training has been followed by a day-long training on Own Source Revenue mobilisation for the Key Standing Committee members in 2014-2015. It was further reinforced by a two- day Financial Management training for key Standing Committee members of UP in 2013-2014. The UPs have also organised awareness raising event on own source revenue. All such interventions and initiatives likely to have contributed to higher level of tax collection from the community. Most importantly in 2015, UPGP with the support from the Ward Shava initiated special moves to have a community initiated tax assessment, and motivate and inspire the tax defaulters to pay their taxes in time.

Awareness Building: With the active support of the UPGP, the Union Parishads organised Tax fair, community level announcements through loud speakers, staging awareness drama, folk song on tax payment, rally, discussion session, incentive and award for the best taxpayer.

The increase in revenue is a clear indicator of expanding revenue space but may not necessarily mean an expansion of fiscal space according to available definition and measures. Heller (IMF)3 has defined fiscal space as “the availability of budgetary room that allows a government to provide resources for a desired purpose without any prejudice to the sustainability of a government’s financial position”. This definition has been widely used to assess the fiscal space. The OECD has developed a simpler method of assessing fiscal space based on a “direct financing capacity” indicator. For our analysis we have tried to assess the structure of local level budget between revenue share (local revenue) and matching transfer of grants from the central budget (Table 1).

2 For details please refer to pages 40-41, ‘Annual Report 2015’-UPGP. 3 Peter S. Heller (2005), “Understanding Fiscal Space”, IMF Policy Discussion Paper, PDP/05/4, Fiscal Affairs Department.

205 Table 1: Local level budget structure Project UP Control UP Revenue Share Grant Share Total Revenue Share Grant Share Total FY12 4.2 95.8 100.0 4.5 95.5 100.0 FY13 3.7 96.3 100.0 5.2 94.8 100.0 FY14 3.9 96.1 100.0 5.1 94.9 100.0 FY15 4.7 95.3 100.0 5.1 94.9 100.0 FY16 5.6 94.4 100.0 5.3 94.7 100.0

Source: Endline Survey 2016

The above table shows that around 95 per cent of the budget comes from the central authority and this overwhelming dependence is present in both project and control Unions. The dependence on the grant was relatively pronounced in project Unions but the slow and steady progress in revenue has been reducing the dependence on central grant while the dependence on the central grant was more or less 94 per cent. Therefore, the local level budget structure reveals heavy reliance of central level transfer.

The revenue mobilisation scenario in Upazila is different compared to Unions. The trend of revenue mobilisation for FY12 to FY 16 in treatment and control Upazila is presented in the following figures.

Figure 2: Growth in Revenue Mobilisation-Project and Control Upazila

Source: Endline Survey 2016

Although the average size of UZ revenue is significantly higher than the average size of UP revenue, similar to Union Parishad, revenue mobilisation has increased in both areas – project and control. Again the main source of revenue is revenue base – Upazila income (or UZ GDP).

206 Sustained and strong economic expansion in Bangladesh over the last decade led to the expanded local economy and hence revenue base. Ceteris paribus, the expanded local economy base led the increase of revenue both in ‘project’ areas and ‘control’ areas. In both of the areas, a high revenue growth rates in the range of 53 (control) - 52 (project) per cent has been found. Moreover, the average revenue size in project Upazila is almost double that of the size of the control Upazila. The larger size of revenue mobilisation in project UZ over control UZ may be attributed to interventions in the project areas. Like the Union Parishad, the structures of Upazila level budget have also been reviewed taking into account the revenue share (local revenue) and matched grant transfers from the central budget (Table 2). Contrary to the Union Parishad budget structure, the Upazila level budget structure reveals higher shared responsibility between local and central level resources. In the case of project UZ, the own resource is around 49 per cent, while in the case of control UZ, the corresponding share is around 46 per cent. These statistics suggest that Upazila under the ‘project’ has been able to reduce dependence on the central by about 5 percentage points compared to the ‘control’ Upazila.

Table 2: Local level budget structure (Upazila) Project UZ Control UZ Revenue Share Grant Share Total Revenue Share Grant Share Total FY12 55.9 44.1 100.0 32.6 67.4 100.0 FY13 39.2 60.8 100.0 38.1 61.9 100.0 FY14 44.6 55.4 100.0 51.1 48.9 100.0 FY15 47.2 52.8 100.0 55.3 44.7 100.0 FY16 57.2 42.8 100.0 48.1 51.9 100.0 All 48.9 51.1 100.0 45.5 54.5 100.0

Source: Endline Survey 2016

5.1.4 Assessment on Changes in Resource Base of UP and UZP The previous analysis shows that at both Union and Upazila level, grant has a major share in the local level budget. But the Unions have overwhelming dependence on grant and consequently have a low level of the resource base. The positive side is that the revenue share has been increasing over time and hereby the dependence on grant is declining slowly. The scenario is almost similar at Upazila level. But the striking feature is that there is a significant gap between the treatment and control Upazilas in terms of grant dependence. In the last FY, nearly 54 per cent revenues have been generated by the treatment Upazilas on an average, which was 43 per cent in control Upazilas.

207 5.1.5 Assessment on Changes in the Pattern of Utilisation of Funds The trend of revenues in Unions and Upazilas in treatment and control areas has been discussed and the role of the programme has been assessed. The incremental own resources and the overall resources generated or collected at local level can bring benefits to the community, households or individuals. The resources can be spent on development activities as well as for non-developmental activities. The developmental expenditure is expected to contribute to meeting the goals and targets while the non-development expenditure can smooth the process of developmental activities. It will be interesting to know the most important component of budget heads in the treatment and control areas. A perception result has been generated and reported in the following table:

Table 3: Component of budget* Endline 2016 Indicator Project area Control area Main items/components of budget Physical infrastructure 76.7 66.4 Health or Sanitation/installation of latrine 46.7 36.1 Development of educational institutions 42.5 23.5 Management of natural resources 3.3 0.8 Sewerage and waste disposal management 15.8 8.4 Poverty reduction through employment generation for the poor 7.5 3.4 Tax collection 33.3 48.7 Income from the leased out hats and markets 17.5 21.8 Trade license 18.3 28.6 Transport registration fee 5.8 6.7 Honorarium for Chairman and Members 6.7 8.4 Office Establishment cost/Maintenance cost 26.7 26.4 Food for works program/TR/VGD/VGF/40 days work program 2.5 5.0 Woman empowerment/woman and child development 10.8 2.5 Income from own asset 2.5 1.7 Government grant 10.8 5.9 Land development tax 1.7 9.2 Honorarium 9.2 16.8 Birth and death registration 0.8 3.4 Birth registration 1.7 4.2

208 Endline 2016 Indicator Project area Control area Agriculture and market development 30.8 17.6 Salary of village police - 0.8 Tube-well and water supply 5.0 2.5 Inheritance certificate 0.8 - Human resource development 6.7 1.7 Disaster management 3.3 1.7 Transfer of immoveable property - 1.7 LGSP 1.7 10.9 Expenditure for UDC 0.8 1.7 Development allowance 2.5 - Assistance for the Poor - 2.5 House building 0.8 0.8 Training 0.8 - Solar panel 0.8 0.8 Social security 2.5 - Entertainment 0.8 7.6 ADP 0.8 2.5 Games and sports 2.5 0.8 n 120 119 *multiple responses Source: EndlineSurvey 2016

As shown in Table 3, very few sectors or areas received greater portions of budget or became the focal points as components of the budget. For the Project area, physical infrastructure was the most priority sector and among 120 unions in the treatment areas, around 77 per cent reported that physical infrastructure was the major sector in the budget while that was 66 per cent in control areas. The second priority sector is health and the third component is education. The other components like institutional management, socio-economic transfers, and cultural components are also reported by the respondents, but their relative importance is not much, mostly because of a small fraction of resources is spent on those sectors. The priority sectors have been reported in the previous table and so, they really spend on those priority sectors. The perceptional expense preferences have been reported in the following table:

209 Table 4: Items where resource/amount of revenue spent in last financial year (2015-2016)

Indicator Project area Control area Salary and allowances for employees/honorarium for 49.6 41.7 chairman and members Office Establishment and management 72.6 65.7 Development of educational institutions 17.1 21.3 Health 13.7 20.4 Development of Road, Culvert, Water supply 46.2 56.5 Agriculture, irrigation 8.5 11.1 Hospitality 19.7 25.0 Recruiting employees 4.3 2.8 Information technology 2.6 3.7 Woman development 2.6 4.6 Poverty eradication 1.7 0.9 Electricity bill payment 17.1 13.9 Relief and grants 6.8 6.5 Sanitation, Sewerage, printing and stationary 22.2 16.7 Furniture 2.6 - Computer - 0.9 Expenditure for tax collection 0.9 0.9 Educational implements 0.9 - n 117 108 Source: EndlineSurvey2016

Only the fiscal/financial year 2015-2016’s data have been discussed in table 4. This data is based on the specific items or areas where the amount of revenue was spent. Not surprisingly, over 73 per cent unions reported that a major portion of the budget is spent on the office establishment and management which was over 65 per cent in control areas. Salary and allowance for employees/honorarium for chairman and members also hold important expenditure components as reported by 49.6% of the respondents. Around 46% respondents reported that a significant portion of the budget is spent on development of road, culvert, water supply, and sanitation, sewerage, printing and stationary.

Major investment pattern in treatment and control area unions Sectors have been categorised on the basis of the relative share in total investment. The comparative picture of investment in the project and control areas for the fiscal year 2015-16 has been reported in the following figure.

210

Figure 3: Major investment pattern in treatment and control area unions (FY 2015-16) Source: EndlineSurvey 2016

The figures show that the treatment unions spend more on health, education, poverty alleviation compared to control unions. The control unions spend more on infrastructure for communication and other sectors compared to treatment unions. The analysis can then be translated in the way that treatment unions invest more in the line of the national policy like the MDGs compared to control unions. The scenario of the investment pattern in treatment and control unions gives us an understanding of the investment preference of the unions. A trend analysis for the period FY13 to FY15 has been done and the results have been reported in the following table.

Table 5: Trend of major investment expenditure under budget at union level (expenditure share)

Treatment UPs Control UPs 2013-14 2014-5 2015-16 2013-14 2014-5 2015-16 Education 5.43 6.44 6.83 4.38 4.14 5.39 Agriculture and Irrigation 2.81 4.44 2.94 4.64 2.33 2.47 Health 4.91 7.95 7.40 6.95 6.52 5.57 Infrastructure for communication 69.77 55.47 52.88 66.74 48.17 53.82 Poverty Alleviation 9.43 11.81 13.62 9.76 16.62 10.81 Others 7.66 13.89 16.32 7.54 22.22 21.93 Source: EndlineSurvey 2016

By analysing this table, it can be claimed that infrastructure for communication is the most important part of investment expenditure in both the project UPs and the treatment UPs. Poverty alleviation and other activities also hold a greater part. But surprisingly, in the control

211 area, education, health and social sector are quite neglected. Comparatively, treatment UPs are doing better in those sectors. The major investment sectors in Upazila are physical infrastructure, education, health, agriculture, poverty alleviation, women and youth development. As shown in table 6, control Upazilas, like the control unions, have more emphasis on the physical infrastructure development, whereas the treatment Upazila focuses on social and economic development. For example, in FY 2013-14, of total investment in the treatment areas, around 43 per cent was allocated for physical infrastructure while the corresponding figure was around 50 per cent in control areas. In FY 2015-16, compared to FY 2013-14, the investment share of physical infrastructure declined in treatment Upazila but increased in control Upazila and reached 65.4 per cent. On the other hand, in FY 2015-16, the investment in education and health constitutes over 40 per cent in treatment Upazila whereas in control Upazila it was around 20 per cent.

Table 6: Trend of major investment expenditure under budget in Upazila (expenditure share)

Treatment UZPs Control UZPs 2013-14 2014-5 2015-16 2013-14 2014-5 2015-16 Physical infrastructure 43.10 54.18 35.20 49.93 53.24 65.42 Education 22.48 17.46 15.69 20.86 16.14 9.38 Health 18.74 14.02 26.98 13.29 21.07 10.78 Agriculture 7.64 6.32 7.13 5.40 5.81 4.34 Poverty, women, and youth 5.88 5.85 9.84 2.03 3.32 9.39 Others 2.16 2.17 5.16 8.48 0.43 0.69 Source: Endline Survey Data (2016)

Although there is an increasing trend in the investment in poverty alleviation, women and youth development in treatment and control area, the treatment Upazilas were investing more resources in alleviating poverty, developing women and youth issues such as women empowerment, youth employment and development.

Figure 4: Trend of investment on poverty alleviation, women and youth development Source: Endline Survey Data (2016)

212 The above figures show that in FY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the share of investment in poverty alleviation, women and youth development about about 6 per cent in treatment Upazila but in control area, the investment share was half of the investment share in treatment areas. A positive scenario is that both control and treatment Upazila has increased the investment shares on these three social development indicators: poverty alleviation, women development, and youth development.

A comparative scenario on investment in women development is shown in the following figure:

Figure 5: Trend of investment in women development (Union) Source: Endline Survey 2016

The control Unions relatively spent a lower fraction of budget for women development, while the treatment Unions spent comparatively more resources on women development. The figures show that in FY 2015-16, the treatment Unions spent 4.32 per cent of the resources for women development while the control Unions spent only 1.52 per cent.

5.1.6 Impact on how investments benefit the communities, including poor household and gender

The previous discussion reveals that the treatment Unions and Upazilas have shown efficiency in resource mobilisation and pro-social development investment preference. The efforts will be considered to be fruitful if they benefit the mass people. Therefore, a question arises, how the people will benefit from the initiatives taken by the Union and Upazila. First of all, the benefit will be generated from the services the people receive from the Union and Upazila. Secondly, the benefit may be accrued to the individual, household, or even to a broader scale like community.

213 Table 7: Perceived benefits received through services from UP by type of area (%) Indicators Project area Control area Benefits received through services Insolvency decreased by VGF/VGD/TR/cheap rate rice etc. 33.4 37.0 Family/land related conflict has been eliminated 1.6 2.0 Birth certificate and Nationality certificate became 48.2 48.9 useful/essential in performing various important works Family’s financial condition improved 7.4 5.4 Benefited in crop cultivation 1.6 2.2 Received latrine/Sanitation facility 0.8 0.2 Received electricity 0.3 0.8 No benefit 1.7 0.3 Others* 0.7 0.4 N 1541 1562 Note Others*: Children’s health have become secure due to vaccination, Women of the community have been benefited

The above table shows that Union Parishad has been successful in many areas and has generated benefits for its inhabitants. Among these benefits, insolvency in VGF/VGD/TR/low cost rice was solved by the Union Parishad. In the project area, insolvency decreased by 33.4% and in the control area, insolvency decreased by 37%. Usefulness of the birth certificates or nationality certificates was found more effective in the control area (48.9%) than the project area (48.2%). Only these two kinds of services seemed to be properly used by the villagers. The respondent in the treatment union agreed upon that they have benefited through the household level income improvement. Now the question arises, who became the beneficiary of these services? The following table shows that families were the most satisfied group. In the project area, almost 76 per cent of the families benefitted while 77 per cent of the families in the control area received the services. Self category is the second highest in this case. In comparison to the baseline scenario, the benefits accrued to the individual, households, and communities have increased invariably. The individual, households, and community level benefit was higher in treatment areas in baseline and the gap has been sustained over the period and somewhere they have widened mostly due to the project intervention.

Table 8: Who benefited through services from UP (% of respondents) Endline Baseline

Project area Control area Project area Control area Self 67.3 66.9 45.0 42.6 Family 75.5 77.4 50.5 49.3 Community 37.4 30.8 25.0 19.6 n 1541 1562 1880 1880

214 The above table shows that benefits have been accrued to individuals, households, and community as a whole. These aggregate pictures do not reveal how much satisfaction has been generated by those services. The following table shows the level of satisfaction of the individuals in endline and baseline survey periods.

Table 9: Satisfaction level with service delivery system of UP by type of area Endline Baseline

Project area Control area Project area Control area Very satisfied 12.7 8.6 6.06 3.98 Satisfied 44.7 50.6 38.36 22.28 Fairly satisfied 33.6 33.6 54.55 67 Not satisfied 8.9 7.2 1.03 6.74 n 1541 1562 1353 1306

This table indicates the satisfactory level of the Union Parishad inhabitants. As shown in both the project and control areas, “Not Satisfied” criteria are only 8.9% and 7.2% respectively. The difference between the perceived level of satisfaction in endline and baseline survey period is modestly significant.

Table 10: Benefit obtained from attending the meeting (% of respondents) Endline Project area Control area Came to know what issues are discussed in those meetings 17.8 14.2 Received ration card 1.9 0.4 Received prize from TNO for stopping child marriage 1.9 0.4 Received rice on Eid occasion 2.9 3.4 Received Fishermen’s allowance 0.6 0.7 Came to know about development of our Ward 30.1 21.6 Arbitration settlement was done 12.0 20.5 Came to know about legal aid/dowry/tree plantation etc. 8.7 12.3 Received no benefit 25.9 26.5 n 309 268 Source: Endline Survey (2016)

The above table shows us the statistical inference of benefits obtained from attending the meeting. In the project area, 30.1% respondent claimed that they came to know about the development of their ward. The disappointing fact is that 25.9% inhabitants claimed that they

215 received no benefit from attending the meeting. But the crucial fact is that about 12.0% people claimed that their arbitration settlements were done through attending the meetings. In the control area, the picture is more or less similar. Only 21.6% people claimed that they were able to know about the development of their ward. Arbitration settlement was much greater in the control areas than in the project areas, 20.5%.

Table 11: Type of benefits received by attending UP rally/awareness programme (% of respondents)

Project area Control area Received information 35.3 43.5 Informed others about these information/made others 7.1 8.1 understand these information Patriotism has been developed 1.2 1.6 Have become aware 23.5 25.8 Participated to perform responsibility 4.7 4.8 Village people have been benefited 22.4 12.9 The area has been made free from addiction 1.2 - Almost every household has received hygienic latrine 2.4 1.6 No comment 9.4 6.5 n 85 62

The above table 11 shows the types of benefits received by attending Union Parishad rally/awareness programme. Both in the project area and control area, 35.3% and 43.5% inhabitants claimed that they received important information by attending UP rally. 23.5% and 25.8% inhabitants have become aware in the project area and control areas, respectively. Village people have also benefitted in both the areas. But comparatively, the control area people have claimed to have benefitted more than the project areas.

Table 12: Benefit received by participating in Ward Shava (multiple responses)

Project area Control area Received ration card 3.0 1.1 Received help (unspecified) 7.5 2.9 People benefited by pond platform/road construction 18.1 12.1 Became aware on own area development/activities in ward 39.2 59.8 No benefit 28.7 21.8 Others** 4.6 2.8 N 265 174

216 The above table shows the benefits received by participating in Ward Shava. In control area, most of the inhabitants claimed that they became aware of their own area’s development activities (59.8%). But in project areas, this statistics is much lower.

Impact of the Programme at Individual/Household Level The analysis of investment pattern in treatment and control areas distinctly reveals that the treatment unions had relatively more investment programmes on health, education, and social development. The investment in social development is expected to have a positive impact on the welfare of the households and of the community.

Box 1: Measuring the impact: Difference-in-Difference Techniques in pseudo setting

The conventional DID measures difference between outcome variable of the treatment group in between the baseline and endline surveys and the gap in the outcome variable of the control variable in between the baseline and endline surveys. To measure the DID, we have followed the aggregative techniques in pseudo setting. The treatment group and control group in baseline is considered to be homogenous in the endline in terms of social, economic and other indicators. Although the same treatment and control groups are not interviewed in the endline survey, the underlying homogeneity assumption (based on income) will help estimate a differential effect of living in the treatment areas.

In baseline survey, the average income in control area was around Tk 8414 per month which was Tk 8159 in treatment areas. In course of time, in the endline survey, the average income estimated at TK 11900 in treatment areas and Tk 10542 in control areas. The simple difference in income between baseline and endline is found significant for both treatment and control areas. But the pseudo panel based DID estimates suggests that net increment in income is around Tk 1,352 per month. The DID estimate is found significant at 1 per cent level of significance.

Table 13: Average monthly household income (BDT)

Endline Baseline Change Pseudo DID Average SD Average SE Annual % t-test Project 11,900 10,502.57 8,159 6,603.278 7.64 12.15 1,352 Control 10,542 13,595.13 8,414 8,857.663 4.22 5.32

Source: Endline Survey 2016

217 The income improvement is observed by the income strata (non-poor/poor/hard core poor) as well. We find that the income level has significantly improved in endline survey compared to baseline survey both in treatment and control areas (Table 14).

Table 14: Impact on income by category of poverty

Endline Baseline Change Average SD Average SE % t-test Well off/ non poor 19210 17428.32 12141 8908.571 9.70 27.30 Low income/poor 8357 5058.876 5317 2754.095 9.53 28.24 Hard core poor 4731 3935.361 2437 1387.031 15.69 24.30 Source: Endline Survey (2016)

Impact on poverty: The most standard and widely used quantitative measure of poverty to assess poverty situation – head count has been used to assess poverty situation. According to the head count measure – per capita income or expenditure of each individual or household living in an area is contrasted against the estimated poverty line to identify when the member is poor or non-poor.

Box 2: Poverty Measurement in Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, poverty rates are calculated using per capita equivalence scales- suggesting that the consumption of each person within the household is estimated as the equivalent of an adult. This has implications for poverty rates, in particular when different age groups are compared. For instance, by considering each child as an adult, the poverty rates of households with children will be higher if children were regarded as a proportion of an adult (for example, 0.5, as is the practice in the Pacific Region). Because of this, when comparisons are made with other categories of the population, per capita equivalence scales generate higher poverty rates for households with children than households with adults, in particular elderly. Thus, a simplistic interpretation of poverty rates can lead to mistakes in policy making. Moreover, the Bangladesh household survey does not assume any economies of scale, which inevitably leads to larger households (e.g. households with children) appearing to be poorer than smaller households (i.e. households with old age persons). Poverty analysis of household survey is driven by per capita assumption rather than the underlying data.

218 60

50 48.9

40 40 34.3 30 31.5 25.1 23.2 20 17.6 12.9 10

0 2000 2005 2010 2016 Annual Poverty Rate Quarterly poverty rate Annual Extreme Poverty Rate

Figure 6: Poverty trend in Bangladesh4 (%)

Poverty reduction has been impressive in Bangladesh. Poverty rates of 2000, 2005 and 2010 are annual poverty rates. While the poverty rates for 2016 are new quarterly poverty rates. Although quarterly rates they are not directly comparable with the annual rates, these trends suggest impressive progress in reducing poverty in Bangladesh5.

Year Upper poverty line Lower poverty line (Taka/Person/Month) (Taka/Person/Month) 2009 1207.4 1047.7 2010 1270.9 1102.8 2016 1652.2 1433.7

Same poverty measurement method is used as described in box 3 to derive head count poverty rates for both project households and households in the control areas. More specifically, per capita incomes of households living in both project and control areas derived from the 2016 endline household survey have been contrasted to the inflation indexed poverty lines of 2010 to identify who is poor and non-poor. The inflation indexed poverty for 2009 (i.e. baseline year); 2010 (i.e. HIES 2010); and endline (i.e. 2016) are provided here. Details on poverty lines for 2010 are referred to table 6.10 in HIES report.

4 Source: BBS, October 2016. 5 Poverty varies significantly by location and residence (divisions). Please see annex 4 for poverty rates by divisions.

219

Figure 7: Head Count Rates for project and control households for 20166 (%)

Head-count poverty rates7 for the baseline (2009) and endline (2016) are provided in the adjacent figure. The poverty rates for both project and control households were calculated using the unit record of data of baseline survey. Again, the per capita income derived from the baseline surveys were contrasted with the base year poverty line (i.e. BDT 1207.4 and 1047.7) to determine poor households. The estimated baseline poverty rates were 31.7 and 31.4 per cent respectively for project and control households. The estimated poverty rate seems underestimated since both the project and control UP and UZ are located in relatively poverty stricken areas in Bangladesh with higher than national poverty rates. Furthermore, national poverty rate was 31.5 per cent in 2010 – suggesting that there were no poverty implications between 2010 and 2009 (baseline), which is difficult to apprehend. National as well as regional poverty rates in 2009 should have been higher than the rates reported for 2010.

Poverty outcomes are significantly better for project households compared to the poverty estimates found for the control household. For instance, in the end period (2016) poverty rate in project area (i.e. 27.1%) is 2 percentage points lower than the control areas (i.e. 29%). Better poverty outcomes for the project area are the effect of good governance, higher expenditure led by higher local resource mobilisation, better service delivery and higher level of income generation due to larger formation of capital.

6 Source: Endline household survey 7 The poverty estimates presented here needs to consider with caution due to small sample size and use of income instead of consumption data. Income data is usually under reported and error prone.

220

Figure 8: Percentage change in poverty between base and end period

The head count poverty rates in “project” and “control” areas between baseline (2009) and the endline (2016) has been estimated and reported below (Figure 8). Even if the baseline poverty estimates are considered correct; poverty situation has improved for the project household by about 5 percentage points. The corresponding change is half for the control households.

5.1.7 Estimate the impact on local fiscal space, fixed capital formation and economic return

There are three methods of gross domestic product (GDP) calculation. These includes: (i) income method; (ii) product method; and (iii) expenditure method. The expenditure method is specified as:

Y  Cg  Cp  GFCFE Where, Y stands for GDP, C for consumption, g refers to public sector, p denotes private sector, GFCF refers to gross fixed capital formation and E for exports of goods and services. The definition suggests that any change in the right hand side variables would led to change in Y or GDP.

Box 3: Definition of GFCF

Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) comprises the value of acquisitions less disposals of new or existing fixed assets. Assets consist of tangible or intangible assets that have been acquired by purchase, given free of charge or came into existence as output from processes of own production less assets disposed of by sale or free transfer. Acquisition through financial leasing is also included. Investment assets are acquired to be used repeatedly or continuously in processes of production, including occupying own dwelling; durables acquired by households to satisfy final consumption and net valuables acquisitions are excluded.

221 This is a useful measure at local level as it captures both public and private capital assets that contribute to economically productive activity including service delivery, agricultural and industrial activity, processing etc8. GFCF data are usually presented in aggregate form in Bangladesh. The aggregate investment amounts are also classified as private and public investment to ascertain the investment source. Furthermore, in recent years the national accounts prepared by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) also provide information on the flow of investment goods by production sectors or origin sectors. More specifically, the flow of investment goods has been broken down into four categories: (i) Construction; (ii) Plant Machinery; (iii) Transport Equipment; and (iv) Others. Sources of GFCF are both public and private sector – even at the local level. The local level budget information has been used to assess the public GFCF at the local level. On the other hand bank credit information has been used as proxy for the private GFCF at the local level.

Public sector GFCF: In order to calculate trends in public GFCF at local level, development budget information9 were gathered during the endline field survey. Out of the entire set, following seven sets were considered to generate capital goods. They were included in the GFCF set for following reasons: (a) they add to the existing capital stock; and (b) they have more than one year durability. Furthermore, although some of the items may include non-development components (e.g. agriculture and irrigation) there is difficulty in making them separate and hence full value of the line items are considered in the GFCF calculation. Infrastructure alone accounts for the largest share of both numbers and proportions of development budget. In particular, for all three years taken together, for project UP the share of GFCF related projects is 68 per cent while the share in total development budget is more than 72 per cent. Corresponding shares for control UP are respectively 67 per cent and 65 per cent. On the basis of the above information one may argue that performance of the ‘project’ UPs are better than their counterparts (i.e. control UP). GFCF in ‘project’ UP has been found 7 percentage points higher than in the ‘control’ UP. The 7 percentage point difference in GFCF in project UP over control UP may be attributed to the budget and planning related interventions in the project areas.

Table 15: Local level gross fixed capital formation FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 All Years No Share No Share No Share No Share Project UP 1 Agriculture and Irrigation 6.3 2.8 10.1 4.4 7.0 2.9 7.8 3.3 2 Infrastructure 51.5 69.8 44.0 55.5 43.0 52.9 46.1 59.5

8 Methodological Note: UNCDF Baseline Calculation for Mali, Ethiopia and Lao PDR. 9 Among other limitations of this approach is that it does not include local level GFCF by the private sector which could be significantly higher than local level GFCF by public sector.

222 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 All Years No Share No Share No Share No Share 3 ICT 1.4 0.6 2.4 1.1 2.4 3.5 2.1 1.8 Sanitation; Sewerage and waste 4 disposal 4.0 2.4 5.2 3.8 6.5 2.8 5.2 2.9 Development of Mosques and 5 temples 2.5 0.3 2.4 0.7 1.0 0.6 2.0 0.5 Infrastructure development for 4.8 1.8 2.8 3.2 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.0 social safety and security 6 (shelter during disasters) 7 Supply of water and tube well 1.3 1.0 0.3 0.7 1.7 1.9 1.1 1.3 8 Tree plantation 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total GFCF 71.8 78.7 67.2 69.4 65.4 68.7 68.2 72.4 Control UP 1 Agriculture and Irrigation 5.6 4.6 8.1 2.3 5.8 2.5 6.5 3.0 2 Infrastructure 50.4 66.7 48.4 48.2 51.7 54.2 50.2 54.9 3 ICT 3.1 0.7 2.1 2.6 2.7 4.8 2.6 2.9 Sanitation; Sewerage and waste 4 disposal 5.8 1.3 4.5 0.9 3.2 0.9 4.5 1.0 Development of Mosques and 5 temples 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 Infrastructure development for 1.4 0.8 2.8 2.3 2.3 4.8 2.2 2.8 social safety and security 6 (shelter during disasters) 7 Supply of water and tube well 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 8 Tree plantation 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total GFCF 67.6 74.7 67.6 56.9 67.2 68.2 67.4 65.3 Note: No refers to number of GFCF projects and Share denotes share in total development budget. Source: Endline Survey

Similar to the approach adopted for union parishad, in order to calculate trends in GFCF at upazilla level, development budget information were gathered during the endline field survey. Out of the entire set, following four sets of items were considered to generate capital goods. They were included in the GFCF set for following reasons: (a) they add to the existing capital stock; and (b) they have more than one year durability. Furthermore, although some of the items may include non-development components (e.g. agriculture and irrigation) it is very difficult to separate and hence full value of the line items are considered in the GFCF calculation.

Like the union parishad pattern, infrastructure alone accounts for the largest share of both numbers and proportions of development budget. In particular, for all three years taken together, for project UZ the share of GFCF related projects is 55 per cent while the share in total

223 development budget is 59 per cent. Corresponding shares for control UZ are respectively 53 per cent and 57 per cent. Again, according to the above information one may argue that performances of the ‘project’ UZ are better than their counterparts (i.e. control UZ). More specifically, GFCF in ‘project’ UZ has been found 2 percentage points higher than in the ‘control’ UZ. The 2 percentage point difference in GFCF in project UZ over control UZ may be attributed to the budget and planning related interventions in the project areas.

Table 16: Upazila level gross fixed capital formation

FY14 FY15 FY16 All No Share No Share No Share No Share Project GFCF 1 Agriculture and Irrigation 7.2 6.7 4.7 6.3 8.3 6.4 6.8 6.5 2 Physical infrastructure 45.4 50.2 52.1 54.2 45.1 51.0 47.5 51.8 3 ICT 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 4 Small and cottage industry 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 Total GFCF 53.1 57.1 57.6 61.4 54.1 58.2 54.9 59.0 Control GFCF 1 Agriculture and Irrigation 4.5 5.4 4.8 5.8 3.4 6.3 4.2 6.0 2 Physical infrastructure 49.5 49.9 46.1 53.2 46.5 49.7 47.2 50.8 3 ICT 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.4 4 Small and cottage industry 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 Total GFCF 55.2 55.8 52.0 59.5 51.4 56.8 52.7 57.4

Note: No refers to number of GFCF projects and Share denotes share in total development budget. Source: Endline Survey 2016

Private sector GFCF: It was not possible to collect private sector investment data due primarily due to problems in bookkeeping and accounting of their information. In the absence of local level private sector data, the bank credit information has been used to assess the size as well as the growth of private sector investment. Key banking statistics related to number of new bank accounts; deposit and credit has been collected. These are provided below.

224

Figure 9: Trends in Bank Indicators-Project and Control UP10

These are presented in the adjacent figures. Although, bank indicators show growth for both areas, the growth rates of the all three bank indicators have been found better in the ‘project’ UP compared to ‘control’ UP. More specifically, the credit growth rates for ‘project’ UP are 62.9% and 17.8% respectively for FY15 and FY16. One could argue that some of the bank credit must have been used for local level GFCF complementing the other sources of local level private investment. On the other hand, the credit growth rates for ‘control’ UP are 30.5% and 17.0% respectively for FY15 and FY16. Again, deposit and credit related information of both the project UZ and control UZ have been collected to complement the upazilla level GFCF by the public sector.

Figure 10: Trends in Bank Indicators-Project and Control UZ11

10 Source: Endline survey. 11 Source: Endline survey.

225 Similar to the union parishad, bank indicators of both UZ (project and control) registered positive growth. Moreover, the growth rates of all three bank indicators have been found better in the ‘project’ UZ compared to ‘control’ UZ. More specifically, the credit growth rates for ‘project’ UZ are 12.2% and 14.8% respectively for FY15 and FY16. It is understood that some of the bank credit must have been used for local level GFCF complementing other sources of local level private investment. The credit growth rates for ‘control’ UZ are lower than the project UZ and reported as 10.0% and 12.1% respectively for FY15 and FY16.

On other words, the average size of bank credit (or private GFCF) in UZGP project areas has been reported to be 2112 million BDT. While the average size of public sector GFCF has been estimated at 751 million BDT suggesting almost 3 times GFCF by the private sector at local level compared to the public sector. At the national level the size of private sector investment is around 2.5 times of the public sector investment.

5.1.8 Value for Money and Benefit-Cost Ratio Value for Money focuses on ‘3Es’ of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Economy is achieved through the minimisation of the cost of inputs, while efficiency involves maximising the amount of output achieved for a given input. Effectiveness relates to the extent to which the intended outputs lead to the desired outcomes. Finally, overall cost effectiveness relates to the extent to which the whole causal chain, from inputs to outputs to outcomes, results in the desired impacts (please see annex 5). An additional ‘E’ of equity cuts across the entire results chain.

VfM indicators are then expressed simply as the cost to achieve the outputs, outcomes, and impacts as defined by the causal chain. In this exercise, we have assessed the VfM by estimating cost effectives of intervention – estimating benefit cost of the project intervention. Cost Effectiveness of UZGP Intervention has been assessed by estimating relative benefit cost ratio (rBCR) of UZGP. The benefit cost assessment of any intervention requires sets of benefit stream and cost streams. The calculation also needs a discount rate. The cost of the Upazila governance project (UZGP) has been considered. The annual projected costs in USD over FY12 to FY16 are provided against four outputs. Actual project costs were then converted into BDT by using the appropriate exchange rate to determine the cost of the project.

226 Table 17: Trend of output-wise UZGP Cost (USD) Cumulative Cost Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure expenditure Total Budget items/ 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (Inception - in DPP Outputs 2016) Amount in Amount in Amount in Amount in Amount in Amount in Amount in USD USD USD USD USD USD USD Output 1 438,434 1,528,297 2,419,249 3,183,685 1,388,948 8,958,613 6,024,712 Output 2 367,515 368,331 1,056,130 1,524,691 612,275 3,928,942 6,797,785 Output 3 253,169 137,296 436,880 362,722 356,940 1,547,008 2,689,525 Output 4 438,006 1,028,305 661,081 521,317 588,961 3,237,668 2,687,712 Total 1,497,124 3,062,228 4,573,340 5,592,415 2,947,124 17,672,232 18,199,734 Source: UZGP Project Office

The benefit stream of this kind of intervention is always difficult to ascertain where lots of benefits are non-tangible. We have adopted following approach to determine the benefit stream. Average income of project household and control households have been collected in the baseline survey. As expected, it was found that income levels were same for both project household and control household in the baseline data. We can express this condition as: = where p =project; c=control and b = baseline.

An endline survey was conducted in 2016 to assess the impacts of UZGP interventions for both household and community level. Average income of project household and control households have income collected in the endline survey. These incomes are specified as: where p =project; c=control and e = endline. Our interest is to find out the change in the income (or relative income) of project household at the end of the project. This is specified as: ∆Y = ― ; that is – simply deduct the endline income of control household ( ) from the endline income of project household ( [please annex for details]. The estimated monthly mean household income of project household was BDT 11,90612 and monthly mean household income of control household was BDT 10,885. Thus monthly average income increase was BDT 1,021 for the project household. The average income increase was converted into annual income increase and subsequently multiplies by household numbers in the project upazila to derive the total increase for the project household. This is shown below.

Table 18: Relative Benefit calculation Monthly Income Annual Income Number of Total income increase for increase in BDT increase in BDT (∆Y household in all project UZ households (∆Y) x 12) project UZ BDT 1,021 BDT 12,252 2,136,362 BDT 26,173,681,770

12 This suggests that household annual income was BDT 142,872 for project household in 2016. This may be underestimated if we compare this with national estimate. At the national level per household annual income in 2016 has been estimated at BDT 469,120 [= $ 1,466 (per capita income) x 80 (nominal exchange rate) x 4.5 (household size)]. BBS estimated that per capita income in 2016 would be around $ 1,466 (source Daily Star, April 06, 2016).

227 This estimated relative benefit and cost streams are arranged in the following table to determine the relative benefit-cost ratio (rBCR). As the survey team was not sure about the process and rate of annual income increase of the project households, an equal growth was assumed in each year of the project period (FY12-FY16). The estimated discounted rBCR is 18.5 which is an excellent outcome.

Table 19: Estimated cost and benefit stream of UZGP Project Cost Project Benefit Fiscal year USD BDT BDT FY12 1,497,124 119,769,914 5,234,736,354 FY13 3,062,228 244,978,264 5,234,736,354 FY14 4,573,340 365,867,207 5,234,736,354 FY15 5,592,415 447,393,200 5,234,736,354 FY16 2,947,124 235,769,946 5,234,736,354 Total 17,672,232 1,413,778,531 26,173,681,770 NPV@10% discount rate 3,213,133 257,050,642 4,758,851,231 rBCR 18.5

Source: Calculation by research team

Cost Effectiveness of UPGP Intervention has also been assessed by estimating relative benefit cost ratio of UPGP. The same procedure followed above was used to estimate the cost effectiveness of UPGP. The cost of the UPGP has been considered. The annual projected costs in USD over FY12 to FY16 are provided. Actual project costs were then converted into BDT by using the appropriate exchange rate to determine the cost of the project.

Table 20: UPGP Cost Fiscal Year UPGP cost in USD UPGP cost in BDT FY12 420,587 33,646,932 FY13 3,704,034 296,322,727 FY14 4,689,433 375,154,674 FY15 4,340,651 347,252,085 FY16 3,647,101 291,768,088 16,801,806 1,344,144,506 Source: UPGP Project Office

228 The same income increase was adopted as was used in the above UZ BCR calculation – i.e. monthly average income increase was BDT 1,021 for the project household in UP. The average income increase was converted into annual income increase and subsequently multiplied by household numbers in the project upazila to derive the total increase for the project household. This is shown below.

Table 21: Relative Benefit calculation Monthly Income Annual Income Number of Total income increase for increase in BDT increase in BDT (∆Y household in all project UZ households (∆Y) x 12) project UZ BDT 1,021 BDT 12,252 892,007 BDT 10,928,441,601

This estimated benefit and cost streams are arranged in the following table to determine the relative benefit-cost ratio (rBCR). As we were not entirely sure about the process and rate of annual income increase of the project households, we have assumed an equal growth in each year of the project period (FY12-FY16). The estimated discounted rBCR is 8.1 –although lower the BCR found for UZGP but still an excellent outcome.

Table 22: Estimated cost and benefit stream of UPGP Project Cost Project Benefit Fiscal year USD BDT BDT FY12 420,587 33,646,932 2,185,688,320 FY13 3,704,034 296,322,727 2,185,688,320 FY14 4,689,433 375,154,674 2,185,688,320 FY15 4,340,651 347,252,085 2,185,688,320 FY16 3,647,101 291,768,088 2,185,688,320 Total 16,801,806 1,344,144,506 10,928,441,601 NPV@10% discount rate 3,054,874 244,389,910 1,986,989,382 rBCR 8.1

Local Level Multiplier From a local economy-wide perspective, though, beneficiary households (or community) are a conduit through which new interventions enters the local economy. As they spend their cash, the beneficiary households (or community) unleash general equilibrium (GE) effects that transmit programme impacts to others in the economy, including non-beneficiaries (i.e. control).

229 ‘The local economy-wide impact evaluation (LEWIE) methodology is designed to understand the full impact of cash transfers or interventions on local economies, including on the production activities of both beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups; how these effects change when programmes are scaled up to larger regions; and why these effects happen. All of these aspects are important for designing projects and explaining their likely impacts to governments and other sponsoring agencies13’. Generally the starting point for constructing General Equilibrium (GE) models is the construction of a social accounting matrix (SAM) for a given geographic area or economy or country. However, for assessing the local level general equilibrium impact, the household- village/local community (local) social accounting matrices (SAMs) are constructed using household, enterprise, and community survey data collected as part of the baseline and/or follow- up surveys. Separate SAMs are constructed for the households that will receive the randomised transfer, for control-group households, and when available, for ineligible households in both the beneficiary and control villages/local community.

For estimating local level multipliers of the project intervention, we have been able to construct a local level SAM for northern Bangladesh – using data of two similar Upazilas, namely Pirganj and Sundarganj. Endline survey data was not enough to construct a meaningful local level SAM14. Thus, endline survey information were supplemented with information from HIES 2010, LFS 2013 and other district level data. The data SAM has been converted into SAM models for policy simulation15.

The simplest simulation model for impact evaluation is an unconstrained SAM accounting multiplier model for the ZOI (Zone of Interest). Let Y denote a vector of total incomes and X a vector of final (in our example, rest-of-world) demands for the endogenous accounts in the SAM. Both are of dimension (I x 1), where I is the number of endogenous accounts (in the present case, 6: 2 production sectors, 2 factors, 1 household, and the ZOI market). A SAM coefficient matrix is derived for these endogenous accounts by dividing each internal element by its corresponding column total. Let A refer to this shares matrix. The relationship between Y and X, then, is:

Thus, -1 Y= (1-A) X = Ma X (i) The change in income (dy) resulting from a change in final demand or intervention (dx) is given by: -1 dY= (1-A) dX = Ma dX (ii)

13 Taylor J. E. (2013), “A methodology for local economy-wide impact evaluation (LEWIE) of cash transfers: Methodological guidelines for the From Protection to Production (PtoP) project”, FAO, Rome, 2013. 14 Although, in the inception report we have proposed to construct 5/6 local level SAMs, the due to dearth of information one or two SAMs can only be constructed. 15 The simulation methods presented here are not a substitute for RCTs. Experimental findings are important to test and quantify the likely impacts of interventions on beneficiaries and, under some conditions, on ineligible beneficiaries. They can also help validate some of the predictions of simulation models and, in some cases, improve the accuracy of model parameters.

230 The beauty of a SAM multiplier model is its computational simplicity; the nested SAM flows matrix in above table is easily converted into a SAM multiplier matrix in three steps: (1) the shares matrix is computed; (2) the shares matrix is subtracted from an identity matrix of the same dimensions, then (3) the resulting matrix is inverted. This is easily accomplished in EXCEL, using the matrix command minverse.16 A SAM multiplier model can also be programmed into GAMS. Using this methodology we will seek to answer the following question: What would be the local level economy wide impacts for an intervention in the beneficiary or project upazilla? In this exercise we have assumed doubling of intervention (i.e. government) through the non- agriculture commodity demand (e.g. increase in public expenditure or increase in GFCF).

Figure 11: Local multipliers

The values of three types of multipliers are presented in the above figure. As expected, higher multipliers (direct) are found for the project UZ in the vicinity of 1.78 for output and GDP. Household multipliers have been reported to be 1.35 for the project UZ. Due to general equilibrium or interdependent effects, all three multipliers of control UZ have also increased albeit at lower levels. Indirect output and GDP multipliers for control UZ are in the range of 1.44. Household multipliers have been reported to be 1.22 for the control UZ. The important point here is that interventions such as UZGP or UPGP have general equilibrium effects at the local economy – impacting both project as well as control communities and households. Thus

16 Each column of the Ma matrix gives the multiplier effect of an exogenous change in the column-account’s income on the row-account’s income. The exogenous change could be a change in final demand for production activities, exogenous (e.g., government or corporation etc.) employment for a factor or (as in our example) a direct income transfers for a household.

231 the estimated value for money using ‘partial equilibrium’ approach may be underestimated. Another point follow from analysis this is that endline outcome of the control UZ or UP may reflect improve outcomes due to this general equilibrium impact.

Some studies which have tried to estimate the local level impacts of various types of transfer programmes are shown below. The values local level multipliers are close to the values are found for other interventions in other countries.

Table 23: Estimated local level multipliers for selected interventions Estimated Country Programme Multipliers Source Nominal Real1 Dowa Emergency Cash Transfer 2.02- Davies and Davey Malawi n/a Programme (DECT), 2007 2.45 (2008) Child Grants Programmes (CGP) Pilot, Lesotho 2.23 1.36 Taylor et al. (2014) 2011 Livelihoods Empowerment Against Ghana 2.50 1.50 Thorne et al. (2013) Poverty (LEAP) Programmes Social Cash Transfer Programme: Ethiopia -HintaloWAjirat 2.52 1.84 Kagin et al. (2014) (Tigray) -Abi-Adi town 1.35 1.26 Zambia Child Grants Programmes, 2010-2012 1.79 1.34 Thorne et al. (2014) Harmonized Social Cash Transfer Zimbabwe 1.73 1.40 Davies et al. (2014) Programmes PROCAMPO, 1994-97 1.50- Sadoulet, De Janvry Mexico n/a 2.60 and Davis. (2001) Cash Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (CT-OVC) Pilot Phase: Kenya Taylor et al. (2014) -Region 1- 4 Districts in Nyanza 1.34 1.08 Provice 1.84 1.23 - Region 2- Garisha and Kwale Districts

5.1.9 Assessing the Changes in Financial Management Practices None of the control Upazilas reported that they maintain better financial reporting system but all the treatment Upazilas have better financial reporting system. Although there is perceptional differences on the issue whether that system has improved the financial reporting or not. Over

232 65 per cent fully agreed that the system has invariably improved better financial management practices in the treatment Upazilas and 25 per cent partially acknowledged the improvement. Only 10 per cent shows their disapproval of better financial management practices.

5.1.10 Conclusion The broad economic analysis of the project reveals some important features. There are clear differences between treatment Unions and Upazilas in terms of revenue mobilisation, resource generation, and expenditure/investment sector preferences. From the result it is observed that the treatment Unions and Upazilas have high preference for projects/programmes linked to the national policy setting like MDGs. They have high investment preference towards the social development programmes like poverty alleviation, women and youth development. The results, both qualitative indicator and quantitative indicator, show that programmes have brought about a positive change in treatment areas by delivering better services, connecting the people to the local governance system. The income and hence expenditure pattern has improved which has reduced the local level income disparity and improved the poverty scenario. The within system change has enhanced the welfare of the individuals, households, and the community as well. The local level capital has been formed, the overwhelming dependence on grant is being shifted by the new revenue generation process. Based on the measurable benefits, the increased income, the benefit-cost analysis also shows a high level of net present value and a high benefit-cost ratio suggesting the worthiness of the project. Although the change is not mammoth it is not minuscule if we look at the broader picture consisting the effects at the Union level, community level, household level, and even at individual level. Both at the Union and Upazila levels, the project has brought changes in managing the fiscal resources, in enhancing the service delivery mechanism, enrolling the local people so that they can reap the benefit directly, and forming local level capital for sustainability.

233 Annex 1: Development Budget – Project and Control UP

FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 All Years No Share No Share No Share No Share Project UP 1 Education 8.97 5.43 10.48 6.44 11.37 6.83 10.3 6.2 Agriculture and 2 Irrigation 6.26 2.81 10.09 4.44 6.95 2.94 7.8 3.3 3 Health 11.36 4.91 10.51 7.95 11.31 7.40 11.0 6.7 Infrastructure for 4 communication 51.51 69.77 44.01 55.47 42.99 52.88 46.1 59.5 5 Poverty Alleviation 5.22 9.43 6.77 11.81 7.01 13.62 6.3 11.7 6 Women Development 1.55 0.78 2.69 2.09 2.81 1.59 2.4 1.4 7 Youth Development 0.89 0.35 1.47 1.38 1.48 0.98 1.3 0.9 8 ICT 1.37 0.59 2.38 1.09 2.45 3.46 2.1 1.8 Sanitation; Sewerage 9 and waste disposal 3.99 2.38 5.16 3.85 6.53 2.77 5.2 2.9 Development of 10 Mosques and temples 2.53 0.31 2.44 0.68 1.00 0.59 2.0 0.5 Infrastructure development for social 11 safety and security (shelter during disasters) 4.83 1.77 2.78 3.20 3.45 4.04 3.7 3.0 Supply of water and 12 tube well 1.34 0.99 0.34 0.69 1.66 1.92 1.1 1.3 13 Sports and culture 0.09 0.11 0.20 0.21 0.09 0.13 0.1 0.1 Awareness raising 14 project 0.09 0.32 0.62 0.68 0.54 0.71 0.4 0.6 15 Tree plantation 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.36 0.14 0.1 0.1 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0 100.0 Control UP 1 Education 8.4 4.4 6.9 4.1 8.2 5.4 7.8 4.6 Agriculture and 2 Irrigation 5.6 4.6 8.1 2.3 5.8 2.5 6.5 3.0 3 Health 10.1 6.9 9.7 6.5 9.6 9.6 9.8 7.7 Infrastructure for 4 communication 50.4 66.7 48.4 48.2 51.7 54.2 50.2 54.9 5 Poverty Alleviation 8.5 9.8 9.3 16.6 9.3 10.9 9.0 12.9

234 6 Women Development 4.5 2.6 4.8 13.9 3.8 3.9 4.4 7.6 7 Youth Development 0.8 0.8 1.7 1.1 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.1 8 ICT 3.1 0.7 2.1 2.6 2.7 4.8 2.6 2.9 Sanitation; Sewerage 9 and waste disposal 5.8 1.3 4.5 0.9 3.2 0.9 4.5 1.0 Development of 10 Mosques and temples 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 Infrastructure development for social 11 safety and security (shelter during disasters) 1.4 0.8 2.8 2.3 2.3 4.8 2.2 2.8 Supply of water and 12 tube well 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 13 Sports and culture 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Awareness raising 14 project 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 15 Tree plantation 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: No refers to number of GFCF projects and Share denotes share in total development budget. Source: Endline Survey 2016

235 Annex 2: Investments by broad sectors and private-public source-BBS Estimates Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) tried to estimate investment by major sectors of the economy and public and private sources in 2002. According to BBS (2002, page 49), the estimates of investment in public sector have been worked out on the basis of budget documents of the following sources: 1. Central government budget (ADP and Revenue) 2. Local government budget (City corporations, Municipalities, Union parishad, Thana and Zilla parishads) 3. Public Sector corporations.

BBS also found that out of total ADP expenditures, 63 per cent was used for investment purpose and rest 37 per cent were used for wage-salaries (i.e. 9%); contingent-overhead expenses (14%); subsidy (8%) and interest-amortisation (6%). Thus, public investment estimate based on ADP may be considered with this caveat in mind.

The relationship between ADP expenditure (Capital expenditure) and investment by major sectors for 2000-01 is presented below for reference.

Table 24: Central Government Investment by Economic Sectors for 2000-2001 (Million Taka) BBS Sector Expenditure (E) Investment (I) I/E Ratio (%) 1 Agriculture 7380 4225 57.2 2 Mining and Quarrying 6698 3847 57.4 3 Manufacturing 2606 1571 60.3 4 Construction 19190 15735 82.0 5 Power, Gas, Water and Sanitary Services 31162 16239 52.1 6 Transport, Storage and Communication 32576 26736 82.1 7 Housing Service 20238 16240 80.2 8 Public Administration and Defence 1303 1211 92.9 9 Professional and Miscellaneous Services 36347 12599 34.7 Total 157500 98403 62.5

Source: Table 3.8 page 74. Estimates of Investment: Methods and Data Sources, BBS, May 2002

236 Annex 3: Development Budget – Project and Control UZ

FY14 FY15 FY16 All Share No Share No Share No Share No Project UZ 1 Education 17.24 19.68 20.71 17.46 16.95 14.19 18.3 16.7 2 Agriculture and Irrigation 7.23 6.69 4.71 6.32 8.33 6.45 6.8 6.5 3 Health 23.59 16.41 15.10 14.02 17.35 14.84 18.4 15.0 4 Physical infrastructure 45.35 50.18 52.15 54.18 45.05 50.95 47.5 51.8 5 Poverty eradication 1.99 1.59 2.29 2.19 2.66 2.30 2.3 2.1 6 Women development 1.83 1.53 2.35 2.21 4.11 3.90 2.9 2.7 7 Youth Development 0.79 2.03 0.62 1.44 2.31 2.70 1.3 2.1 8 ICT 0.08 0.06 0.55 0.83 0.17 0.34 0.3 0.4 9 Others (Relief, Supervision etc) 0.64 0.79 0.83 0.68 1.62 3.12 1.1 1.7 10 Social welfare 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 11 Small and cottage industry 0.40 0.15 0.21 0.08 0.52 0.46 0.4 0.3 12 Sports and culture 0.56 0.65 0.14 0.13 0.23 0.27 0.3 0.3 13 Fisheries and Livestock 0.32 0.24 0.35 0.45 0.69 0.46 0.5 0.4 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0 100.0 Control UZ 1 Education 20.9 10.9 17.0 16.1 15.0 13.6 17.3 13.8 2 Agriculture and Irrigation 4.5 5.4 4.8 5.8 3.4 6.3 4.2 6.0 3 Health 18.6 13.3 27.6 21.1 27.9 15.7 25.3 16.8 4 Physical infrastructure 49.5 49.9 46.1 53.2 46.5 49.7 47.2 50.8 5 Poverty eradication 3.7 19.0 0.8 0.8 1.4 10.2 1.8 9.3 6 Women development 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.0 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.5 7 Youth Development 0.6 0.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 8 ICT 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.4 9 Others (Relief, Supervision etc) 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 10 Social welfare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 11 Small and cottage industry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 Sports and culture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 13 Fisheries and Livestock 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: No refers to number of GFCF projects and Share denotes share in total development budget. Source: Endline Survey 2016

237 Annex 4: FGT Poverty Measure The most standard measures are the so-called FGT measures. This class of measures satisfies the desirable axioms17 and allows us to measure poverty indices for different groups or sections of population that adds up to the total. Headcount ratio (HCR): the simplest measure of the prevalence of poverty, headcount ratio, is the proportion of population with a per capita income below the poverty line. The ratio of persons who are poor to the total population is a summary measure about the extent of poverty and it suffices in many situations. Although the interpretation of HCR is straightforward being a summary measure it is silent about other characteristics of the poor. Some poor may get better off while others may get worse off but the value for this index will remain the same

Poverty gap index (PGI): the depth of poverty is measured by the poverty gap index (PGI), which estimates the average distance separating the income of the poor from the poverty line as a proportion of the income indicated by the line.

Squared poverty gap index (SPGI): the average of the squared poverty gap for each poor person is the (SPGI). This is a dispersion measure18 about the severity of poverty.

All three above measures of poverty for rural and urban persons may be computed using the following formula.  1 ql Pl  zl  yil / zl  n l i1 Where,

 = 0, 1, 2 for HCR, PGI and SPGI, respectively; l {rural, urban} refers to location;

Pl is the FGT index for rural and urban locations; i {1,2, … , ql} refers to each poor person by location; ql is the number poor by location; nlis the number of persons (sample size) by location; zl are the poverty lines for each location th yil is per capita income of the i poor person by location.

The head-count ratio corresponds to =0, the poverty gap index to =1, and the squared poverty gap to =2. Although the head-count is the easiest measure to understand and thereby

17 Any poverty measure is generally expected to satisfy the following three desirable axioms. (1) Focus axiom, which requires poverty measures to be insensitive to increase in income of a non-poor person. (2) Monotonocity axiom refers to the condition where a reduction in a poor persons' income should increase the value of the poverty measure; (3) Transfer axiom, which demands that, ceteris paribus, a transfer of income from a poor to a richer poor person should raise the value of the poverty index. For further details please see ‘Measurement of Inequality and Poverty’ (1997) in S. Subramanian. 18 Analogous to the coefficient of variation.

238 the most widely used, it is informative for policy analysis and in intervention design to consider also the gap and severity measures, especially when objective criteria for prioritisation are required.

The poverty gap (P1) and squared poverty gap (P2) measures offer some very important additional insights into poverty situation. The poverty gap in fact, estimates on the average, how far below the poverty line is the poor as a proportion of that line (for the non-poor the distance is zero). It may be used as a basis to estimate the minimum resources required to close the gap. On the other hand, the squared poverty gap takes into account not only the distance separating the poor from the poverty line, but also inequality among/within the poor.

Figure 12: Poverty level by divisions in Bangladesh19 (%)

Variations in poverty rates across divisions are substantial. Rajshahi Division has the highest rate of poverty (39.4 %), higher than the national average (31.5 %). Chittagong Division has lowest poverty incidence (26.2 %).

Annex 5: Value for Money Value for Money (VfM) is about maximising the impact of each unit of money spent to improve the lives of the people. The purpose of the VfM drive is to develop a better understanding (and better articulation) of costs and results so that the programme designers and formulators can make more informed, evidence-based choices. This process supports the continuous improvement in investing for human welfare. Value for money analysis assesses whether the programme has bought the inputs of the right quality at the right price (economy), how well the inputs are converted into outputs (efficiency), what impact the outputs are having

19 Source: HIES 2010

239 (effectiveness) and how much impact the project has had relative to the cost of the inputs (cost effectiveness). We assess VFM through the following recommended measures such as: economy; efficiency and effectiveness. Assessing VFM is a continual process of comparison to cost benchmarks and current practice/costs and seeking/achieving improvements to these.

Figure 13: Value for money-the causal chain and the '3E's

Economy Procurement: A significant aspect of Economy will be procurement. We will assess whether the procurement of services have been done considering the following three factors:  Cheaper  Better quality  Less corruption

Balance use of National and International Resources: The use of local, national and international expertise will be calibrated to make the best possible use of local resources, thereby generating savings in terms of value and time (which also has a cost aspect).

Low Administrative Cost: Another VFM indicator is the percentage of administrative/support costs. The administrative cost (including programme staff and direct administrative support, and M&E) will be estimated. The estimated administrative cost will also be compared with other similar projects (both national and international).

Efficiency Unit costs: Per unit cost of the intervention will be estimated using the information of beneficiary coverage and cost of the intervention. The estimated per unit cost of the intervention will be compared with similar types of intervention to assess whether the unit costs are reasonable.

240 Efficiency savings: We will assess the size of the savings at the end of 2015. We may use these savings as the ‘headline’ VFM indicator as this is a good source of easily quantifiable and reportable efficiency savings.

Effectiveness BCR of individual programme component: Estimation of BCR requires two elements – costs and benefits. Cost of the project will be obtained from the project documents. Benefit streams may consist of two types – direct benefits and indirect benefits. Direct benefits of the components 1 and 2 will be obtained using the information of surveys (i.e. difference between baseline and endline as well as between the ‘beneficiary’ group and ‘control’ group). An important component of the project will be capacity development through training. Empirical evidences suggest a high return from investment in training. It is thus expected that capacity development of the project will continue to generate high VfM.

Derivation of Endline Income Change We start with the following givens: ; Where p =project; c=control; b = baseline; and e = endline

We also know in the baseline = Change in income in the endline is specified as ∆Y = ― ( ∆Y = ― ∆Y = ― ∆Y = ―

241

Annex 6: Local Level SAM

ACTIVITY FACTOR ACTIVITY FACTOR p_AGR p_N_AGR p_LAB p_CAP p_HH c_AGR c_N_AGR c_LAB c_CAP c_HH ZOI ROW Total p_AGR 2663 1828 0 0 6433 4333 1500 16757 16756 ACTIVITY p_N_AGR 4789 5220 0 0 8972 226 3000 22207 22207 p_LAB 1431 1458 0 0 0 0 0 2890 2890 FACTOR p_CAP 5874 6135 0 0 0 0 0 12009 12009 HOUSEHOLD p_HH 0 0 2890 12009 0 3265 1379 19542 19542 c_AGR 1986 1562 0 0 5391 3820 700 13459 13459 ACTIVITY c_N_AGR 3573 6690 0 0 5482 1542 1500 18786 18786 c_LAB 1182 1205 0 0 0 0 0 2387 2387 FACTOR 242 c_CAP 4268 6580 0 0 0 0 0 10848 10848 HOUSEHOLD c_HH 0 0 2387 10848 0 0 500 13735 13735 ZOI 1500 3800 0 0 4137 1700 800 0 0 2862 14799 14800 ROW 500 3765 0 0 0 750 1950 0 0 0 1614 8579 8579 Total 16756 22207 2890 12009 19542 13459 18786 2387 10848 13735 14800 8579 155998 155998

PART – VI OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, SUSTAINABILITY & CONCLUSIONS

The scope of the assignment is to capture the impact of two interventions as it relates to the success of the projects in strengthening governance at the Union and Upazila Parishads; identify challenges faced during implementation, appropriateness of initiatives in the given context of local governance in Bangladesh. More precisely the evaluation scope focused on the following criteria:

Relevance: To what extent the UZGP and UPGP project designs and implementation of activities were able to respond to the needs of the Upazila and Union.

Eﬃciency: To what extent economically the project used resources at its disposal, including the eﬃcacy of planned activities within the timeframe and budget for the project implementation? And to which extent project funds, expertise and time were used judiciously to achieve desired project outputs?

Eﬀectiveness: To what extent the project activities yielded expected outputs and contributed to expected outcomes?

Impact: To what extent capacity development and other cross-cutting issues were eﬀectively mainstreamed and addressed in project design and development? What are the lessons learned? What are the speciﬁc recommendations to the participating partners and project stakeholders?

Sustainability: To which extent the improved systems, processes and capacities resulting from the UZGP and UPGP projects are likely to beneﬁt the local governance in the years to come?

Relevance Relevance: Broad goals and objectives of both the projects are very much in line with the policy regime, perspective plans and the broader long- term visions of the government. In fact, some of the long- term perspectives set by the 6th Five- Year Plan (6th FYP) are essentially the reﬂections of achievements of the projects. The perspective plan has recognised the need for accountability, participative planning, and mobilisation of local resources. The Plan highlighted the need for improving the eﬃciency and service delivery of local government through a series

243 of structural reform interventions including “institutional and process engineering. The broader achievements of both the projects have laid the foundation for such long- term perspective of the 6th FYP.

Efficiency Both the projects are found to be complementary in many ways. The collaboration between UZGP and UPGP facilitated strengthening service delivery in the UPs. A number of the UZGP projects have ultimately been implemented at the UP level. Integration and synergies were achieved in planning and supporting different service delivery investments across the UPs. The collaboration of UPGP and UZGP also helped the linking and institutionalising the WDFs. This partnership also made it possible to initiate coordinated planning and implementation of women related and gender focused project investments across the UPs. Furthermore, leveraging the partnerships among LGSP 2 and UPGP and UZGP have widen and deepened the impact of development investments. Most importantly the relationship between the UPGP and UZGP has facilitated the collaborative relationships between the two tiers of local government. It has resulted in some cases to design and implement collaborative projects between and among the UPs, where the UZP have played a catalyst role. Some of the training and workshop programmes organised by the UZGP and UPGP on gender sensitisation, service delivery, coordination and mapping of NGOs have complementary effects on both projects, which ultimately added to the efficient use of resource, social mobilisation and achieving the desired impacts. The facilitations offered by the District Facilitators have added significant value in providing backstopping services, monitoring and follow- up of the project implementation and bridging the UPs with UZP vis-a-vis other line agencies at the UZP levels. Similarly, the DDLGs played an important role in providing technical and monitoring services for both the projects and optimised the level of efficient utilisation of the resources. The UPGP has been very efficient in diversifying the UP capacity building through a combination of cascading training delivery using TOT and through direct training delivery to key actors (UP secretary, UP Chair etc.) through the medium of the national training institutions. This approach maximises the efficiency and effectiveness of the training delivery.

Effectiveness From the analysis, it is observed that the treatment Unions and Upazilas have high preference for projects/programmes linked to the national policy setting like MDGs. They have high investment preference towards the social development programmes like poverty alleviation, women and youth development. The results, both qualitative indicators and quantitative

244 indicators, show that project intervention has brought a relatively positive change in treatment areas by enhancing community empowerment and connecting the people in the local governance system. The income and hence expenditure pattern have enhanced which has reduced the local level income disparity and thus improved the poverty scenario.

From an economic perspective the projects show a positive picture as well. The ‘benefit-cost’ ratio(BCR) of both UPGP and UZGP have been estimated using the actual cost of the interventions and benefit streams. The estimated BCR values for UPGP intervention is 8.1 and UZGP intervention is 18.5. Given the large BCR values (it is suggested that an intervention with more than 1 BCR value is cost effective), it may be concluded that the cost effectiveness of both interventions have been very satisfactory. In addition to the cost effectiveness measure, other measures such as values of local level multipliers; revenue mobilisation growth; expanded income generation along with reduction of poverty and capital formation tend to suggest that from economic perspective the overall effectiveness of both interventions have been very satisfactory.

It is, however, noticed that the authority structure is politically and administratively divided between the Upazila Chairman and the Upazila Nirbahi Officer. In some cases there are triangular conflicts among the elected representatives, Upazila Chairman and the Member of Parliament. Line Department (LD) officials in reality are neither accountable to the UNO nor to the Upazila Chairman, which often results in inefficiency, poor coordination and lack of administrative accountability. In many places the Upazila committees established under UZPs run in parallel to the LD’s committees with lack of coordination.

While UZP committees are formed according to the UZP Act, there are other related Line Department (LD) committees formed according to government circulars. Activities of the LD committees are programme based and many of them are time bound depending upon programme needs and direction from the Line Ministry. The issue of overlapping responsibilities could be addressed at the policy level, by making the Upazila committees lead role over the LD committees and/or dissolving some of the LD committees by issuing office order/circular. The issue of overlaps and blurred responsibilities seems to be much better addressed in the target UZPs and with the UFF as a broker in the conflicts and with the aim to strengthen the linkages, but for the tier as such, there is an urgent need for enhanced focus on the institutional set up, legal framework as well as conflict resolution in the areas where cooperation is a challenge. The broader policy impact on the overall local government framework is still too early to assess. While the projects have been able to facilitate broad policy discussions across the country on the future directions of local government reforms and to initiate thematic studies on the LG framework, it is yet to be seen how these inputs can influence future policy developments. Tangible outputs like the formulation of the national framework on LG capacity development

245 are yet fully realised. However, on the other hand the PAG appears to be reactivated lately and has started giving significant policy directions and getting engaged in policy dialogue.

The projects have been effective in terms of producing amendments to the local government regulatory framework (legal instruments, guidelines) although some of this still need to be finally adopted and implemented by LGD. In this way, the projects have contributed to upscaling, institutionalising and sustaining local governance mechanisms on strengthened transparency, accountability and participation (standing committees, WDF, Ward Shava, open budget meetings, citizen charter). Similarly, with the demonstration of the performance-based grant allocations at the UP and UZP level, it has shown impact on performance and effective utilisation of funds. On the other hand, there is a need to establish a “transmission belt “ of the specific innovative experiences from the field level in the projects to the national level, through use of data, use of studies, use of dialogues etc. and perhaps regulations regarding the WDFs. The LGD has also been negotiating with the Ministry of Public Administration for the approval of an additional staff position of UP Accountant cum Computer Assistant. The Ministry of Finance made some conditions of eligibility for getting such a new post. With the proactive role of LGD, finally the post has now been cleared and the conditionalities have been withdrawn by the Finance Ministry. The recruitment rules for the position has been formulated by the LGD. Meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioners have been advised to start the recruitment process. This is one of the milestones in the history of UP. The UPGP has long been advocating for the creation of the said post. The addition of a semi-professional staff will have significant impact on the role and performance of UP, specially, in accounts, record keeping and use of IT in development communication. The M&E framework strategy and vertical division of work among DLGs and DDLGs have been established and implemented according to plan, despite changes and vacancies in the project staff. The M&E data are produced assisted by the monitoring tool kit developed by the projects. The next important step will be to anchor these outputs in the MIE wing and upscale the framework for nationwide monitoring. The UPGP has also successfully piloted the e-based MIS, which now needs to be up-scaled. The project has addressed all the relevant sections of the UP Act and evidence from project monitoring and the findings from the field suggest that UP officials under the project have relatively higher capacity compared to control UPs. There are specific project interventions of activating and strengthening the Ward Shava, the UPs are trained and capacitated to have their respective Citizen Charters. In the project areas the UPGP has been helping the UPs in developing a MIS system. The UP Act Section 78 has also been addressed through installing provision of dissemination of information, especially, on open budgets. However, the project has not yet initiated any specific intervention to address the RTI section of the UP Act 2009 apart from the information disclosure aspects.

246 One of the objectives of both the projects (UPGP and UZGP) was to enhance resource absorption capacity of the Local Government Institutions (LGIs) and improve participatory development initiatives. Therefore, it was expected that LGIs would have initiated development schemes in an appropriate manner and maintained transparency and accountability in service delivery. Empirical evidence drawn by this study reveals that LGIs both at Union and Upazila levels face a broad range of institutional, functional and political challenges, which include capacity constraints, strained relationship with LD officials, dominance and control of the local chapter leaders of the ruling party and Members of Parliament. In addition, some of the regulatory policies and rules / regulations are not up to date. Although the Upazila has been active for some time, yet functional and institutional coordination between and among the line agencies are weak. Such lack of coordination coupled with centralised sectoral planning has strong implications on the development planning, management and ensuring service delivery at the Upazila and UP levels. The projects have, however, generated mass awareness, a core basis for participation, accountability and social oversight. On an average, 32 % of the respondents in project and 25 % in control areas were aware of projects and schemes undertaken by the UZPs. As usual, citizens were relatively less aware of the schemes/ projects undertaken by the UZPs both in project and control areas though citizens in project areas were relatively better informed.

Impact The projects have trained a total number of more than 12 thousands of rural LGI leaders. Such training, orientation programmes, peer learning and overseas exposure visits resulted in direct and indirect implications on their mindset, attitude and level of skills. They are more aware of their “political, administrative and social role” as a public representative. During the community based FGDs it has been observed that the members of the community in spite of their dissatisfaction of the overall services agreed that the elected representative of recent years are “socially more sensitive” and more “approachable”. The community members seem to have now relatively a higher level of “institutional trust” inn UP. Participation in the UP meetings by the community people has significantly increased and more importantly, they feel prompted to voice their opinion about local development. These opinions later are reflected in the UP plans more frequently in project areas than in control areas. At the macro level the most significant impact is the enactment of UP Act 2009, which is essentially a by-product of the project induced process. The provisions like open budget, ward shava, citizen charter, right to information have been the most successful innovation of the projects. The most important lessons drawn from both projects are: a. community engagement is possible and it ensures quality of the implementation of the projects; b. voices of marginalised people can be channeled through the Ward Shava.; c. open budget has significantly contributed

247 towards “responsive attitude” and “transparency” of the LGI officials; d. line agency officials have become more aware and also responsive to the problems and issues of the grassroots; e. WDF has significantly contributed to creating a platform for women leaders that has raised social awareness among them on the one hand and made them more politically conscious and empowered on the other. The UZP is gradually emerging as an effective body for coordination of development intervention and contributing towards more awareness and participation.

Sustainability Sustainability of an intervention without outside support depends to a large extent on the ability of the authorities to carry out the activities to enhance efficiency as well as the welfare of the intended beneficiaries. Large growth has been observed in revenue mobilisation in project areas during the project intervention period. The revenue growth has helped the authorities to undertake new projects for enhancing local level welfare. It appears that if the local authorities can continue to maintain the revenue growth as observed during project intervention periods, most of the expenditures would be sustained. However, the local authorities still depend to a large extent on the resources from the centre to carry out their budget. Such dependency may likely to limit their financial independence and may hamper project selection. Further revenue mobilisation efforts are needed to improve their financial base. The UP Act 2007 is considered to be an instrument of institutional strengths of UP. It is also to be acknowledged that UP Act 2009 is the reflection of the ideas that have been tested and replicated by the SLGDP and later by LGSP-LIC. Posting of senior officials as DLG (with the rank and status of Joint Secretary) and the DDLG (with a rank of Deputy Secretary) at the district level has created mechanisms of monitoring as well as back up support for the institutional strengthening of the Upazila and UP. The Cabinet has taken some initiatives to devolve more responsibilities and resources to the Upazilas that could further excel the decentralisation process and make the UZGP impact more sustainable and institutionalised. All the training delivered by the projects, however, are still project based interventions. Despite being delivered through five national training institutions, there is a strong and urgent need to embed UPGP/UZGP as well as other training deliveries targeting local government within a unified national capacity building (CB) framework. Until this can be achieved, training initiatives will still be linked to ad hoc funding and project based innovations, which ultimately may not be sufficiently linked to strategic focal areas within the LG policy. The sustainability of the newly piloted e-based MIS at selected UPs depends on a successful national up scaling, preferably through the LGSP-III. As of recent date there is no National CB Framework for the LG officials. The NILG has been using a comprehensive module called

248 Capacity Development (CapDev) Framework for Union Parishads through a Joint Partnership agreement made with SDC in September 2012. But that framework is yet to be formally recognised as the National Capacity Development Strategy for Local Government has not led to a strong coordination of efforts across various programmes. Without a formal strategy, training delivery will continue to be fragmented and rely on ad hoc funding through support projects. The newly- drafted report on Capacity Development is yet to be approved. A number of experts believe consultants’ report on the Capacity Development Framework is more of an “academic” than based on the actual and expected needs of potential trainees. The project has contributed towards developing a participatory culture and a demand side of accountability. This emergence of a participatory culture and increasing demand side for accountability, transparency, awareness of gender rights as a whole is likely to strongly contribute towards a sustainable democratic system of governance. With adequate emphasis on capacity building and training, the UPs are better prepared to identify and design projects that are more responsive, pro-poor and gender sensitive. The positive output of the project has provided UPs with a new and effective option to develop a positive image to influence the mind-set of the rural people towards UPs. Considering the role of capacitated UPs with new image, and added with the growing demand side of good governance, the impact of the project is likely to be sustained.

Conclusion A close assessment of the performance of UPGP and UZGP reveals that most of the challenges being faced by these projects are rooted in institutional concern issues. Such institutional issues need to be addressed and resolved at the policy level and active advocacy for the demand side is required. The long-term impact of both UPGP and UZGP would depend on the manner in which the learning generated from these projects are shared and mainstreamed into government policies and strategies and harmonised with other sectoral policies.

The training programmes have considerably developed the level of confidence and functional skills of the UP/UZP Councillors, especially female Vice Chairs, who are appearing to be more active in decision making of the Upazila Parishad, and is supported by the emerging expanding role of the WDFs.

Through training and workshops, both UPGP and UZGP appear to have been able to infuse some democratic values among LD officials and the field evidence suggests that they are gradually acknowledging the political reality and accepting the authority of the political executives. It is also true that a number of young generation civil servants have gone through the academic training on the values and spirit of New Public Management at the Public Administration Training Centre during their foundation training period. This change in mindset on both sides is paving the way for better accountability and induced a new and emerging democratic culture at the local level.

249 Most of the challenges faced by the projects at local level pertain to national policy and strategies which need to be pushed forward. The projects have been successful in strengthening the legal frameworks of both tiers of local governments, but a number of policy areas now need to be addressed.

The PAG should start functioning and expanding its membership by inducting relevant external actors and link up with the inter-ministerial group to inform about various reform issues. The project has tested and documented that some of the democratic innovations introduced and promoted can become viable in the context of the changing political and administrative reality of Bangladesh. The project has significantly made UPs understand, internalise and institutionalise the new provisions of the UP Act 2009, despite a challenging political context. Through technical support and backstopping, UP operations, Standing Committees, Ward Shavas, and WDFs are gradually getting institutionalised in the local governance process. It has also created an alternative counter balancing force in the otherwise authoritative role of old fashioned working modalities of the UPs. Evidences show that UPs are on their way to become more transparent, accountable and responsive to the community needs along the targets of the project. The project interventions have made the UPs relatively more gender sensitive and responsive to the need of the poor and marginalised community segments and diversified investments to better target the MDG needs.

A number of more systemic constraints need to be addressed at policy level to further enhance UP capacity: e.g. funds are rather limited and needs to be improved to catch up with the participatory gains, which may otherwise erode if citizens perceive that outcomes of their participatory efforts do not match up. The parallel and overlapping committee structures under UP and LD, respectively, is another issue which needs to be addressed at the policy level. Full empowerment of the UP standing committees cannot be realised without clearer institutional arrangements and division of roles vis-à-vis the LD committees. Training is still provided on an ad hoc-basis. The project should now launch the work on the comprehensive LG Capacity Development Framework to ensure that CB efforts are well coordinated across various projects.

Both projects have piloted an enhanced performance-based grant system, which has become an important catalyst for the achievement of project objectives within local governance, pro- poor development planning, MDG service delivery, and increased own-source revenues (OSR) mobilisation. The performance elements are highly appreciated by the LGIs and have instilled a stronger awareness in good governance and internal competition. As per design, they have also contributed to the identification of capacity gaps, which can be fed back into the CB activities of the projects and highlight the systemic malfunctions, which also needs to be addressed at the policy level.

250 The projects have been able to generate and facilitate broad policy discussions across the country on the future directions of local government institutional issues. Through its action research and review of policies and legal framework, the projects have been effective in initiating amendments to the local government regulatory framework (legal instruments, guidelines). In broad terms the projects have contributed towards the development of institutionalising and sustaining local governance through strengthened transparency, accountability and participation practices through standing committees, WDF, ward shavas, open budget meetings, citizen charter etc. Also, the performance-based grant allocations seem to have created a competitive efficiency between and among the LGIs. At the policy level, based on the outcome of project results and outcomes, the LGD has been able to successfully convince the Government of creating additional staff position like UP Accountant cum Computer Assistant to enhance the operational and managerial efficiency of the UPs, transfer of funds of the Line Ministries under the custody of UZPs to ensure a higher degree of institutional accountability of the Line Ministry (LM) staff to the UZPs. However, the projects faced some challenges which call for special and immediate attention to be paid on such fronts. Most of the constraining factors affecting the implementation, relates to systemic issues such as ambiguous division of roles and responsibilities and parallel management structures between the political and executive branches and tiers of government. The UZP level, in particular, is prone to partisan conflicts and needs further governance reforms in order to emerge as a strong tier of local government. The UPs on the other hand are faced with fundamental capacity constraints vis-à-vis their mandate, and there is a serious risk that democratic gains achieved through innovations such as Ward Shavas and open budget meetings are not sufficiently matched by the limited funding available for community development. Participatory exercises without proper means is a classic way of demotivating citizens, and public engagement in local government runs a risk of being eroded, if funding is not increased over time. The final evaluation thus highlights the need for a more programmatic approach, bringing relevant ministries on board on a more comprehensive reform programme addressing additional dimensions of the LGI framework. The policy studies initiated by the projects highlight many of the critical issues that need to be addressed in future reforms, and the scale of a joint support programme linked to such reforms needs to be discussed between the GoB and the development partners, in order to link international support to the government reform priorities emerging from the SFYP and similar policy documents. On this account, revitalising the local consultative group on local government is considered to be crucially important and the government should play a proactive role in this regard. The overall achievements of the UPGP and UZGP in conclusion can be summarised in the below matrix. The matrix vividly pinpoints the critical constraints of governance that UP and UZP had been facing so long, how they affected the performance of LGIs and how the projects have been able to overcome these constraints through introducing a positive change in local level governance.

251 UPGP Matrix : Table : UPGP’s Responses to the Critical Constraints to UP Governance Nature of Consequence(s) UPGP’s Responses Constraints Limited Community members at UP Organised Ward Shavas twice a year by each understanding of level are rarely consulted and UPs in each Ward for selecting development UP functions among harbour low expectations. schemes of local people’s choice, organised public open budget meetings for strengthening accountability and transparency. Lack of long term Free style selection of local UPGP required the UPs to prepare five- year vision for the UP development schemes without and annual plans having a clear local level development linking this to the national development vision and linking the plans to development priorities the national priorities. UPs lack capacity to UP’s heavy dependence on Made the direct block grants available to UPs utilise funds central government and line with a view to enhancing the absorptive effectively department funds. capacity and effective use. Low level of UP members were only UPGP provided systematic training to the UP awareness of the partially aware of their formal members both male and female to enhance UP functionaries responsibilities, and often their understanding about and awareness of lacked the skills and resources the legal framework. Frequent skill training required to discharge their imparted to them helped them undertake responsibilities greater responsibility and get more engaged in local development. Low level of Often led to corrupt practices UPGP required the UPs to prepare five year information and misunderstanding and annual plans and also budget, minutes of disclosure between the local people and meetings are now readily available to the the elected representatives of public at UP offices. UPGP also ensured that UPs UPs making efforts to proactive disclosure of budget, annual financial statements, copy of audit reports by putting these up in the UP notice board for public display. Power of Chair The Chairman is placed in a Institutionalising mechanisms of downward relatively powerful position, and accountability and introducing participatory often takes decisions in planning and management processes. conjunction with a small circle of associates in a non-transparent manner. Use of funds unknown. Exclusion of women Women members are Women’s involvement in WDFs and at least generally excluded from major 30% of projects and 30% of the block grants decision-making arenas and are invested in projects identified by women women’s needs are not members. Specific seats in key committees addressed. reserved for women.

252 Matrix : Table : UPGP’s Responses to the Critical Constraints to UP Governance Nature of Consequence(s) UPGP’s Responses Constraints Limited and UP had limited capacity to Community ownership has led to an increase insecure revenue raise revenue because of in local revenue mobilization. Additional base public mistrust. grants were made available linking this with improved performance. Centralised project Projects were designed and UP level planning mechanisms introduced and program design decisions taken at the ministry involving community, UP Chair and members and delegated to Upazila- and other line agency officials. based line departments for implementation. Weak relationship Relationship between elected UPGP has helped restoring a relationship of between representatives and mutual trust between the community and the community and community is characterized by elected representatives by ensuring increased elected mutual mistrust level of participation of communities in all representatives important affairs of UPs and by establishing a system of transparency.

UZGP Matrix : UZGP’s Responses to the Critical Constraints to Upazila Governance Nature of Constraints Consequence(s) UZGP’s Responses No budget prepared Upazilas adopting arbitrary Institutionalisation of the budgeting process at at the Upazila level approaches to spend the the Upazila level. Contributed directly to the revenues generated. No preparation of the budget related rules of the budgetary predictability. government and also ensured that the Upazilas comply with the government rules and budget formats provided by the government. No long- term plan Arbitrary selection and UZGP required the Upazilas to prepare five available at the implementation of local year and annual plans having a clear local Upazila level development schemes development vision and linking the plans with without linking this to the the national priorities and also establishing a national development link between the five year and annual plans. priorities. Upazila officials lack Upazilas not having a UZGP provided training to the Upazila elected budget and plan budget and plans. and appointed officials with a view to improving formulation capacity their budget and plan formulation capacities. Upazilas suffer from Upazila on its own could not UZGP made additional funds available to the fund constraints and undertake and implement Upazilas known as Upazila Fiscal Facility (UFF) this limits its ability to local development projects and made sure the Upazilas spend more on contribute to local as many as it was expected social sector or MDG related development development by its constituents. schemes.

253 Matrix : UZGP’s Responses to the Critical Constraints to Upazila Governance Nature of Constraints Consequence(s) UZGP’s Responses Standing committees Problems with UZGP emphasized activating the standing not functional at the identification of the committees for ensuring the sectoral balance Upazila level sectoral priorities and by linking the standing committee activation keeping sectoral balance in with performance measures. expenditure decisions. Weak linkage Lack of coordination UZGP focused on establishing an effective between line between these two linkage between Upazila Parishad and the line department and entities had negative departments in terms of planning and Upazila Parishad implications for local budgeting. development. Small scale projects Small scale projects failed UZGP kept its focus of undertaking and undertaken by the to serve residents of implementing relatively large scale projects Upazilas do not multiple UPs. providing benefits to more than one UPs. conform to the local development needs Upazilas focus mainly Local development not UZGP wanted a break away with this tradition on physical being balanced. and focused on implementing pro-poor and infrastructure projects MDG related projects. No partnership and Upazilas were on their Introduced the unique idea of co-financing at coordination of own feet always. the Upazila level to foster local development activities between initiatives. Upazila and other public and private entities working locally Women development Women were being UZGP has promoted the idea of Women issues not given deprived of establishing Development Forums at the Upazila level and attention their rights. systematically dealt with the women development issues at the local level. Low level of Often led to corrupt UZGP required the UPs to prepare five year information disclosure practices and and annual plans and also budget, minutes of at the Upazila level misunderstanding meetings are now readily available to the between the local people public at UP offices. The UPGP also ensured and the elected that UPs making efforts to proactive disclosure representatives of UZPs. of budget, annual financial statements, copy of audit reports by putting these up in the UP notice board for public display.

254

PART – VII GENDER ANALYSIS

7.1. Key Findings

Two projects have created a momentum in mainstreaming gender issues in local level planning, budgeting and in overall local governance. As an impact of various capacity building initiatives a significant improvement in the level of awareness among women members was evident. Increasing level of political empowerment of women was evident in the project area from their higher level of active involvement in different UP affairs including, i) attendance in the UP general meetings, ii) participatory planning meetings, iii) WDF meetings and activities etc. Attitudes of the male members, in some cases, created constraints in meeting the conditions of securing the due share of resources and opportunities by the female members. To ensure adequate participation of women in decision making intensive gender sensitisation training/workshop for the male members on the one hand and increased participation of female members in training on the other, need to be ensured.

7.2 Gender Strategy for UPGP & UZGP Women in Bangladesh face sheer disparity in enjoying their rights and opportunities, exercising control over decision making and allocation of resources despite the fact that they constitute half of the total population of the country. The Bangladeshi women operate in a social structure which is mostly patriarchal in nature reinforced by various religious, economic and political norms that create numerous barriers to the path of achieving women’s political participation and advancement. The Constitution of Bangladesh advocates for equal opportunity for all irrespective of gender and races and recognizes the need for reduction of gender-based disparities and deprivations in

255 order to ensure equitable growth in a democratic society. The National women Key Principles Of UZGP and UPGP Development Policy 2011 also pledges to Gender Strategy ensure the socio-economic, political, administrative and legal empowerment of  Gender equality and mainstreaming will women with their full and equal participation be a cross-cutting theme for both the in the mainstream socio-economic projects in all stages of the respective development. project cycle i.e. planning, result setting, implementation, monitoring, review and Alongside these national policy documents, the budgetary allocations. Upazila Parishad Governance Project (UZGP)  Women’s political empowerment will be and the Union Parishad Governance Project ensured to strengthen their role in Local (UPGP) made explicit commitments to Government System. mainstream women members’ role in political  Engender planning, budgeting and and development decision making at the local resource allocation processes within local level for effective functioning of the respective government system Parishads and strengthening of local  Capacity building of elected female democracy1. The two projects offer focused representatives, interventions to help women overcome the social, economic, religious and cultural barriers Source: GOB (2012) Gender Strategy, UZGP, UPGP that suppress their voices and to bring women 2012-16,LGD, MOLGRD to the forefront.

The two project documents contain a shared broad outline of gender strategy. Aligned with SDG 5 and the gender commitments of the government of Bangladesh and the National Women Development Policy, the UZGP and UPGP commit to consider gender equality as cross cutting theme in project cycle and activities aimed at ensuring that women can participate equally with men, as political representatives and citizens within local governance structures and processes.

7.3 Achievements of UZGP and UPGP In line with their gender strategy, the UZGP and UPGP have introduced the following measures at the respective local government institutions (LGIs):  Formation of a Women Development Forum (WDF) at the Upazila under the UZGP to organise and politically empower the female representatives;  Earmarking 30 per cent of the Block Grants for schemes in which women would be direct beneficiaries;  Chairing one- third of the Standing Committees by women in the UPs under the UPGP;

1 Government of Bangladesh (2012), Gender Strategy, Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) 2012- 2016, LGD, MOLGRD.

256  A performance criterion requiring regular and active participation of women members in the UP’s monthly and other meetings as eligibility for securing Extended Performance Based Grants (EPBG) under UPGP.

Through these measures, during their project lives, the two projects have made significant contributions to introducing gender perspective in all aspects of local governance and increasing political empowerment of women. Broadly, the two projects have:  initiated the process of mainstreaming the role of elected women members in the decision- making processes of LGIs.  increased resource allocation and expenditure on gender-focused activities compared to the past.  increased capacity building of female members leading to their increased participation in decision making  enhanced political empowerment of women enabling them to assert their needs and protect their rights  improved women leadership at the community level.

7.3.1 Gender mainstreaming Gender mainstreaming – a strategy of bringing a gender perspective to all aspects of policy and functions through building gender capacity and accountability- was the key focus of both the projects. The projects aimed to ensure gender mainstreaming primarily through effective training programmes, establishing WDFs at the Upazila and district level, equal participation of men and women in decision making, gender focused planning at Upazila and Union Parishad level. The projects have initiated the process of mainstreaming the role of elected women members in the political and development decision making for effective functioning of the respective Parishad through extending training opportunities to them. Various project interventions targeting increased political empowerment of women have also been able to bring about a change in the mindset of local government officials and representatives to support greater equality of women in local governance and development. All the project Upazila Parishads (UZPs) (100%) informed that the female members were provided with the opportunity to raise and discuss issues in the UZP meetings, whereas about 82.5 per cent of the control area UZPs provided such opportunities to their female members. This difference is indicative of the female member’s enhanced capacity on the one hand and changed attitudes of the male members towards them on the other when compared to that of the control area counterparts. During interviews, a number of female members noted, “Now situation has changed a lot….we can raise our voices in the meeting and the male members seem to be supportive and welcoming”.

7.3.2 Capacity Building The UPGP organised a number of general and specialised trainings for the women members. Field data reveals that in project areas 100% of the female UP members were imparted training until the end of December 2016 while in control UPs this rate was far low (45%). The general and specialised training provided by the projects helped the female members enhance their

257 understanding of legal, administrative and institutional functions and their corresponding roles. The capacity building training has significantly enhanced the competence and confidence of the women members and facilitated their active participation in decision making. Alongside a number of training sessions organised by different agencies like NILG, Upazila Parishad, DPHE, NGOs, and other line agencies of the government the projects organised a number of specialised training on planning, budgeting and leadership skills for the elected female members of UP and UZP. Between 2012 and 2016, in project Upazilas, a total of 19314 UZP stakeholders were given training, of which 4331 were female members and 14225 were male. It is encouraging to note that a great majority of female vice chairs (63.9%) in project Upazilas received training between 1 and 2 times during their tenure. Both projects focused on the prevailing capacity gaps and organised various training and orientation programmes accordingly in order to strengthen the capacity of the elected women members. Projects could recognise that women lack leadership skills and technical capacity to understand and contribute to respective LGI’s functioning, which is one of the important factors causing their marginalisation2.

7.3.3 Gender focused planning, budgeting and resource allocation The initiatives of UPGP and UZGP for mainstreaming the women in plans, budgets Gender focus in development and actions have facilitated the upward schemes integration with the national policies. The Local Government Division issued a Circular in  Women empowerment receives 2015 urging the LGIs to ensure that at least special emphasis in Annual and Five 25% of local development projects were year plans of UP and UZGP. implemented by women, promoting targeted  85% of the project UPs had focus on local support to women and girls on issues of women empowerment in annual plan education, employment generation, cultural (2015-16) development and protection and promotion of  Implementation of women focused rights. As a result of this, later, it became a projects was also high in project areas practice for LGIs to consider undertaking 25% than in control areas of the development schemes to be  Around half the beneficiaries (48%) of implemented by women. Field data also development schemes were the showed an upward trend in allocation for women women and children in Upazila budget in the

Fiscal Year 2015-16 (3.7%) compared to that in the previous year (3.1%).

2 Government of Bangladesh (2012), Gender Strategy, Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) 2012- 2016, LGD, MOLGRD.

258 Performance based grants with Minimum Conditions (MCs) and Performance Measures (PMs), is one of the important components of the UPGP. Performance grant has created an incentive and positive obligation for UPs to prepare annual and Five Year Plans where women empowerment occupied a significant focus. The PBGs provided by UPGP were based on an elaborate set of 41 performance indicators reflecting the next generation of innovations to strengthen local government. One of these indicators was to ensure that 30 per cent of the development schemes undertaken would directly benefit women. Accordingly, in 2015-16, the study found that women empowerment was one of the priority schemes component in the annual plan for project UPs while 85 per cent of the UPs had focus on women empowerment compared to 61 per cent in the baseline. It was a significant development indeed in introducing gender perspective in UZP planning. It is also worth noting that the rate of implementation of the women focused schemes (73%) was higher in project UPs than in control UPs (45%). Field data from the sample UPs also reveal that in recent years (20115/16), on an average, the project UPs undertook 2 women focused projects while in the baseline year, on an average one gender focused project was undertaken by the project UPs. Thus, compared to the baseline year, the average number of women focused projects in project UPs in recent years looks higher. The study also revealed similar focus on women empowerment in UP Five Year Plans (project: 85%, control: 74%).

In addition to giving focus on investing in women, under UPGP, plans are also expected to be prepared in a participatory manner. Evidence of participatory planning and budgeting and women’s participation in at least two-thirds of the UP general meetings in particular is one of the performance indicators under UPGP. This has created an obligation for the UPs to ensure women participation in the meetings through sensitising a change in the mindset of the male members. In project UPs, a large number of the UP functionaries (87%) also fully agreed about the contribution of performance based grant in maintaining gender balance in expenditure and women empowerment in UP planning process.

On the other hand, Upazilas under UZGP implemented a total of 554 MDG focused schemes between 2013-2016 and served 1734067 beneficiaries directly of which 835874 were women and 1391247 indirectly of which 672141 were women. Focusing on poor female beneficiaries can be seen as one of the finest achievements of UZGP. The field data also revealed a greater number of female visitors in project UPs compared to that in the baseline.

7.3.4 Political empowerment of women The projects have significantly contributed to the enhancement of political empowerment of women by ensuring increased participation of women in general meetings, Standing Committees, Ward Shavas, open budget meetings, and through upscaling WDF throughout the

259 country. An increasing number of women were found to have participated in these meetings and raised their voices on different occasions.

Standing Committee is a legal platform where women members could play a Political empowerment of women in vital role in UP and thereby contribute to project UPs the empowerment of women at the grassroots level. Section 45 of the UP Act  On an average 3.15 UP Standing 2009 sets the provision for Standing Committees are headed by female members Committees to draw both male and  On an average 10.15 of UP monthly female in the core decision making meetings where all female members (3) process, with at least one- third of the were present Committee chairperson reserved for the  89.2% of UPs where female members women members. The UPGP had raised any issue in Ward Shava sustained its focus on ensuring that all  99.1% of UPs where the issues raised by such Standing Committees were the female members were reflected in the established, and that they carried out ADP their mandated tasks on a regular basis.  95.3% of implementation of the women It reflects from the data that some UPs in proposed issues the project areas have nominated more  99.1% of UPs where female members were female members as Chair of the Standing present in open budget session in 2015- Committees than that of the mandatory 2016 requirements envisaged in the rules (one third of the total). Women participation  86.6% of UPs where the female members raised any issue in the open budget session in Ward Shava – a grass roots based participatory planning platform has also

been increased. Attendance in Ward Shavas by the female UP members was also found to be little higher (90%) in project UPs compared to that in control UPs (84%). Despite such a high participation of female members, participation of female households in Ward Shava in project areas was found to be 7% while in control UPs it was 3%. Thus, it is evident that although the project interventions have been able to encourage female representatives to participate in such meetings the community women are yet to be adequately organised for this.

The UPGP has been able to create a democratic atmosphere and space for the women members of the Parishads to spontaneously share their opinions, ideas and views. Among the female participants, in project areas 89.2 per cent of the female members participated in Ward Shavas raised some issues while this rate was low (73.3%) in control area. The issues raised by the female members include: women empowerment/employment, infrastructure development, prevention of child marriage, prevention of women oppression, hygienic sanitation for women in public places, safety- net programmes. It is encouraging to note that almost all the female participants in both project areas (99%) and control areas (97%) informed that the issues they

260 raised in the Ward Shava were reflected in the ADP and were finally implemented, the rate of which was higher in project areas (95.3%) than in control areas (87.5%).

The UZGP has achieved a milestone in enhancing political empowerment of women through forming WDF. A wide range of upscaling of WDF at the Upazila and district level has taken place and its integration with national policy and institutions has further facilitated the mainstreaming of women in local level decision making process. By 2016 WDF has been scaled up across the country. WDFs mobilised over 16000 Up-scaling of WDF elected LGIs’ women representatives as member of WDFs at district to union - 551 WDFs formed across 64 districts and level. The WDF receives at least 3 per 487 Upazilas cent of the Upazila annual development - 16,000 women are members of a WDF budget, under a Circular issued from Local Government Division (2015). The - 3% of Upazila annual development budget Forum has proved to be able to establish allocated to the WDF an upward and downward linkage with - 65% of WDF leaders have been elected to the LGIs. In 87.5 per cent of the project local government Upazilas WDFs got registered at the - 268 WDFs registered as an official body district level and 80 per cent of the UPs with MoWCA have on an average one woman representative participating in officially

registered WDF at the Upazila level while in the baseline only 61 per cent of the UPs had this.

WDF connects and integrates elected female members with local government institutions and the community and has emerged as a key structure in strengthening accountability and inclusiveness governance at the local level. Women members consider it as a platform for creating a space for their participation and raising voice in the decision-making process and for enhancing leadership capacity whereby they can contribute to the local level development. Field data reflects a greater participation of female members in WDF meetings in project areas (79%) than in control areas (58%).

Besides, women participation in open budget meetings has also increased significantly. In project areas 87.5 per cent of WDF members also informed attending the UZP budget meeting, the rate of which is higher than in control areas (65%). Their participation in these meetings is not being mere passive. The field data reveals that during the last one year (2015-16), in project areas, on an average WDF proposed 5 development projects and around half of them (2.34) were finally implemented. On the contrary, on an average 2 projects were proposed in control areas the average number of projects proposed by the female members was 2 while 1.26 of them were implemented.

261

“Now we feel a bit empowered as we can do at least something for the community with the allocations we receive although it is too small” -A WDF member at Dumuria Upazila, Khulna

In Dumuria Upazila under Khulna District the WDF became successful in receiving the financial grant (3% of the Upazila parishad budget) earmarked for the Forum. With this fund, the WDF members had demonstrated their leadership skills for community capacity building. The Forum undertook three major initiatives with the funds it received, which include: i) computer training for girls; ii) training programme for maternal and child care; and iii) billboard against child marriage. “Though small, but I think these initiatives added significant values to the lives of the community women”, said the WDF Chair. She continued, “In particular, 14 billboards displayed in 14 unions of the Upazila created a strong impact on young girls and their parents and on the community at large in taking a stance against child marriage”. “Moreover, now we feel a bit empowered as we can do at least something for the community with the allocations we receive although it is too small”, added a WDF member.

WDF members organised various campaigns including courtyard meetings, rallies and street Qualitative data obtained through dramas, which has been able to create a positive interviews of different categories impact on improving the level of awareness among of respondents including the local the female members. The WDF has come to play an elites, UP representatives and active role in the everyday social and economic well- government officials revealed being of women and girls, intervening in issues of women empowerment and their violence against women and forced early marriage3. development as the most notable Among others, child marriage has been reported to achievement of the two projects. be significantly reduced in almost all UPs in both "Women empowerment and project (100%) and control areas (97%). Other social increased women's participation in ills, incidences of which have significantly been decision making has been the most reduced due to the active role of female UP members include: sexual harassment of women, visible contribution of the UZGP to domestic violence against women and children, eve the community, which can be teasing, drug addiction and the practice of dowry, attributed to the upscaling of informed the FGDs. Gradually, the female members WDF", observed many female UP are evolving as the community leaders and they members during interviews. have been functioning as effective “change agents” for the community.

3 GOB (2017) Results Report: Upazila Governance Project (2012 to 2016), LGD, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, Dhaka.

262

UZGP and UPGP Helped Develop Effective Rural Leadership

Traditionally men and women representing the solvent groups provide leadership in the rural local governments particularly because they also give social and economic patronage to the poorer section. Therefore, it has always been assumed that poorer sections lacking wealth, education and other accompanying attributes are not capable of developing as leaders. The UPGP and UZGP’s interventions aimed at breaking away with this tradition. These two projects helped the UPs and Upazilas to approach and design training of grass-roots men and women in a way that they can provide leadership in political institutions through a process which on the one hand provided them opportunity to learn the relevant issues by working among the community and on the other hand to be oriented with the processes and practices of the local government and local administration by involving with their activities in resolving the issues faced by these leaders in the community. This approach has seemed to have provided very useful hands-on leadership training for rural leaders. This enabled them to establish the much needed triangular linkages of local government/local administration, citizens and leadership to establish a participatory and accountable system of governance at the UP and Upazila level. The design and implementation strategy of these projects of organising them through training and orientation on the issues the grassroots leaders encounter regularly seemed to have played a key role in mobilising and activating them. Participants of these training and orientation programmes were the leaders who came from ordinary families without any previous orientation or experience of leadership and learned to organise and act in providing leadership to actions to improve the conditions at the villages. They received orientation and training on leadership and gender sensitivity, Union Parishad and Upazila functions, financial management, legal rights and family law, social analysis and organisational development, etc. Through their active and dedicated work in the community these new generation leaders have come to be accepted and respected as social activists-- which in turn enhanced their status in the families and also their family’s status in the community.

In addition to being politically active, women members are also getting more engaged in administrative activities. Now they do not end up with mere proposing schemes in the meetings rather they are also showing interest in implementation of the schemes. FGDs reveal that female members in project UPs (40%) are more active in supervising the implementation of projects than in control UPs (22.5%). This is a commendable progress and a huge step forward indeed with regard to women’s empowerment. Table 7.3.4.1 demonstrates the achievements against the intended outputs of the projects with regards to women empowerment.

263 Table 7.1: Intended project outputs and achievements Intended Gender Related Project Control Indicator Project Outputs area area  % of Upazila with registered WDF 82.5 (40) 52.5 (40)  % of UPs having at least one women 80 (220) 79.2 representative participating in WDF at (220) Equal participation of men and women in the Upazila level democratic institution  Mean No. of monthly general UP 10.15 9.95 building at the local level meetings attended by all elected (220) (220) female members  % of elected female members raised 100 72 issue in monthly UZP meetings (102) (71)  % of UPs allocate block grant funds to Gender specific planning 84.6 65.1 gender focused scheme (30%) in UP and budgeting at UP level (117) (109) Annual Plan  Mean No. UP Standing Committees 3.15 3.04 headed by female members (UP and UZ) (120) (118) Gender equality in policy  % of participatory planning meetings 90 84 and institutional process (Ward Shavas) at UP attended by the (1892) (1607) female members

Source: Endline Data

7.4 Challenges Ahead The UZGP and UPGP have been able to make a significant progress in achieving gender mainstreaming and political empowerment of women but still the study found some challenges ahead-- which need to be addressed in order to attain more substantial progress and also sustain it. They are as follows:  Despite the fact that the projects have largely been able to bring about a positive change in the mindset of the male members supporting equal participation of female members it is yet to be robust enough. Some cases are still there where patriarchal societal structure dominates the term resulting in reluctance of the elected male members to support the gender mainstreaming initiatives. During interview, a female member lamented, “Male members do not consider us human beings, they tend to refuse allowing us to talk in the meetings and even if they do, they don’t seem to be supportive to our stands”. Similarly, in some cases it was reported that WDF failed to receive their due share of resources (3% of total budget) because of the lack of support of the male members for this.  Apart from male domination, political jealousy is another important factor that also causes constraints for female members to access to their due share of funds and other opportunities.

264  Although an increasing number of women members are now being given various kinds of training l compared to their male counterparts women member’s representation or inclusion ratio is still low.  Alongside the increased capacity of the female members as an outcome of receiving numerous types of training and workshops, it was observed, during the field study that female members still lacked the required bargaining skills to make a meaningful contribution to local governance and development. Low level of education was identified by many female members as one of the reasons for this as it posed an obstacle for them to grasp the training/orientation messages well, which negatively affected their bargaining skill later.  Gender focus of the projects, in reality, was found to be limited to the elected female members to the LGIs neglecting the inclusiveness of the community women at large, which is a great challenge for the sustainability of the momentum achieved with regard to women empowerment through the project interventions.

7.5 Conclusion To conclude, it can be said that UPGP and UZGP have been able to initiate a process of gender mainstreaming and empowering women at the local level. Now women feel themselves more empowered and organised than before. Considerable improvements have occurred on the front of awareness, competence and confidence of the female members. Despite all these achievements, it was also observed that women were still being discriminated to an extent in enjoying their rights and opportunities. To reduce these discriminations and to bring women at the forefront through improving their political participation some initiatives need to be given serious considerations. They are as follows:  Intensive gender sensitisation and orientation training for the male members to support equal participation of men and women in decision making.  Women participation in training should be increased further in order to increase the capacity of women members.  For the female members, a minimum level of education should be made an eligibility requirement so that it becomes easier for them to grasp training modules, various Acts/ rules.  Alongside focusing on capacity building of the elected female members, inclusiveness of the community women in decision making needs to be given emphasis in order to sustain the progresses already achieved and to ensure its robustness.

265

PART – VIII SELF- ASSESSMENT OF LGD POLICY MAKERS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF UPGP AND UZGP

The Study team members have interviewed senior policy makers of the Local Government Division, including the Secretary, Additional Secretaries and National Project Directors, and Project management staff of both UPGP and UZGP to get their assessment as regards the overall performance, the design of the projects, performance grant system, the impact and VFM of the projects, impact on VFM, quality of local governance and the overall challenges of institutionalising the lessons learned from the project. Following is a brief narrative on their qualitative assessment. However, the assessment does not necessarily reflect the official position of the respective officials, but a snapshot overview as regards their individual observations on the overall performa nce of the UPGP and UZGP.

Union Parishad Governance Project Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) (UPGP) How does LGD assess the overall Performance of the Project? In general the project has shown excellent Overall performance of the Upazila performance and is regarded as a flagship Governance Project (UZGP) is remarkable. project of LGD. The project is also one of its There are visible evidences that the Upazila kinds to supplement other projects of the Parishads gradually become vibrant and visible. LGD to enhance the quality of local UZGPs under the project areas have been able governance. to develop an improved planning and The project has not only achieved targeted budgeting system. Quality and capacity of improvement milestones, but also found to holding monthly meetings have improved, be operationally cost effective Upazila Parishad (Standing) Committees are timely formed and functioning, Development Targeted scal transfers through the fi plans are prepared timely. Expanded Performance Based Grants to U Ps have brought qualitative changes in the In general, Upazila Parishads’ performance in overall performance of the UPs. planning, budgeting, selection of development schemes has improved and so is the peoples’ Enhanced capacity of about 80,000 satisfaction to Upaz ila Parishad services. functionaries of UP including Government officials through trainings, workshops, peer UZGP provided technical support for drafting 4

266 Union Parishad Governance Project Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) (UPGP) learning, coordination meetings, Rules, preparation of 207 UZPs’ 5-year plan, backstopping support, IEC materials on UP trained to over 18,000 elected representatives Act, Rules/Regulation, Planning & and officials of Upazila Parishad, technical Budgeting, MIS, Procurement, Tax ,Audit, assistance and training to improve services Office Management etc. have made a through digitisation. noticeable impact on the overall Furthermore UZGP supported the LGD to performance of the UPs. publish Upazila Parishad Manual with Acts, The Project has given technical assistance Rules and Circular. to prepare more than 12 new Rules, UZGP supported 65 UZPs in setting-up Regulation (Budget, Tax Rules, Citizen information display board and installation of Charter) to enhance the quality and process digital attendance system in line department of operational practices for UPs to provide offices, primary schools, community clinics and basic service delivery. health centers to improve service provider’s timely attendance, thereby improved service The Project has also introduced Web Based delivery. MIS and Accounting system to ensure more institutional accountability, transparency, 99% of UZPs in project areas are now regularly and responsiveness and has also drafted a holding their monthly meetings. Sixkey New Capacity Development Framework. targeted Standing Committees of the project areas are meeting regularly. Significantly 100% A Monitoring, Inspection and Evaluation UZPs are submitting their budget in time. (MIE) strategy for the LGD has also been developed. In addition also drafted a New UZGP supported formation of 551 Women Capacity Development Framework is under Development Forums (WDFs) covering all UZPs review. Some policy research and districts by mobilising over 16000 elected recommendations have also been reflected women representatives in UPs, Municipalities in 7th Five Year plan of GoB (2016-2020). and Upazilas. Evidences suggest (Mid- Term Evaluation) WDF has enhanced the quality of The project has developed UP Plan and women’s participation in Local Government Budget books and Tax Assessment Books Institutions (LGIs). for service delivery. Due to various changes Through the performance based grants scheme in approaches and initiatives undertaken by 554 locally important projects have benefited a the project, there has been a significant total of 1736962 (male-901088 & female- improvement in generating local revenue – 835874) through improved skills, employment which is about 115% higher from baseline. opportunities, education, health care, Most importantly the project has enhanced agriculture related services, thereby the human resource capacity of the UP. contributed largely to achieving MDG targets. About 16,000 elected Women The project also conducted a number of policy

267 Union Parishad Governance Project Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) (UPGP) Representatives from the LGIs have been studies and action research which has largely trained, 551 Women Development Forums contributed in the policy landscape. As many (WDFs) - a catalyst body for the LGI women as seven recommendations generated by the representatives for empowerment and project have been incorporated in the 7th 5- gender rights, participation and year plan. mainstreaming gender issues. As a forward looking intervention the project has provided orientation training on SDG to Upazila Parishad functionaries. The project has also run awareness campaigns against child marriage and sexual harassment at 390 schools that mobilised over 250,000 students and community people.

Has there been any problem / inconsistency in the design of the projects? Innovations introduced by the project The UZGP project as observed by the senior required a lot of activities by the UP professionals and the project management Secretary who is already overloaded. For have not faced any institutional or example, handholding support for the SCs – management problem. additional manpower support could have been considered in the design.

A framework of collaboration and synergy could have been developed among the projects working at local level.

How helpful has been the performance grant component in supporting develop management? Performance assessment indicator system Performance Based Grants have addressed underlying the performance-based grants poverty, education, healthcare services. It also was well aligned with the governance addressed the needs of the marginalised results that the Govt. and project sought to section of people, including persons with promote – covering participatory planning, disabilities, ethnic minorities, which enabled transparency and disclosure, good financial inclusive development. management practices, own source Since the top performing Upazilas were revenue mobilisation and MDG linked selected from each selected district, it has investments. promoted healthy competition among Upazilas Development of the simple performance that induced improved local governance. In

268 Union Parishad Governance Project Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) (UPGP) assessment manual made it possible for addition, such top-up grant has enabled UPs to clearly understand the specific Upazila Parishad to undertake projects having actions that helped them achieve better co-financing with other entities, which is an scores, and even carry out self-assessment innovation to improved service delivery. that has contributed to improved results

More than 400 better performed UPs have received performance grants fund directly each year (2012-2013 to 2016-2017 FYs). The performance grant system has created a healthy competition among UPs

More significantly the Extended Performance Based Grants encouraged the UP to take 4,343 Pro-Poor/MDGs focused development Schemes benefitted 5 million rural people directly contributing to poverty reduction and employment creation.

What are the visible impact and VFM of the projects? The Impact seems to be powerful, The impact of UZGP is highly visible while we consistent and convincing for the LGD. see the situation of Upazila Parishad have changed significantly after UZGP’s This project has delivered a very high intervention. proportion of the project funds for activities at the UP level. The Upazila plan and budgeting system are now in place, budget, monthly meetings have Simplicity of the tools introduced by the become regular, UZPs are submitting budget in project, and easy to apply guidelines made time, key Standing Committee meetings are it possible to implement many innovations held. All such improvements seem to provide with minimal additional manpower evidence as best value for money regarding deployment. UZGP’s investment of capacity development of Upazila Parishad. The use of cascading training that made Upazila teams play the role of mentors and Performance Based Grants support to selected trainers had reduced the costs significantly. UZPs enabled opportunities to implement 554 development schemes that benefitted over 17 Local Government Division has also lac beneficiaries of them over 48% are women. effectively utilised and integrated the

269 Union Parishad Governance Project Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) (UPGP) DDLGs and DLGs in the project Gender focus projects in the rural areas with management system. Such engagement of particular focus to young girl child, special the district and division based senior health and hygiene services have made a officials have enhanced the positive impact on the lives of women and girls implementation, coordination and quality in the society. Some specialised training on the of the project and have added significant internet; mobile repairing and outsourcing value to the result of the project. training, modern oven technology, modern beef fettering training etc added some impact on the live and livelihood. About 93% of youths having trained under the UFF programme have been able to find employment. On an average, they were able to increase their monthly income by Taka 1409.09.

To what extent the project has enhanced quality of local governance? The project has enhanced quality of local UZGP has significantly contributed in governance in many ways- the civic promoting quality local governance by engagement activated direct participation activating the standing committees, enhanced and thus the voices of community people line agency coordination, innovative projects are recognised. The bottom- up approach in on co-financing system, regularising the the local planning process has been budgetary and planning processes. institutionalised by Ward Shava.

There is greater focus on poor households The Women Development Forum has emerged in scheme identification, which is an as a platform for the promotion and protection important signal that local governance is of gender representation, gender rights and becoming pro-poor. access.

Revenues have doubled, which is perhaps The UZGP has introduced an award for the strongest sign that local governance has innovation and best practice among Upazilas improved. and recognized “new innovations” to create Web Based MIS and Accounting system that healthier competitions among Upazilas. resulted in UPs to be more accountable, transparent and responsive to service delivery. Furthermore, new UP Rules, Regulation (Budget, Tax Rules, Citizen Charter) have supplemented to smooth implementation of basic service delivery.

270 What are the challenges of institutionalizing the lessons learned from the project? Both projects have by now experimented /piloted new models of interventions to enhance and ensure better service delivery and responsive and accountable governance at local level. The projects have also by now institutionalised or in a process of institutionalising various practices like monitoring and inspection system, MIS Integration (with LGSP-II) for all UPs, Capacity Development Framework for LGIs, Women Development Forum (WDF), Citizen Charter for UPs, Gender o-focused development interventions, performance grant system.

However, it is to be acknowledged that a history old process does not automatically get institutionalised over such a short timeframe. However, in order to get the model institutionalised a common platform of understanding of the line agencies have to be in place. At the Upazila level, the activated Standing Committees have shown the glimpses of opportunities and options to enhanced coordinated and complementary development engagement of the line agencies at the local level development planning and implementation. Devising an entry point and institutionalising a mechanism of inter-ministerial framework arrangement seem to be the important challenge of the projects of similar nature to institutionalise.

Assessment of Relevance: Top Management Perspectives The Secretary, Local Government Division, government of Bangladesh in a formal interview1 stated his vision about the sustainable development. He has observed that “development from below is more sustainable, cost-effective and has lasting impact”. In other words, he argues that LGIs being grassroots-based elected and accountable bodies have a higher potential to deliver development results. Empirical shreds of evidence drawn from the projects like UPGP and UZGP, with meager resources, have shown promise of cost effective and lasting impact. This impact assessment study further observes that the value for money for the projects have been significant. The Secretary, Local Government Division further noted,… “Accountability not only enhances the quality of governance, but it also brings community and professionals closer, by creating a platform for constructive engagement and ultimately enhancing mutual trust and dependency”. The empirical evidences suggest that both UPGP and UZGP have, to a great extent, been successful in establishing platforms towards establishing - i. better local level governance through participatory processes and accountability mechanisms, ii. extended the scope for community engagement & participation, created a platform for voice and accountability; iii. designed and activated the processes of developing a link between public bureaucracy/professionals and LGIs though committee system. The Secretary, LGD further reiterated that… “The right mix of wisdom and vision of the politicians and the professionalism of public bureaucracy can enhance the pace and process of development”. The projects have emphasised the importance of strengthening the committee system which has strengthened the institutional links and modalities of cooperation and coordination between public bureaucracy and Local elected bodies. As a result, the elected local leadership is gradually consolidating a “space in decision- making process” and about to take the “driver’s seat” and thereby taking a proactive role in deepening the processes and practices of democracy.

1 Interview with Hon. Secretary Abdul Malek, Bangladesh's Secretary of Local Government Division, with Global Partnership for Social Accountability & World Bank. For detail see http://wbi.worldbank.org/sa/news/interview-hon-secretary-abdul-malek-bangladeshs-secretary- local-government-division. Access date April 23rd 2017

271

PART – IX LESSONS LEARNED

The overall ﬁndings and analysis of the review provide some major lessons. Core lessons are presented in the box below:

• Community engagement supports better public service delivery and governance at the Upazila and Union Parishads. • Performance Based Grants have stimulated the improvement of UP and Upazila governance and created a healthy competition among the Upazilas and UPs. • Scope for democratic space and downward accountability has been accelerated through the induction of Ward Shava, Open budget and proactive disclosure of information. • Sustained focus on social sector projects has helped gender mainstreaming and contribute to develop local women leadership • Role of standing committees can reinforce public accountability of local governments and compliance of citizens. • Capacity building and changing mindset of Upazila and UP functionaries enhances Own Source Revenue mobilisation • Web based MIS system improves operational capacity, dynamism and oversight mechanism. • Regular monitoring visit to the Upazilas and UPs by the controlling authorities promotes financial transparency, accountability and compliance with the rules and regulations. • Model Upazila and UP Plans and Budget books encourage other Upazilas and UPs to make their plan effectively. • Co-financing has a significant potential provided adequate legal framework, technical support as well as devising an appropria te strategy are there to generate the trust of the potential partners. • By stimulating the demand side the fullest potentials of the initiatives for ensuring transparent and accountable governance can be achieved.

272 However an overall analysis based on the inferences of the study, some other lessons can also be drawn. These are as follows:

Grassroots based governments have the potential - In view of the findings of the study, it can be safely stated that there is a significant potential to transform the Union Parishads (UP) and Upazila Parishad as democratic, pro-poor, responsive, participatory, accountable and transparent service providers. This can further be substantiated in light of Seventh Five Year plan and Vision 2021 so as to eradicate poverty and institutionalise democracy at the grassroots level. Institutional innovations take time to get deep rooted. Experiences from both projects indicate that it takes longer time in preparation and implementation stage and to get tangible results.

Diverse interests need to be looked into - The success of such programme of institutional and process change has to accommodate the interest and concerns of different levels of stakeholders often having conflicting world views, opinion, interest and political and economic power base. Accommodating such diverse interests has been the most significant challenge of the UPGP and UZGP.

Limited ownership of Upazila based Officers- At the Upazila level involvement of Upazila based Officers in the Upazila Parishads seems to be “ritualistic” and “symbolic”. The inter-agency, inter-departmental coordination, planning and partnership are weak, if not nonexistent in almost all cases. Also, at the UP level extension workers of line agencies appear to work in a silo approach. The UP Complex, which is supposed to be the “hub” of extension line agencies still remain under-utilised.

Scope for coordination - Inter-institutional coordination and complementary planning of the UP/ UZGP is an important means to address and integrate the planning and development interventions of the LGIs. At this point of time such coordination is almost absent.

Emerging credibility and trust - LGIs -both UP and UZP, over the years have been able to gradually deepen its institutional base and it is in a process to develop their “institutional trust”, “functional competence” and “political image.” Both project interventions have constituted significantly to develop some institutional mechanism of planning, accountability and transparency and modalities of participation of the community and critical stakeholders.

New values and processes need to be recognised and appreciated - In order to address the future engagement in the mainstream development management in the light of attaining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), rights based development, values, experiences, models and process that have been developed by the UPGP/UZGP need to be institutionalised through adequate changes and induction of the regulatory process and legal framework.

Resources gap – All LGIs, especially, the rural ones still suffer from resource gap. There is a need for a comprehensive understanding of the financial relations between the national level and

273 LGIs. It appears that there is an unpredictable pattern of allocation. Identifying the channels of vertical resource flow and revealing horizontal disparity will facilitate addressing the core issues of LGIs. Making out the ways and means for further enhancement of availability of funds at LGIs vis-à-vis the implementation of the laws for greater effectiveness of the LGIs will be instrumental.

Delayed or stalled decision at the centre deter the process of decentralisation- The government's indifference to enforce the policy decision regarding the transfer of finances to the Upazila Parishads for paying the salaries of the transferred staff has not been implemented yet – causing lack of accountability, responsiveness and institutional performance.

Technical assistance is needed and matters - Capacity building and technical assistance support have noticeably contributed to accountability, responsiveness and social engagement of the LGIs. Both UPGP and UZGP have contributed to functional and institutional capacities of the LGIs in the project areas by installing accountable delivery of services and responsive governance. It has also positively contributed to the improved performance of both the UP and Upazila through general capacity building.

Gender mainstreaming and leadership draw results - There are evidences that the creation of WDF has promoted gender responsive planning, budgeting, improved women’s voice and leadership in decision making and also addressed issues as regards violence against women and children.

Capacity building is a starter - Capacity development of elected and line department officials was invaluable in making UPGP and UZGP a more accountable service provider. Issue-based workshops and special sessions on planning and budget preparation as well as awareness campaigns were found to be an effective instrument to ensure citizens’ engagement and people’s participation, at large.

Community engagement triggers confidence, pro-poor investment and participation - The strong engagement of communities through the Ward Shava has deepened the pro-poor focus in local investment planning and local revenue mobilisation. Ward Shava has also emerged as a social accountability platform.

Back up support to macro policy - Evidences drawn from the complementary projects (UPGP and UZGP) supplement the potential of the macro level policy as to build capacity of “local governments through assigning appropriate officials, providing technical assistance and training programmes” (Seventh Five Year Plan, P. xliv).

Evidence and persuasion matter in changing laws - The projects since its inception have been able to make a dent at the policy level and a new UP Act, a number of new rules and regulations, new institutional mechanism of participatory budgeting and planning, women’s participation in decision and planning process, community based accountability have been

274 enacted/installed. All these initiatives contributed to further deepening of the democratic process generating demand side of development planning and social accountability.

Missing the critical points - Both UPs and Upazilas have not been yet fairly effective in order to address some critical areas like environment and climate change and its mitigation and adaptation approaches. Although there are a number of support projects addressing these areas, still there is a need at the UP level to ensure that environment and climate change are fully mainstreamed in local plans and schemes.

Third eye perspectives add value and credibility - the PAG has created a platform for citizen- state collaboration. It has initiated a process of engagement of civil society organisations (CSOs), experts, politicians and elected and non-elected officials of local governments in policy oversight and advice.

Performance grants give resources but also produce results- Both projects with the effective use of performance grants have improved transparency, accountability and participation of the LGIs. There are evidences of improved pro-poor, gender friendly planning and MDG service delivery in pilot areas. Furthermore the grant system has improved women’s participation and capacity building support to female leaders and LGI’s own resource mobilisation processes.

275

PART – X RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD

Based on the ﬁeld survey data, observations visits, expert consultations, interviews with the KIIs, feedback and inputs received from the participants of the ﬁnal presentation workshop of the study – following broad recommendations have been captured.

Capacity Building • Capacity deﬁcit is one of the core concerns of local governments. There is also a marked deﬁcit of the supply side of training. Training centre should be established in the districts as well as Upazila levels. • Establishing Regional training hub should also be considered to sustain and institutionalise capacity building.

Finance/Budget • Effective Fiscal Decentralisation for LGIs requires a local government finance policy framework where finance should follow functions. Local government budget should be aligned wit h national budget for strengthening the LGIs. • “Basket funding” approach should be adopted by LGD which will help avoid overlapping and duplication of interventions at the local level. • Delay in receiving EPBG hampered timely implementation of schemes. Therefore, EPBG should be transferred on time. • Study findings reveal that all stakeholders are in favor of continuing the present audit system. Therefore, for ensuring transparency and accountability, the present audit system should continue. The audit period should be a bit longer and be done by experienced personnel/firms. • In order to stimulate co-financing, appropriate legal frameworks are to be enacted detailing the modalities of partnership/engagements among the potential local partners.

Grant system • Performance grant system has produced outstanding dividends, so the system should be further reviewed, streamlined and continued in future interventions.

276  Further attention should be given for effective use of performance grants.  Direct transfer of funds to the Upazila and UPs was found to be effective and this should continue.  UFF grant should be strengthened for co-financing and ownership building in local development.

Institutional/Organizational Framework  Experiences of UPGP and UZGP have strongly provided solid evidence of institutional achievements. Both projects should continue at least for one more phase and undertake few more innovative approaches to good governance and consolidate the tested tools with new interventions and experimentations.  In line with the policy framework of the 7th Five Year Plan, a uniform legal framework needs to be enacted and implemented.  Gradation of Upazila Parishad needs to be set up based on number of voters and other local development indicators.  Mechanism should be developed to address the external actor’s interference into the LGI development planning and management.  In order to strengthen the planning capacity, a planning cell should be formed at Upazila Parishad for formulating short, mid and long- term Upazila and inter-UP regional plans. A system is to be designed to develop a synergy between the Upazilas and other LGIs.  Additional technical, financial and institutional support should be provided to LGIs with a view to making the Ward Shava more participative, effective and inclusive.  Standing/Upazila committees have immense potential to democratise the LGIs, and therefore it is important that these are activated properly to ensure internal accountability, local service delivery, responsive and integrated planning of LGIs.  UP Complex be activated and all the line agencies field staff should be based at the complex. This will enhance the planning and technical competence of the UPs.  Participation of citizens in Ward Shavas and Open Budget Meeting is limited and women’s participation was found to be less than men. Therefore, more emphasis is to be given to encourage and motivate citizens in general and women in particular to participate in those fora.

M&E/Research/Data  Strengthen Monitoring, Inspection and Evaluation system for LG Division. Monitoring of LGIs by DDLGs and other relevant agencies should be ensured.

277  Coordination meetings between DDLGs and the LGD should be organized on a regular basis for feedback and follow-up measures should be undertaken by the MIE wing of the LGD.  The manpower and other related capacities of the MIE wing needs to be enhanced to perform its monitoring role  For better accountability and transparency at the local level, new modalities / processes need to be developed for the use of ICT/MIS..  Ward Shava should be used as alternative means for monitoring development/service delivery at the local level.  Continuous and long-term institutional research should be undertaken on UZP and UP to develop the next generation development projects / interventions for institutional modernisation of such UPZ and UP.

Coordination • Coordination meeting at UP should be conducted in the presence of UP members and UP based line agency field extension workers in order to make the local level services more responsive to the community needs.

Gender • More care and emphasis be given to make the female UP members engaged, enthusiastic and participative in the UP affairs. • Intensive training/orientation for the male members to support women’s participation in decision making needs to be organized • In order to enhance women empowerment capacity building initiatives should ensure increased participation of women.

Others  Cultural and social review and analysis should be done to identify the causes and concerns of low level of community participation in the social accountability process, community based planning sessions and other civic engagement in the rural areas.  Attempts need to be made to expedite the implementation of the Capacity Development Framework for LGIs.

Various training programmes were organised for capacity development of the stakeholders, but in some cases deficiency of team members in respect of knowledge & skill was observed. Therefore, ToT should be organised more effectively and proper monitoring of training implementation is necessary.

278

ANNEX: QUESTIONNAIRE

279 Identification Confidential, will be used for research purpose only Number

Impact Assessment Survey, UPGP Project-2016

Department of Public Administration, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000 CHECKLIST FOR UNION PARISHAD

Interview starting time: Hour Minute

Area identification:

A) Name of Union Parishad:

B) Type of Union Parishad Treatment ------1 Control ------2

C) Division: D) District:

F) Addresss:______E) Upazila: ______

G) Names and code numbers of interviewer and supervisor

Interviewer Supervisor

Name &

code: Signature:

Date: …..../…..../2016 …..../…..../2016 DD/MM/YYYY DD/MM/YYYY

H) Team number:

Name & Editor Coder Entry operator signature Date:

280 RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION I) Name and designation of imformation providers

Name Age Sex Designation Mobile No Sl. No (year) 1. Male 2. Female (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7)

02 03

SECTION ONE: GENERAL INFORMATION OF UNION PARISHAD / UNION PROFILE Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

101 Was this union included in LGSP ------1 any program previously? Other dosnor agency and NGO ------2

Neither of the two, None ------3

102 Name of Union Parishad

103 Name of Union Parishad

104 Area of the Union Sq. k.m

105 Total number of households 1 Poor Number

Non poor Number

Total Number

1 Those income level below Tk. 10000/- (Source: BBS Household Income and expenditure Survey 2010)

281 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

106 Total population of the Male Persons Union Female Persons

107 Total voters of the Union Total Persons

Male Persons

Female Persons

108 Total number of villages Number

------109 Does UP office have a copy Yes 1 ------of Union Parishad Act? No 2

110 Length of Metal Roads in K.m.. the Union

111 Number of health facilities at UP (Hospital, MCWC, Number

FWC, Other clinics)

112 Total number of Hats2 Bazar/Markets

Hats/markets in the Union?

113 Number of service related Number organizations (CBOs, NGOs & other associations/clubs)

114 Number of elected persons a. Chairman Person in place in UP b. Number of male members Person

c. Number of female Person members

115 How as many of the following services are available at UP? (See register)

a. Equipment & furniture, a. Chair Number specify name and number

b. Table Number

c. Almirah Number

d. Fan Number

2 Hat took place 2 or 3 days in a week and Bazar took place every day

282 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

e. Shelf Number

f. Computer Number

g. Sound box Number

h. Printer Number

I. Laptop Number

j. Generator Number

k. Camera Number

l. Projector Number

Other (specify)

Number

b. Space used by the UP

Decimal

116 Has UP formed the followings committees? Yes No a. Union Parishad Development Committees (UDCC) 1 2 b. Ward Committees 1 2 c. Scheme Supervision Committee (SSC) 1 2 d. Procurement Committee 1 2

117 How many register

maintained by UP? Number

283

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 118 Are the following registers available a in the UP? Union Parishad Type Yes No Form No. 1. Cash Book: 1 2 2. Daily Collection Book of Tax, Rate: 1 2 3. Tax and Rate collection receipt: 1 2 4. Miscellaneous Receive receipt : 1 2 Stock and Issue Register of receipt 5. 1 2 books: Register of imposed value added tax on 6. 1 2 land and building: Register of imposed tax on profession, 7. 1 2 trade and business: 8. Register of imposed tax on transport etc: 1 2 Register of miscellaneous demand and 9. 1 2 collection: 10. Register of grant: 1 2 11. Register of lone received: 1 2 12. Register of subscription and donation: 1 2 13. Register of permanent advance: 1 2 14. Register of establishment bill: 1 2 15. Register of establishment expenditure: 1 2 16. Incidental bill register: 1 2 17. Advance register: 1 2 18. Advance cooperative register: 1 2 19. Labour register: 1 2 20. Village court register: 1 2 21. Monthly register: 1 2 Register of yearly Statement of 22. 1 2 Accounts: 23. Investment register: 1 2 24. Immovable asset register: 1 2 25. Store stock register: 1 2 26. Stasmp register: 1 2 118 Other (Nos) A

284 SECTION TWO: UP GENERAL MEETING (REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORD THE INFORMATION) Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

201 How many UP monthly general meetings were held last year (July Number 2015 – June 2016)? 202 In how many monthly general meetings of UP resolutions were Number recoded? 203 Number of monthly general UP

meetings with quorum? Number

204 Number of UP General meetings where all women members (3) Number participated?

205 How many members did Total participate in Union Parishad’s last Person monthly meeting (June 2016)? Male Person

Female Person

206 How many decisions were taken in the UP general meetings in the last Number financial year (July 2015-June 2016) and were dicided to implement?

207 How many decisions were decided to be implemented in Union Number Parishad and monthly meetings during the financial year July 2015- June 2016?

285 SECTION THREE: ACCESS TO INFORMATION BY TH E CITIZEN Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

301 Has UP assigned any person for ------Yes 1 providing information to ------public? No 2

302 Has any one applied to UP for ------Yes 1 any information in last financial ------year (July 2015-June 2016? No 2

303 Number of applications for

information Number

304 Number of requests have been

addressed Number

305 Is there any Citizen’s Charter3 Yes ------1

in the UP? No ------2 306 Have the following information posted on UP notice board and whether it has been informed or notified to the people? (check the notice board and circle the appropriate code) Posted on UP Informed or notified notice board? to the people? Yes No Yes No a. Annual plan 1 2 1 2 b. 5-Year-Plan 1 2 1 2 c. Annual budget posted on board 1 2 1 2 d. Last audit report 1 2 1 2 e. Annual Scheme list 1 2 1 2 f. Annual Income & Expenditure 1 2 1 2

307 If people are informed, write

down how?

3 According to UP Act 2009 each UP will publish a chart mentioning the services, conditions of services and ensuring services delivery within the given span of time to the citizen – is the Citizen Charter

286 SECTION FOUR: TRAINING OF UNION PARISAD FUNCTIONARIES Q. Question Answer and code Skip No. 401 Have the UP Chairman, Members and Secretary received Yes ------1

training on their roles and

responsibilities? (NILG, BARD, 404 Upazila, Family Planning No ------2 Academy and others?

402 If yes, who and how many of them receved training? a. UP Chairman Person

b. UP Members (male) Person

c. UP Members (female) Person

d. UP Secretary Person

403 What kind training have been received by UP Chairman, Members and Secretary so far? Subject of Training How If yes, Venues of Who Yes No. many how training? organized days? many the training?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Mandatory activity of 1 1 2 Union Parishad Act 2009: Financial management 2 including Tax assessment 1 2 & collection: 3 Open Budget sharing: 1 2 Local resource 4 1 2 mobilization & utilization: 5. Women Development 1 2 Planning, scheme 6. formulation and 1 2 implementation Others (specify) 1 2 ______Others (specify) 1 2 ______

404 Did UP get any technical support Yes ------1 (such as training) from Upazila ------SEC5 level? No 2

405 If yes, how many times in the last year? Number

406 From which agency? (Specify the

name of the department)

287 SECTION FIVE: REPORTING OF UNION PARISAD Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip ------501 Does UP prepare any report Yes 1 SEC6 No ------2

502 If yes, what types of report are produced and where are the sent to?

Types of reports Yes Where the report is sent? No

a. Quarterly report ------1 2 ------b. Half yearly 1 2

c. Yearly ------1 2

SECTION SIX: PERFORMANCE GRANT SYSTEM AND UNION PARISHAD GOVERNANCE Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip ------601 Do you think performance Yes 1 ------grant system was an effective No 2

mechanism to stimulate UP Difficult to assess ------3

governance? Don’t know ------4 Performance grant’s contribution towards improvement of planning budgeting 602 and good governance

Sl. Question: Performance grant has Fully Partially Disagree Strongly No. contributed to agree Agree disagree 1 Make additional funds available 1 2 3 4 2 Create a sense of competition 1 2 3 4 3 Improve good governance as a whole 1 2 3 4 4 Hold Ward Shava as envisaged in the Act 1 2 3 4 Create incentive and positive obligations to 5 1 2 3 4 prepare five year and annual plan Pay attention to citizen’s charter and its 6 1 2 3 4 implementation 7 Maintain multi-sector (MDG) focused plans 1 2 3 4 Maintain gender balance in expenditure and 8 1 2 3 4 women empowerment 9 Achieve inclusive local governance 1 2 3 4 Prepare budget following the established 10 1 2 3 4 rules and regulations Effective office management (keeping 11 proper documentation and updating those 1 2 3 4 regularly)

288 Q. Question Answer and code Skip No. 603 Performance grant’s contribution to the improvement of financial management

Sl. Question: Performance grant has Fully Partially Disagree Strongly No. contributed directly to agree Agree disagree 1 Prepare the Annual Financial Statement 1 2 3 4 Maintain cash book and updating it on a 2 1 2 3 4 regular basis 3 Pay attention to bank reconciliation 1 2 3 4 4 Prepare for the external audit 1 2 3 4 Follow the procurement rules and keep records 5 1 2 3 4 of the procurement related documents 6 Keep the asset register and update it 1 2 3 4 Hold open budget meetings to share 7 1 2 3 4 information 8 Disclose budget document 1 2 3 4 9 Enhance local tax efforts 1 2 3 4 10 Increase own source revenue generation 1 2 3 4 Organize innovative initiatives for enhanced 11 1 2 3 4 revenue generation 12 Prepare the defaulter’s list 1 2 3 4 13 Disclose and serve the defaulter list 1 2 3 4

604 What are the three areas 1. which contributed most in 2. good governance in case

where PBG became 3 remarkably successful? ------605 Was the allocated money Yes 1 ------under PBG system adequate No 2

to create an incentive Difficult to assess ------3

structure? Fairly ------4 Don’t know------7

606 What were the major Lack of manpower ------1

challenges encountered in Lack of training and skill -- 2

*M meeting the governance Lack of commitment of the elected 3 requirements associated with representatives-3 PBG system? Others (specify) ______

607 Can you provide us with your 1. suggestions to improve the

*M PBG system? 2.

289 SECTION SEVEN: WARD SHAVA (REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS) Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 701 Did every ward of UP (9 wards) ------Yes 1 hold 2 Ward Shaavas, with required

quorum (5% of total voters of that ------Word) in the FY 2015-16? No 2 (Information for financial year July 215-June 2016 of each ward to be collected separately.) Ward Q No. of Ward Shava held No. of Ward No. of Ward Shava No. of Ward No. of Ward No. during the last financial Shava presided over by Shava Shava where UP year Attended UP members where female UP Secretary attended (July 2015-June 2016) by 5% voter members attended 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total ------702 Did the female members Yes 1 raise/ discuss any issue in the ------SEC8 No 2 ward sava?

703 If yes, what were the issues

raised?

------704 Were they reflected in the Yes 1

ADP? ------No 2

------705 Were they implemented? Yes 1 ------No 2

290 SECTION EIGHT: STANDING COMMITTEES (REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS) AND THE WOMEN MEMBERS Q. Question Answer and code Skip No.

801 Number of Standing Committees Number formed upto June 2016

802 Check the documents and record the name of the committees and their status of

functioning: Standing Committee Whether Headed No. of Date of SC Prepared at least formed? by meetings last 2 monitoring reports (Yes-1, Female hold meeting during last financial No-2) Member during last year (July 2015-June (Yes-1, financial 2016) No-2) year (July 2015-June 2016) 1. Finance & establishment 2. Audit & accounts 3. Tax assessment & collection 4. Education, health & family planning 5. Agriculture, fisheries & livestock 6. Rural infrastructure development/maintenance 7. Maintenance of law & order 8. Birth & death registration 9. Water, sanitation & drainage 10. Social welfare & disaster management 11. Environment protection and plantation 12. Women, children and family affairs 13. Culture & sports

291 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 803 Number of Standing Committees Number headed by female (see record)

804 Is any female member of UP a ------member of WDF at Upazila? Yes 1 806 ------No 2 805 If yes, how many? Number ------806 Do the representatives from UP Yes 1 attend Women Development ------No 2 808 Forum (WDF) at Upazila level? 807 How many WDF meetings at Number Upazila Level were attended by UP

representatives during last financial year (July 2015-June 2016)? ------808 Did women members organize any Yes 1 ------awareness campaign last year? No 2 SEC9

809 If Yes, what were the issues of

campaign? *M

292 SECTION NINE: ANNUAL AND FIVE YEARS PLANS OF UNION PARISHAD Q. Question Answer and code Skip No.

901 Please see the copies of the plan, give codes and comments where necessary

Status of Plans availability of plan If not, specify the reasons Yes No. a. Availability of Annual Plan 1 2 b. Availability of Five year 1 2 plan 902 Sector of the Plans (MGD related programs or scheme) *M (Verify concerned files and then circle the sectors of the Annual Development plan and

the Five Year Development Plan.)

Sector of annual plan Five Years Plans Infrastructural development ------01 Infrastructural development ------01 Education ------02 Education ------02 Women empowerment ------03 Women empowerment ------03 Agriculture ------04 Agriculture ------04 Water and sanitation ------05 Water and sanitation ------05 Child and Youth development ------06 Child and Youth development ------06 Health care ------07 Health care ------07 Culture & sports ------08 Culture & sports ------08 Program for hard core poor ------09 Program for hard core poor ------09 Program for socially marginalized Program for socially marginalized people4 e.g. program for low cast people5 e.g. program for low cast people or low level occupational 10 people or low level occupational 10 people ------people ------Others (specify) 11 Others (specify) 11 ______

903 How many schemes were planned in the last financial year Number (July 2015-June 2016)?

904 How many of them were fully Number implemented?

905 How many projects of the five year plan have been included in Number the annual plan?

4 Socially marginalized group who are neglected in the society and deprived from various opportunities such as fishermen, weaver, sweepers/scavengers (methors), washer, Muchi, barber, Hizras, poor widows, day laborers, land less farmers, indigenous people 5 Socially marginalized group who are neglected in the society and deprived from various opportunities such as fishermen, weaver, sweepers/scavengers (methors), washer, Muchi, barber, Hizras, poor widows, day laborers, land less farmers, indigenous people

293 SECTION TEN: UNION PARISHAD BUDGET, AUDIT AND RESOURCE MOBILIZATION Q. Question Answer and code Skip No. 1001 Please review and see the copies of Annual budget and put tick mark and give the comments ------a. Availability of Annual Budget Yes 1 1002 No ------2 b. If not, specify the reasons

1002 Is the annual budget approved in Yes ------1 the UP general meeting? No ------2 1003 Review the budget document and mention the major sectors of budget

1004 From how many sowrces does UP mobilize it’s resources? Number of sources

1005 Please provide the following revenue information for the specified period Year Amount of revenue collected Amount received from center (Govt. Allocation) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

294

1006 Please give a details on the investment structure of the UP A. Total number of projects and total amount of money during July 2013-June 2016 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 No. of Amount of No. of Amount of No. of Amount of project money (Tk.) project money (Tk.) project money (Tk.)

B. Sector wise number of projects and amount of money invested 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Sectors No. of Amount of No. of Amount of No. of Amount of project money project money (Tk.) project money (Tk.) (Tk.) 1. Education 2. Agriculture and Irrigation 3. Health 4. Communication infrastructure 5. Poverty Elimination 6. Women Development 7. Youth Development 8. ICT 9. Others (specify) ___

1007 Please mention the following (from local bank): 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 a. Number of bank account increased b. Amount of deposit c. Amount of credit

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

1008 When was the tax assessment done least? Year

What is the total number of 1009 Number of households assessed for holding tax? HH

1010 How many notices household were served notices for tax payment? Number

295 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 1011 How many HH, have paid holding

tax during the last financial year Number (July 2015-June 2016)? What was the amount of holding tax collected in the last two finencial years 1012 (July 2014-June 2015 and July 2015-June 2016)? July 2014-June 2015 Taka

July 2015-June 2016 Taka

1013 In which sectors the collected resource/ amount of revenue have been spent in the last financial year

(July 2015-June 2016)?

1 1014 Was the July 2015-June 2016 budget Yes ------openly discussed with the people of 1018 ------2 the UP? No 1015 If yes, were there any female Yes ------1

member present? No ------2 1016 Did they raise any issue? Yes ------1

No ------2 1017 Were they reflected in the budget Yes ------1

later on? No ------2 1018 Was the budget sent for ratification Yes ------1 1020 by UNO (July 2015-June 2016)? No ------2

1019 If yes, when (Date)?

DD MM YYYY ------1020 Are the income and expenditures of Yes 1 the union maintained properly in 2 No ------cash book? ------1021 Was the budget of previous financial Yes 1 year (July 2016-June 2016 financial 2 No ------year) audited? ------1022 Was there any audit objection? Yes 1 1024 No ------2 ------1023 If yes, were they dealt with? Yes 1

No ------2

296 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 1024 Has UP disclosed information on 1 Yes ------revenue/expenditure of previous 1026 financial year (July 2015-June 2 No ------2016) to public? ------1025 If yes, how was the information Notice board 1 disclosed? UP meetings ------2

Public forum ------3 Ward Shava ------4 ------1026 Did you under take any Yes 1 devolopment project form your 2 1101 No ------own source revenue? ------1027 If yes, what type of development Road 01 ------project was undertaken? Educational 02 ------Health related 03 ------Religious institute 04 ------Womens development 05 Other (specify) ______

SECTION ELEVEN: STATUS OF SUPERVISION AND MAJOR SERVICES RENDERED BY UP Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 1101 Did any government official Yes ------1 (DDLG/ UNO/Others) come to UP 1102 to supervise the activities of UP No ------2 (July 2015-June 2016)?

a. If yes, how many times did they come? Number

Who?

1102 How many services does UP provide to the people? Number

297 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 1103 Ask about the services (separately) to the people and identify which services

have been implemented in the last year (July 2015-June 2016)?

Activities/services rendered during last year by the If Activates Implemented UP last financial year (July 2015-June 2016) Yes No

1. Infrastructure development ------1 2 2. Education program ------1 2 3. Women empowerment ------1 2 4. Agriculture program ------1 2 5. Water and sanitation program ------1 2 6. Child and youth development program ------1 2 7. Health care program ------1 2 8. Sports and cultural activities ------1 2 9. Development program for hard core poor ------1 2 Program for socially marginalized people6 e.g. 10. program for low caste people or low level occupational people (specify the project name) ------1 2 Others (specify) 11. ______

------1104 Did UP organize any awareness Yes 1 ------J campaign last year? No 2

1105 If yes, what were the issues of the

compaign?

J) interview ending time Hours Minute

Check the whole questionnaire if any of the applicable questions is left untouched/unasked. If all applicable questions are asked finish the interview giving thanks to the respondent

6 Socially marginalized group who are neglected in the society and deprived from various opportunities such as fishermen, weaver, sweepers/scavengers (methors), washer, Muchi, barber, Hizras, poor widows, day laborers, land less farmers, indigenous people

298 Identification Confidential, will be used for research purpose only Number

Impact Assessment Survey UPGP Project-2016

Department of Public Administration, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000 CHECKLIST FOR UNION PARISHAD

Interview starting time: Hour Minute

Area identification:

A) Name of Union Parishad:

B) Type of Union Parishad Treatment ------1 Control ------2

C) Division: D) District:

F) Addresss:______E) Upazila: ___

G) Names and code numbers of interviewer and supervisor

Interviewer Supervisor

Name &

code:

Signature:

Date: …..../…..../2016 …..../…..../2016 DD/MM/YYYY DD/MM/YYYY

H) Team number:

Name & Editor Coder Entry operator signature Date:

299 RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION I) Name and designation of imformation providers

Name Age Sex Designation Mobile No Sl. No (year) 1. Male 2. Female (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7)

02 03

SECTION ONE: GENERAL INFORMATION OF UNION PARISHAD / UNION PROFILE Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

101 Was this union included in LGSP ------1 any program previously? Other dosnor agency and NGO ------2

Neither of the two, None ------3

102 Name of Union Parishad

103 Name of Union Parishad

104 Area of the Union Sq. k.m

105 Total number of households 7 Poor Number

Non poor Number

Total Number

106 Total population of the Male Persons Union Female Persons

7 Those income level below Tk. 10000/- (Source: BBS Household Income and expenditure Survey 2010)

300 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

107 Total voters of the Union Total Persons

Male Persons

Female Persons

108 Total number of villages Number

109 Does UP office have a copy Yes ------1

of Union Parishad Act? No ------2

110 Length of Metal Roads in the K.m.. Union

111 Number of health facilities at UP (Hospital, MCWC, Number FWC, Other clinics)

112 Total number of 8 Hats Bazar/Markets

Hats/markets in the Union?

113 Number of service related Number organizations (CBOs, NGOs & other associations/clubs)

114 Number of elected persons Person a. Chairman in place in UP b. Number of male members Person

c. Number of female Person members

115 How as many of the following services are available at UP? (See register)

a. Equipment & furniture, a. Chair Number specify name and number

b. Table Number

c. Almirah Number

d. Fan Number

e. Shelf Number

f. Computer Number

g. Sound box Number

h. Printer Number

8 Hat took place 2 or 3 days in a week and Bazar took place every day

301 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

I. Laptop Number

j. Generator Number

k. Camera Number

l. Projector Number

Other (specify)

Number

b. Space used by the UP

Decimal

116 Has UP formed the followings committees? Yes No a. Union Parishad Development Committees (UDCC) 1 2 b. Ward Committees 1 2 c. Scheme Supervision Committee (SSC) 1 2 d. Procurement Committee 1 2

117 How many register

maintained by UP? Number

118 Are the following registers available a in the UP? Union Parishad Type Yes No Form No. 1. Cash Book: 1 2 2. Daily Collection Book of Tax, Rate: 1 2 3. Tax and Rate collection receipt: 1 2 4. Miscellaneous Receive receipt : 1 2 Stock and Issue Register of receipt 5. 1 2 books: Register of imposed value added tax on 6. 1 2 land and building: Register of imposed tax on profession, 7. 1 2 trade and business:

302

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 8. Register of imposed tax on transport etc: 1 2 Register of miscellaneous demand and 9. 1 2 collection: 10. Register of grant: 1 2 11. Register of lone received: 1 2 12. Register of subscription and donation: 1 2 13. Register of permanent advance: 1 2 14. Register of establishment bill: 1 2 15. Register of establishment expenditure: 1 2 16. Incidental bill register: 1 2 17. Advance register: 1 2 18. Advance cooperative register: 1 2 19. Labour register: 1 2 20. Village court register: 1 2 21. Monthly register: 1 2 Register of yearly Statement of 22. 1 2 Accounts: 23. Investment register: 1 2 24. Immovable asset register: 1 2 25. Store stock register: 1 2 26. Stasmp register: 1 2

118A Other (Nos)

303 SECTION TWO: UP GENERAL MEETING

(REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORD THE INFORMATION)

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

meetings with quorum? Number

204 Number of UP General meetings where all women members (3) Number participated?

205 How many members did Total participate in Union Parishad’s last Person monthly meeting (June 2016)? Male Person

Female Person

206 How many decisions were taken in the UP general meetings in the last Number financial year (July 2015-June 2016) and were dicided to implement?

207 How many decisions were decided to be implemented in Union Number Parishad and monthly meetings during the financial year July 2015- June 2016?

304 SECTION THREE: ACCESS TO INFORMATION BY THE CITIZEN

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

301 Has UP assigned any person for ------Yes 1 providing information to ------public? No 2

302 Has any one applied to UP for ------Yes 1 any information in last financial ------year (July 2015-June 2016? No 2

303 Number of applications for

information Number

304 Number of requests have been

addressed Number

305 Is there any Citizen’s Charter9 Yes ------1

307 If people are informed, write

down how?

9 According to UP Act 2009 each UP will publish a chart mentioning the services, conditions of services and ensuring services delivery within the given span of time to the citizen – is the Citizen Charter

305 SECTION FOUR: TRAINING OF UNION PARISAD FUNCTIONARIES Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 401 Have the UP Chairman, ------Members and Secretary Yes 1 received training on their roles 404 and responsibilities? (NILG, No ------BARD, Upazila, Family 2 Planning Academy and others?

402 If yes, who and how many of Person them receved training? a. UP Chairman

b. UP Members (male) Person

c. UP Members (female) Person

d. UP Secretary Person

403 What kind training have been received by UP Chairman, Members and Secretary so far? How If yes, Who Venues of Subject of Training Yes No. many how organized training? days? many the training?

404 Did UP get any technical support Yes ------1 (such as training) from Upazila level? SEC5 No ------2

405 If yes, how many times in the last year? Number

406 From which agency? (Specify the

name of the department)

306 SECTION FIVE: REPORTING OF UNION PARISAD Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 501 Does UP prepare any report Yes ------1 SEC6 No ------2

502 If yes, what types of report are produced and where are the sent to?

Types of reports Yes No Where the report is sent?

a. Quarterly report ------1 2 ------b. Half yearly 1 2

c. Yearly ------1 2

SECTION SIX: PERFORMANCE GRANT SYSTEM AND UNION PARISHAD GOVERNANCE Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip ------601 Do you think performance Yes 1 ------grant system was an effective No 2

mechanism to stimulate UP Difficult to assess ------3

governance? Don’t know ------4 Performance grant’s contribution towards improvement of planning budgeting 602 and good governance

Sl. Question: Performance grant has Fully Partially Disagree Strongly No. contributed to agree Agree disagree 1 Make additional funds available 1 2 3 4 2 Create a sense of competition 1 2 3 4 3 Improve good governance as a whole 1 2 3 4 4 Hold Ward Shava as envisaged in the Act 1 2 3 4 Create incentive and positive obligations to 5 1 2 3 4 prepare five year and annual plan Pay attention to citizen’s charter and its 6 1 2 3 4 implementation Maintain multi-sector (MDG) focused 7 1 2 3 4 plans Maintain gender balance in expenditure 8 1 2 3 4 and women empowerment 9 Achieve inclusive local governance 1 2 3 4 Prepare budget following the established 10 1 2 3 4 rules and regulations Effective office management (keeping 11 proper documentation and updating those 1 2 3 4 regularly)

307 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 603 Performance grant’s contribution to the improvement of financial management

Sl. Question: Performance grant has Fully Partially Disagree Strongly No. contributed directly to agree Agree disagree 1 Prepare the Annual Financial Statement 1 2 3 4 Maintain cash book and updating it on a regular 2 1 2 3 4 basis 3 Pay attention to bank reconciliation 1 2 3 4 4 Prepare for the external audit 1 2 3 4 Follow the procurement rules and keep records 5 1 2 3 4 of the procurement related documents 6 Keep the asset register and update it 1 2 3 4 7 Hold open budget meetings to share information 1 2 3 4 8 Disclose budget document 1 2 3 4 9 Enhance local tax efforts 1 2 3 4 10 Increase own source revenue generation 1 2 3 4 Organize innovative initiatives for enhanced 11 1 2 3 4 revenue generation 12 Prepare the defaulter’s list 1 2 3 4 13 Disclose and serve the defaulter list 1 2 3 4

604 What are the three areas 1. which contributed most in 2. good governance in case

where PBG became 3 remarkably successful? ------605 Was the allocated money Yes 1 ------under PBG system adequate No 2

to create an incentive Difficult to assess ------3

structure? Fairly ------4 Don’t know------7

606 What were the major Lack of manpower ------1

challenges encountered in Lack of training and skill -- 2

*M meeting the governance Lack of commitment of the elected 3 requirements associated with representatives-3 PBG system? Others (specify) ______

607 Can you provide us with 1. your suggestions to improve

*M the PBG system? 2.

308 SECTION SEVEN: WARD SHAVA (REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS) Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 701 Did every ward of UP (9 wards) ------Yes 1 hold 2 Ward Shavas, with required

quorum (5% of total voters of that ------Word) in the FY 2015-16? No 2 (Information for financial year July 215-June 2016 of each ward to be collected separately.) Ward Q No. of Ward Shava held No. of Ward No. of Ward Shava No. of Ward No. of Ward Shava No. during the last financial Shava presided over by Shava where UP year Attended UP members where female UP Secretary attended (July 2015-June 2016) by 5% voter members attended 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total ------702 Did the female members raise/ Yes 1 ------SEC8 discuss any issue in the ward sava? No 2

703 If yes, what were the issues raised?

------704 Were they reflected in the ADP? Yes --- 1

No ------2 ------705 Were they implemented? Yes --- 1

No ------2

309 SECTION EIGHT: STANDING COMMITTEES (REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS) AND THE WOMEN MEMBERS Q. Question Answer and code Skip No.

801 Number of Standing Committees Number formed upto June 2016

802 Check the documents and record the name of the committees and their status of

310 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 803 Number of Standing Committees Number headed by female (see record)

804 Is any female member of UP a ------Yes 1 member of WDF at Upazila? ------806 No 2 805 If yes, how many? Number

------806 Do the representatives from UP Yes 1 attend Women Development ------808 Forum (WDF) at Upazila level? No 2 807 How many WDF meetings at Number Upazila Level were attended by UP

representatives during last financial year (July 2015-June 2016)? ------808 Did women members organize any Yes 1 ------SEC9 awareness campaign last year? No 2

809 If Yes, what were the issues of

campaign?

311 SECTION NINE: ANNUAL AND FIVE YEARS PLANS OF UNION PARISHAD Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

901 Please see the copies of the plan, give codes and comments where necessary

Status of Plans availability of plan If not, specify the reasons Yes No. a. Availability of Annual Plan 1 2 b. Availability of Five year plan 1 2 902 Sector of the Plans (MGD related programs or scheme) *M (Verify concerned files and then circle the sectors of the Annual Development plan and

the Five Year Development Plan.)

Sector of annual plan Five Years Plans Infrastructural development ------01 Infrastructural development ------01 Education ------02 Education ------02 Women empowerment ------03 Women empowerment ------03 Agriculture ------04 Agriculture ------04 Water and sanitation ------05 Water and sanitation ------05 Child and Youth development ------06 Child and Youth development ------06 Health care ------07 Health care ------07 Culture & sports ------08 Culture & sports ------08 Program for hard core poor ------09 Program for hard core poor ------09 Program for socially marginalized Program for socially marginalized people10 e.g. program for low cast people11 e.g. program for low cast people or low level occupational 10 people or low level occupational 10 people ------people ------Others (specify) 11 Others (specify) 11 ______

903 How many schemes were planned in the last financial year Number (July 2015-June 2016)?

904 How many of them were fully Number implemented?

905 How many projects of the five year plan have been included in Number the annual plan?

10 Socially marginalized group who are neglected in the society and deprived from various opportunities such as fishermen, weaver, sweepers/scavengers (methors), washer, Muchi, barber, Hizras, poor widows, day laborers, land less farmers, indigenous people 11 Socially marginalized group who are neglected in the society and deprived from various opportunities such as fishermen, weaver, sweepers/scavengers (methors), washer, Muchi, barber, Hizras, poor widows, day laborers, land less farmers, indigenous people

312 SECTION TEN: UNION PARISHAD BUDGET, AUDIT AND RESOURCE MOBILIZATION Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 1001 Please review and see the copies of Annual budget and put tick mark and give the comments ------a. Availability of Annual Budget Yes 1 1002 No ------2 b. If not, specify the reasons

1002 Is the annual budget approved in Yes ------1 the UP general meeting? No ------2 1003 Review the budget document and mention the major sectors of budget

1004 From how many sowrces does UP mobilize it’s resources? Number of sources

1005 Please provide the following revenue information for the specified period Year Amount of revenue collected Amount received from center (Govt. Allocation) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

313

B. Sector wise number of projects and amount of money invested 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Sectors No. of Amount of No. of Amount of No. of Amount of project money (Tk.) project money (Tk.) project money (Tk.) 1. Education 2. Agriculture and Irrigation 3. Health 4. Communication infrastructure 5. Poverty Elimination 6. Women Development 7. Youth Development 8. ICT 9. Others (specify) ___

1007 Please mention the following (from local bank): 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 a. Number of bank account increased b. Amount of deposit c. Amount of credit

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 1008 When was the tax assessment done least? Year

1009 What is the total number of households assessed for holding tax? Number of HH

1010 How many notices household were

served notices for tax payment? Number

1011 How many HH, have paid holding tax

during the last financial year (July Number 2015-June 2016)?

314 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip What was the amount of holding tax collected in the last two finencial years 1012 (July 2014-June 2015 and July 2015-June 2016)? July 2014-June 2015 Taka

July 2015-June 2016 Taka

1013 In which sectors the collected resource/ amount of revenue have been spent in the last financial year (July 2015-June 2016)?

1014 Was the July 2015-June 2016 Yes ------1 budget openly discussed with the ------2 1018 people of the UP? No 1015 If yes, were there any female Yes ------1

member present? No ------2 1016 Did they raise any issue? Yes ------1

No ------2 1017 Were they reflected in the budget Yes ------1

later on? No ------2 1018 Was the budget sent for ratification Yes ------1 1020 by UNO (July 2015-June 2016)? No ------2 1019 If yes, when (Date)?

DD MM YYYY

------1020 Are the income and expenditures of Yes 1 the union maintained properly in 2 No ------cash book? ------1021 Was the budget of previous Yes 1 financial year (July 2016-June 2016 2 No ------financial year) audited? ------1022 Was there any audit objection? Yes 1 1024 No ------2 ------1023 If yes, were they dealt with? Yes 1

No ------2

315 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 1024 Has UP disclosed information on ------1 Yes revenue/expenditure of previous financial year (July 2015-June 2 No ------1026 2016) to public? ------1025 If yes, how was the information Notice board 1 disclosed? UP meetings ------2

Public forum ------3 Ward Shava ------4 1 1026 Did you under take any Yes ------devolopment project form your 1101 ------2 own source revenue? No ------1027 If yes, what type of development Road 01 ------project was undertaken? Educational 02 ------Health related 03 ------Religious institute 04 ------Womens development 05 Other (specify) ______

SECTION ELEVEN: STATUS OF SUPERVISION AND MAJOR SERVICES RENDERED BY UP Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 1101 Did any government official ------Yes 1 (DDLG/ UNO/Others) come to UP 1102 to supervise the activities of UP ------No 2 (July 2015-June 2016)?

a. If yes, how many times did they come? Number

Who?

1102 How many services does UP provide to the people? Number

316 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

1103 Ask about the services (separately) to the people and identify which services

have been implemented in the last year (July 2015-June 2016)? Activities/services rendered during last year by the If Activates Implemented UP last financial year (July 2015-June 2016) Yes No

1. Infrastructure development ------1 2 2. Education program ------1 2 3. Women empowerment ------1 2 4. Agriculture program ------1 2 5. Water and sanitation program ------1 2 6. Child and youth development program ------1 2 7. Health care program ------1 2 8. Sports and cultural activities ------1 2 9. Development program for hard core poor ------1 2 Program for socially marginalized people12 e.g. 10. program for low caste people or low level occupational people (specify the project name) ------1 2 Others (specify) 11. ______

------1104 Did UP organize any awareness Yes 1 ------J campaign last year? No 2

1105 If yes, what were the issues of the

compaign?

J) interview ending time Hours Minute

Check the whole questionnaire if any of the applicable questions is left untouched/unasked. If all applicable questions are asked finish the interview giving thanks to the respondent

12 Socially marginalized group who are neglected in the society and deprived from various opportunities such as fishermen, weaver, sweepers/scavengers (methors), washer, Muchi, barber, Hizras, poor widows, day laborers, land less farmers, indigenous people

317 Confidential, will be used for research purpose only Identification Number

Impact Assessment Study: Upazila Governance Project and Union Parishad Governance Project

Department of Public Administration, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000

HOUSEHOLD LEVEL INTERPERSONAL

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

Interview starting time: Hour Minute

Area identification:

A) Type of area Project ------1 Control ------2

B) Division: C) District:

D) Upazila: E) Union:

F) Ward: G) Mauza:

H) Village: I) Locality/mahalla:

J) Household Head’s name and Household No.

K) Names and code numbers of interviewer and supervisor:

Interviewer Supervisor

Name and code:

Signature: …..../…..../2016 …..../…..../2016 Date: Day/Month/Year Day/Month/Year

L) Team number:

M) Result code: 1=Fully interviewed, 2=Partially interviewed, 3=Not interviewed, 4=Not at home

Editor Coder Entry operator Name and code:

Date:

318 SECTION ONE: SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE HOUSEHOLD N) Circle one of the status as may be appropriate through data obtained previously by pre survey:

13 Well off/non poor--1 Low income/poor -- 2 Hard core poor ------3

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

101 Name of Respondent ______

Mobile/Phone: ______

102 Respondent's spouse

(wife/husband's) name: ______------103 Sex (Circle code without Male 1

asking question) ------Female 2

104 How old are you? Year

105 Marital status: Unmarried ------1

Married------2 Divorced------3 Separated ------4 Widow/widower ------5 106 What is your educational Grade passed qualification? (Write the grade passed) No grade passed/illiterate ------00

Nurani/Hafezi (religious edu.) ------55 Can sign only ------66 Non-formal education ------77 107 What is your occupation? (Write occupation)______

108 Number of living children Son Daughter Total

109 No of HH members Male Female Total

110 Major sources of household A. income B.

C. D.

Respondent’s Monthly income Taka 111 Spouse’s (Husband/Wife’s) 112 (Write occupation)______occupation

13 Well off/non poor: average monthly family income >Tk. 10,000: Taka; low income/poor: average monthly family income Tk.3500 to 9999 taka; hard core poor: average monthly family income < Tk. 3500

319

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

112 Spouse’s (Husband/Wife’s) monthly income Taka A

Monthly HH income

113 Taka

114 Mention your household expenditure (either total expenditure or share in percentage)

Note: The total of the expenditures of each heading will be equal to monthly total expenditure or the sum of the percent (%) of the individual heading will be 100 Items Amount (Taka) Share (%) 1. Food expenditure 2. Cloth and footwear 3. Fuel and lighting 4. Education 5. Treatment 6. House rent 7. Miscellaneous 115 Mention the monthly average Taka expenditure of the household

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR UNION PARISHAD INFORMATION

SECTION TWO: UNDERSTANDING/KNOWLEDGE ABOUT UP Q. Question Answer and code Skip No. ------201 Have you ever visited UP Yes 1 ------204 office/building? No 2

202 If yes, why did you visit (reason *M for visiting) UP office/building?

203 When did you last visit?

(specify in month & year) Day Month Year

204 What types of services does the

*M UP render for the people? ------205 Have you ever received/enjoyed Yes 1 211 any services rendered by the UP? ------No 2 206 If yes, what services have you

*M received?

320 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

207 When was the last time you received the service? (Please Month Year mention the name of month and

year received the services) 208 How did you get benefited by the

services recived from UP? *M

209 Who were benefited from these Self ------1 *M services? Family ------2 Community ------3 210 How satisfied are you with the Very satisfied ------1 service delivery system of UP? Satisfied ------2 Fairly satisfied ------3 Not satisfied ------4 211 Please provide the following information:

a. Mention the name of your UP

Chairman: Don’t know ------7

b. Date of your last contact with

him: Day Month Year

c. Name of your UP Ward Member Male General: (Male General): Don’t know ------7

d. Date of your last contact with

him: Day Month Year

e. Name of your UP Ward Member Femal

(Female): e:

Don’t know ------7

f. Date of your last contact with

her: Day Month Year

------212 Did you see any Citizens Yes 1 14 ------Charter in the UP office? No 2

Don’t know ------7 ------213 Have you or anyone of your Yes 1 family applied for any ------SEC3 information to the UP? No 2

214 If yes, did you get it? ------Yes 1 ------No 2

14 According to UP Act 2009 each UP will publish a chart mentioning the services, conditions of services and ensuring services delivery within the given span of time to the citizen – is the Citizen Charter

321 SECTION THREE: STATUS OF PARTICIPATION IN UP ACTIVITIES Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip ------301 Have you ever attended in any Yes 1 ------308 of the UP meetings? No 2

302 Why did you participate?

303 If yes, what types of meeting Union Development Coordination 01 *M have you participated in? Committee (UDCC) meeting ------Ward Shava ------02 Standing Committee meeting ------03 Budget meeting ------04 Planning meeting ------05 Women Development Forum meeting 06 at Upazila ------Village arbitration ------07 Other (specify)______

304 How many meetings have you attended in the last year (July Number

2015-June 2016)? 305 When did you last attend the meeting? (mention the last …..../…..../20_ _ / / meeting date) Day Month Year 306 What kind of meeting did you attend last and what were discussed in the last *M meeting?

Name of last meeting Topics discussed on

307 What benefit did you get

*M attending the meeting?

308 Have you ever participated in ------Yes 1 any rallies or any awareness 314 program organized and ------No 2 conducted by UP?

309 If yes, what types of

*M functions/program have you participated in?

310 Why did you participate?

311 How many activities or

programs of UP have you Number attended in the last year (July

2015-June 2016)?

322 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

312 When did you last attend the activities or programs? …..../…..../20_ _ (Mention the last time / / participation date) Day Month Year 313 What benefit did you get attending the activities or

*M programs?

------314 Have you ever participated in a Yes 1 ------326 Ward Shava? No 2

315 If yes, how many ward shavas have you attended? Number

316 When did you last attend the ward shavas? …..../…..../20_ _ (Mention the last time / / participation date) Day Month Year

317 How many people participated

in the last word shava? Persons

318 Why did you participate?

319 What benefit ded you get

participating in ward shava? *M

------320 Did you express your needs, Yes 1 problems or priorities in the ------326 Ward Shava meeting? No 2 321 If yes, what types of issues (needs/problems/priorities) you raised?

------322 Was your raised issues Yes 1 ------addressed in the meeting No 2

resolution? Don’t know ------7 ------323 Was there any development plan Yes 1

discussed in the Ward Shava? ------No 2 ------324 Was there any budget Yes 1

discussion in the Ward Shava? ------No 2

323

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 325 How satisfied are you with the Very satisfied ------1 performance of Ward Shava of Satisfied ------2 UP? Fairly satisfied ------3 Not satisfied ------4 ------326 Are you aware of any Yes 1 ------331 Standing Committee of UP? No 2 ------327 If yes, have you attended any Yes 1 ------331 Standing Committee meeting? No 2 328 If yes, what are the standing commettes meeting that you

*M have attended in last year?

329 If yes, mention the most recent participation date with name of committee:

a Name of Standing Committee:

b Date of last participation: …..../…..../20_ _ / / Day Month Year 330 How satisfied are you with the Very satisfied ------1 performance of Standing Satisfied ------2 Fairly satisfied ------3 Not satisfied ------4 ------331 Are you aware of Women Yes 1 Development Forum at ------SEC4 Upazila? No 2 ------332 If yes, is any UP member Yes 1 ------(Female) a member of WDF at No 2

Upazila? Don’t know ------7

If yes, mention the name:

------333 If yes, has she attended any Yes 1 ------WDF meeting at upazila No 2

level? Don’t know ------7

324 SECTION FOUR: UP PLANNING, BUDGETING AND AUDITING ACTIVITIES Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip ------401 Are you aware of Annual plan of Yes 1 ------407 UP? No 2 ------402 If yes, have you ever participated Yes 1 in the Annual Planning process ------404 of UP? No 2 403 If yes, how have you

contributed? *M

------404 Did any of your relatives/ Yes 1 ------acquaintances/neighbors No 2 participated in the preparation of 7 annual planning? Don’t know ------405 (If yes in any of 402 & 444 then ------ask) Did you or your relatives/ Yes 1 acquaintances/ neighbors raise any issue/point of your 407 ------community’s need in the No 2 planning meeting? ------406 If yes, was the issue/point Yes 1 accepted in the annual planning ------No 2 process? ------407 Are you aware of Five year plan Yes 1 ------410 of UP? No 2

408 If yes, have you ever participated ------Yes 1 in the Five Year Planning process ------of UP? No 2 409 If yes, how have you

participated? *M

------410 Did any of your Yes 1 ------relatives/acquaintances/neighbors No 2

participate in the formulation of 7 Five Year Plan? Don’t know ------411 (If any one of Q407 & Q410 is ------yes) Did you or your Yes 1 relatives/acquaintances/ 413 neighbors raise any issue of your ------community’s need in the Five- No 2 Year Planning meeting?

325 Q. Question Skip Answer and code No. ------412 If yes, was the issue accepted in Yes 1

the Five Year Plan? ------No 2 ------413 Are you aware of the UP Annual Yes 1 ------421 budget? No 2 ------414 If yes, have you ever participated Yes 1 in the open budget meeting (either for giving suggestions for ------No 2 preparation or for scrutiny/ review)? ------415 If yes, have you raised any issue Yes 1

in the open budget meeting? ------418 No 2 416 If yes, what were the issues/point? *M

------417 Were those issues accepted in the Yes 1

budget meeting? ------No 2 ------418 Did any of your relatives/ Yes 1 ------acquaintances/neighbors No 2

participate in the open budget 7 meeting? Don’t know ------419 How satisfied are you with the Very satisfied ------1 performance of open budget Satisfied ------2

meeting of UP? Fairly satisfied ------3 Not satisfied ------4 420 Who do you think should Male ------01 become more involved in the Female ------02 *M budgeting process? Youth (19-25 years) ------03 Socially marginalized group ------04 Don’t know ------77 Other (specify) ______------421 Were UP receipts and Yes 1 ------expenditures audited in last year No 2 424

(July 2015-June2016)? Don’t know ------7 422 If yes, how do you know about that? *M

------423 Did you meet with the auditors? Yes 1 ------No 2

326 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 424 Level of participation of the people in UP planning, budgeting and auditing: A Do you think the participation Need to increase ------1 of the people in UP planning Satisfied with present level ------2 process needs to be increased? Need to reduce ------3 B Do you think the participation Need to increase ------1 of the people in UP budgeting Satisfied with present level ------2 process needs to be increased? Need to reduce ------3 C Do you think the participation Need to increase ------1 of the people in UP auditing Satisfied with present level ------2

process needs to be increased? Need to reduce ------3 425 What are the sources of revenue from UP? *M

------426 Do you know about the Tax Yes 1 ------assessment of UP? No 2

Don’t know ------7 ------427 Was any tax assessment done Yes 1 ------for your household? No 2 431

Don’t know ------7 ------428 Do you think the assessed tax Yes 1 ------for your household is No 2

appropriate? Don’t know ------7 ------429 If yes, did you or your family Yes 1 ------pay holding tax last year? No 2 431

Don’t know ------7

430 If yes, how much money did Taka you pay? 431 Do you pay any of the following to UP except holding tax: ------A Fees to UP: Yes 1 ------No 2 ------B Tolls to UP: Yes 1 ------No 2 ------C Any other payments: Yes 1 ------432 No 2 If yes, specify: D

432 Does Union Parisad arrange for ------Yes 1 any meeting or event for ------501 revenue collection/holding tax? No 2 433 If yes, what action or

arrangement has been taken to collect revenue/holding tax?

327 SECTION FIVE: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE FUNCTIONS OF UP Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

501 How satisfied are you with the Very satisfied ------1 performance of UP (on Good Satisfied ------2 Governance, i.e. planning, budgeting, auditing and service Fairly satisfied ------3 delivery)? Not satisfied ------4

502 According to you, what are the

positive performances or the

strengths of UP?

503 What according to you, are the

negative performances or the weakness of UP?

504 Give suggestions on which group of people’s participation should be increased in UP activities?

a Poor:

b Well-off/non Poor:

c Women:

d Youth:

15 e Socially marginalized groups :

15 Socially marginalized group who are neglected in the society and deprived from various opportunities such as fishermen, weaver, sweepers/scavengers (methors), washer, Muchi, barber, Hizras, poor widows, day laborers, land less farmers, indigenous people

328 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR UPAZILA PARISHAD INFORMATION

SECTION ONE: INFORMATION ON UPAZILA PARISHAD SERVICES Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip ------601 Have you ever visited Upazila Yes 1 ------604 Parishad? No 2

602 If yes, how many times did you Times visit in last 3 months? 603 Usually for what purpose do Land related works ------01 * M you visit Upazila? Health services ------02 Family planning ------03 Education related works ------04 Fisheries and livestock related works ------05 Project related works in Upazila ------06

Resolve local conflict ------07 Receive banking service ------08 Law and order issue ------09 Sports and culture related works ------10 Other (specify)______

604 Score on the line departments’ services

Sl. No. Type of Services Very Good Average Bad Very Don’t Good Bad know a. Law and order 1 2 3 4 5 7 b. Communication and infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 7 development c. Agriculture and irrigation 1 2 3 4 5 7 d. Secondary and madrasa education 1 2 3 4 5 7 e. Primary and mass education 1 2 3 4 5 7 f. Health and family welfare 1 2 3 4 5 7 g. Youth and sports 1 2 3 4 5 7 h. Women and children development 1 2 3 4 5 7 i. Social welfare 1 2 3 4 5 7 j. Freedom fighter 1 2 3 4 5 7 k. Fisheries and livestock 1 2 3 4 5 7 l. Rural development and cooperative 1 2 3 4 5 7 m. Culture 1 2 3 4 5 7 n. Forest and environment 1 2 3 4 5 7 o. Observation, monitoring and 7 1 2 3 4 5 controlling of market price p. Finance, budget, planning and 7 1 2 3 4 5 mobilization of local resources q. Public health, sanitation and supply 1 2 3 4 5 7 of safe drinking water r. Land related service 1 2 3 4 5 7

329

605 Satisfaction level on civic facility Sl. Civic facility of Upazila Very Good Average Bad Very Bad No comments/ don’t No. Good Know a. Upazila Library 1 2 3 4 5 7 b. Entertainment 1 2 3 4 5 7 c. Sports field 1 2 3 4 5 7 d Bus/ truck/tempo stand 1 2 3 4 5 7 e Market place 1 2 3 4 5 7

SECTION TWO: ACTIVITIES OF UPAZILA PARISHAD Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 701 Satisfaction on the activities of Upazila Parishad

Sl. Type of Activities Do you Satisfaction on activity No. (Read to the respondents) have idea? (Go to the next question if no idea) Very Fairly Not Filly dis Don’t Yes No Satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied know A. Prepare five year plan and 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 other development plans B. Implementation / Coordination of different government 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 agencies agenda C. Construction, maintenance and 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 repair of inter-union roads D. Selection and implementation 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 of small irrigation projects E. Public health, nutrition and 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 family planning service F. Sanitation, drainage and supply 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 of safe drinking water G. Expand of Upazila wise 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 education H. Maintenance and donation for secondary and madrasa 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 education I. Build and expand small 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 industries J. Financial assistance to cooperative societies and 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 voluntary organizations K. Assistance to women, children, social welfare, youth and 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 cultural activities L. Development of agriculture, 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 livestock, fisheries and forestry M. Improvement of law and order 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7

330 Sl. Type of Activities Do you Satisfaction on activity No. (Read to the respondents) have idea? (Go to the next question if no idea) Very Fairly Not Filly dis Don’t Yes No Satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied know N. Self-employment and poverty 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 reduction O. Coordination and assistance to development activities of 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 Union Parishad P. Protect acid throwing, abuse of 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 children and women Q. Protecting theft, robbery, use of 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 narcotics, terrorism, etc. R. Social welfare 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 S. Disaster management 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 T. Cooperation with other 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 organizations U. Encourage e-governance 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 services V. Any duty imposed by 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 government

Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip ------702 Do you know about Yes 1 responsibilities and duties of ------No 2 704 Upazila Chairman?

703 If yes, what types of duties and responsibilities do you know about?

Sl. No. Duties and responsibilities of Upazila Chairman Do you have idea? Yes No A. Day to day administrative matters 1 2 B. Chair all Upazila parishad meetings 1 2 C. Supervise all staffs 1 2 D. Recruit staffs and take disciplinary actions if necessary 1 2 E. Project preparation and implementation 1 2 F. Keep records of all data and document 1 2 G. Signe contract 1 2 H. Issue license and permit 1 2 I. Protect crime and resolve conflict 1 2 J. Any duty delegated by government 1 2 K. Proceed to court if necessary 1 2 L. Monitor vice-chairman’s duties 1 2

704 Do you have any idea about the Yes ------1 duties and responsibilities of 706 Upazila women Vice------No 2 Chairman?

331 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 705 If yes, provide opinion about following duties and responsibilities of women vice- chairman.

Sl. No. Duties and Responsibilities Whether accomplish duties effectively? Yes No Don’t know Ensuring health, nutrition, family planning and maternity 1 1 2 7 services 2 Develop sanitation and drainage systems 1 2 7 3 Improve conditions of women and children 1 2 7 4 Develop small industries 1 2 7 5 Self-employment and poverty reduction 1 2 7 6 Protect abuse of children and women, Dowry, polygamy etc. 1 2 7 7 Develop livestock and fisheries 1 2 7 Monitoring cooperative societies and voluntary 8 1 2 7 organizations activities

706 Please give your opinion about th activities of Upazila chairman and vice-chairman

Women vice-chairman Chairman Vice-Chairman (reserved) Don’t Don’t Don’t

Yes No Yes No Yes No know know know

A. Visit project sites 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8

B. Attend cultural programs 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8

C. Resolve conflict 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8

D. Celebrate national days 1 2 8 1 2 8 1 2 8

SECTION THREE: BUDGETING AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

OF UPAZILA PARISHAD Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

801 Do you have an idea about Yes ------1 808 Upazila budget? No ------2

802 Do you know whether Yes ------1 Upazila budget has been No ------2 published in any local

newspaper? Don’t know ------7 803 Have you ever participated in Yes ------1 any special budget session 805 organized by Upazila No ------2 Parishad?

804 Did you give any opinion in Yes ------1

the special budget session? No ------2

805 Did Upazila Parishad Yes ------1

organize any open budget No ------2 808

session? Don’t know ------7

332 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 806 Have you ever participated in Yes ------1 any open budget session 808 organized by Upazila No ------2 Parishad?

807 Did you give any opinion in Yes ------1

the open budget session? No ------2 808 Do know whether any project has been under taken by Yes ------1 Upazila Parishad that can 901 bring benefit to the people of No ------2 more than one union?

809 If yes what types of projects *M have been under taken?

810 Do you know whether any

officer or Upazila chairman or Yes ------1

Vice-chairman of Upazila parishad came to inspect the No ------2 project of Upazila Parishad?

SECTION FOUR: STRUCTURE OF UPAZILA PARISHAD Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

901 Who are in the Upazila Parishad?

Is it easy to meet Upazila 902 Yes ------1 Officials or People’s 904 representatives if necessary? No ------2 903 If yes, who is the easiest to Chairman ------01 *M meet with? Upazila Vice-chairman ------02

Upazila Women vice-chairman ------03 Upazila Nirbahi Officer ------04 1001 Union Parishad Chairman ------05 Pourashava Mayor ------06 Women members (reserved seats) ------07 Other (specify) ______

904 Do you know what to do if not Yes ------1 easy to meet? No ------2

333 SECTION FIVE: GOOD GOVERNANCE

Q. No. Question Answer and code

1001 Have you ever tried to get Yes ------1 1004 information from UZP? No ------2

1002 If yes, have you got it? Yes ------1 1004 No ------2 1003 If yes, after how many days

have you got it? Days

1004 Do you know whether UZP Yes ------1 1008 Citizens’ Charter has been No ------2

prepared? Don’t know ------7

1005 If yes, have you seen it? Yes ------1 1008 No ------2 1006 If yes, where have you Notice board of UZP ------01

seen? Union Parishad ------02 Website of UZP------03 Other (specify) ______

1007 What issues are included in 1. ______the Citizens Charter? 2. ______

3. ______Have not read ------66 1008 When do you usually visit Morning ------1 UZP? Noon ------2 1010 After noon ------3

1009 Are UZP officials available in the office?

Sl. Designation of Officers Whether available in the office? No. 1. Yes 2. No 3. Sometimes Morning Noon Afternoon

a. Upazila Chairman b. Vice-Chairman c. Women Vice-Chairman d. Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) e. Upazila Health Officers /Doctors f. AC Land g. Social Welfare officer h. Upazila Engineer i. Upazila Agricultural officer j. Upazila Cooperative Officer k. Rural Development Officer l. Project Implementation Officer

334

Q. No. Question Answer and code

1010 If officials are not in the office Yes ------1 1014 do you go to their residence? No ------2

1011 If yes, are they available at Yes ------1 1014 residence? No ------2

1012 If no, Why? They don’t reside regularly at government 1 residence ------Don’t meet even at home ------2 Other (specify) ______1013 To your knowledge, which Upazila Chairman ------01 *M Upazila officials do not Upazila Vice-chairman ------02

regularly reside at Upazila Women vice-chairman ------03

government residences? Upazila Nirbahi Officer ------04 Pourashava Mayor ------05 Other (specify) ______Don’t know ------77

1014 In case of not getting Yes ------1

service, is their any No ------2 1101

complaint box in UZP? Don’t know ------7

1015 If yes, have you ever Yes ------1 1101 complained? No ------2

1016 Have you received any Yes ------1

response to your complaint? No ------2

SECTION SIX: STRENGTENING UPAZILA SYSTEM

Q. No. Question Answer and code 1101 What roles UZP can play for the development of your locality?

1102 What other services do you expect from UZP?

1103 What are your suggestions to further strengthen the UZP?

O) Interview ending time: Hours Minutes

Please check the whole questionnaire if any applicable question is left unasked. If all the applicable questions are asked finish the interview giving thanks to the respondent

335

INTERVIEW RELATED NOTE (WRITE SPECIFICALLY)

336

Identification Confidential, will be used for research purpose only Number

Impact Assessment Study: Upazila Governance Project and Union

Parishad Governance Project Department of Public Administration, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000

CHECKLIST FOR EXIT MEETING

Interview starting time: Hour Minute

Area identification:

A) Type of Respondent: Services receive from Upazila Parishad ---- 1 Services receive from Union Parishad ------2

B) Type of Area Treatment ------1 Control ------2

C Division: D) District:

E) Upazila: F) Union:

G) Names and code numbers of interviewer and supervisor

Interviewer Supervisor

Name & code

Signature

Date …..../…..../2016 …..../…..../2016 DD/MM/YYYY DD/MM/YYYY

H) Team number

Editor Coder Entry operator

Name & signature

Date

337 RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION I) Respondent name and background imformation

1 Name of respondent

2 Address of respondent

3 Age year

4 Occupation

5 Respondent’s Cell Number .

INFORMATION OF RESPONDENT Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 101 How frequently you visit Very Frequently ------1

UP/UZP? Sometimes ------2

This is the first time ------3

For which service you have 102 come to the UP/UZP today: 103 Did you come to UP/UZP Yes ------1 earlier to receive services?

No ------2

104 If yes, name the services for which you generally visit A.

UP/UZP? B.

}} 105 Average time needed to receive services from UP/UZP (from submission of application to receipt of service): Name of the services Time needed. A. B. C. 106 How many times did you need to visit the UZP/UP to get the desired service?

Name of service No.of visits A. B. C.

338 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip 107 Are you satisfied with the Very Satisfied ------1

timeliness of service delivery? Satisfied ------2

Fairly Satisfied ------3 Not satisfied ------4 108 Did you need to spend money to Yes ------1

obtain the services? No ------2 109 If yes, on average, how much did you need to spend for a service? Name of service Amount mony had to spend? A. B. C. 110 How responsive (promptness, High ------1

information sharing) are the Moderate ------2

service providers? Low ------3 111 How would you rate the Friendly ------1 behavior of service providers

(Chairman, Secretary, Members Fairly ------2 of Parishad, front desk, UDC, etc.) with the service recipients? Unfriendly ------3 112 Do you (female respondent) Yes ------1 face any problem/ discrimination while receiving No ------2 services?

113 If yes, what sort of problems

you face in receiving the desired

service, please specify:

114 Did you ever lodge complain Yes ------1 (refer the Citizens’ Charter) No ------2 against any service provider at UP/UZP? 115 Were your grievances addressed Yes ------1 by the authority ever? No ------2

116 Are you satisfied with the Very Satisfied ------1

overall quality of the services? Satisfied ------2

Fairly Satisfied ------3 Not satisfied ------4

339 Q. No. Question Answer and code Skip

117 Apart from receiving services Please Specify: what are the other reasons for

which you visit UP/UZP?

118 Have you ever attended any of the following meetings at UP/UZP? Name of the Event Yes No 1. Union Development Coordination Meeting (UDCC) 1 2 2. Budget Meeting 1 2 3. Planning Meeting 1 2 4. Ward Shava 1 2 5. Standing Committee Meeting/Parishad Meeting 1 2 6. Women Development Forum 1 2 119 Please mention your role in the meeting/s you attended Name of the Event Nature of participation 1. Union Development Coordination Meeting (UDCC) 2. Budget Meeting 3. Planning Meeting 4. Ward Shava 5. Standing Committee Meeting/Parishad Meeting 6. Women Development Forum 120 Your suggestions for overall improvement of the service delivery (in terms of timeliness, quality, inclusiveness, money spent for obtaining services, information sharing, etc.)

I) Interview ending time Hours Minute

Check the whole questionnaire if any of the applicable questions is left untouched/unasked. If all applicable questions are asked finish the interview giving thanks to the respondent

340 Appendix 1: Tables of Exit Meeting (Services Receive) survey

Table-01: Number of respondent in Union and Upazila Parishad by type of area Type of Area Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Treatment area 352 327 Control area 353 353 Total 705 680

Respondent Identification Table-02: Background characteristics of service recipient respondents by type of area Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Characteristics Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Sex Male 77.0 74.2 88.7 82.4 Female 23.0 25.8 11.3 17.6 Age (in year) below 18 1.8 1.4 0.3 - 18-24 13.9 13.0 4.9 4.0 25-29 11.6 12.8 7.7 9.3 30-34 15.1 10.8 9.8 13.9 35-39 13.1 11.3 14.7 15.0 40-44 11.6 10.2 13.1 12.7 45-49 8.8 12.5 12.5 12.2 50-59 12.2 13.3 15.3 15.3 60 or above 11.9 14.7 21.7 17.6 Average (mean) age 38.86 40.57 45.31 44.03 n 352 353 327 353 Occupation by sex M F M F M F M F Agriculture 34.2 3.8 40.0 1.1 34.8 - 38.5 1.6 Labour 15.5 4.9 13.4 5.5 7.6 5.4 10.0 - Business 21.8 - 19.1 - 24.5 - 26.5 Service/employee 7.4 1.2 6.1 4.4 6.2 - 7.9 1.6 Student 14.0 9.9 9.1 5.5 3.4 2.6 2.7 1.6 Housewife 0.4 72.9 3.1 78.0 4.5 64.9 1.4 83.9 Professional/free-lance work 3.3 4.9 6.9 2.2 10.0 27.0 6.2 9.7 Retired/old aged/incapable to work 3.0 1.2 1.5 1.1 8.3 - 5.2 1.6 Others 0.4 1.2 0.8 2.2 0.7 - 1.7 - n 271 81 262 91 290 37 291 62

341 Information of Respondent

Table-03a: Frequency of visitingnion Parishad by type of area Characteristics Treatment area Control area Frequency of visiting UP (Q101) Very Frequently 10.5 14.4 Sometimes 77.3 73.7 This is the first 12.2 11.9

Table-03a: Reasons for visiting Union Parishad by type of area Characteristics Treatment area Control area Services for which the respondent has come to UP today (multiple response) (Q102) Birth registration 48.3 42.8 Character certificate/Nationality certificate 16.2 12.5 To take rice/VGD/TR/VGF rice 6.8 7.1 NID/ID card 6.0 8.2 Village court 4.8 5.9 Land tax/deed receipt/land related 2.0 2.5 matter/E-record of land etc Information about old age allowance 1.7 4.2 To get heir certificate 5.4 6.8 To meet Union/Upazila chairman 1.7 0.3 To get death certificate 1.1 1.1 Trade License 5.7 3.4 Age correction in Birth registration/Mistake correction in Birth 0.9 2.5 registration To apply for elderly allowance/widowhood 0.6 2.0 allowance Internet service 0.9 1.1 Others* 3.7 3.1 The respondent came to UP earlier (Q103) Yes 82.4 84.1 No 17.6 15.9

Note: Others* include Agricultural information from agriculture office; Veterinary service/advice on pis e, For health service; To know some information /To get advice; To pay holding tax, to pay tax; To receive computer trainingIncome certificate; To attend meeting.

342 Table-03b: Services for which the respondent comes to Union Parishad generally by type of area (Q104) Characteristics Treatment area Control area Character certificate/Nationality certificate 32.1 33.4 Birth registration 72.4 64.9 NID/ID card 13.4 17.8 Information about old age allowance 3.7 5.1 Age correction in Birth registration/Mistake correction in Birth 0.3 2.0 registration To take rice/VGD/TR/VGF rice 14.8 21.2 To get death certificate 1.7 1.1 To get heir certificate 7.4 7.4 Land tax/deed receipt/land related 5.7 4.5 matter/E-record of land etc Village court 7.4 9.3 To pay holding tax, to pay tax 1.7 0.3 To attend meeting 2.3 0.8 Trade licennce 7.1 6.2 Internet service 1.4 1.7 To meet Union/Upazila chair 1.4 0.6 To apply for elderly allowance/widowhood 0.9 2.0 allowance For health service 0.9 1.7 Others** 4.3 2.8 n 352 353

Others** includeTo know some information /To get advice; To received computer training; Veterinary service/advice on pisciculture; Tube well; For disability Card; Road construction/Repair related work; Agricultural training; To get seed and fertilizer; To get irrigation and spray machine.

Table-04a: Frequency of visiting Upazila Parishad by type of area (Q101) Characteristics Treatment area Control area Frequency of visiting UZP Very Frequently 15.6 5.4 Sometimes 74.6 80.5 This is the first 9.8 14.1 n 352 353

343 Table-04b: Reasons for visiting Upazila Parishad by type of area (Q102) Characteristics Treatment area Control area Services for which the respondent has come to UZP today (multiple response) Birth registration 0.6 1.1 Character certificate/Nationality certificate 7.3 3.4 To take rice/VGD/TR/VGF rice 1.8 3.4 NID/ID card 1.5 2.6 Village court 3.7 0.9 Land tax/deed receipt/land related 13.8 15.6 matter/E-record of land etc Information about old age allowance 4.6 5.1 To meet Union/Upazila chairman 1.2 2.0 Agricultural information from agriculture 11.0 9.1 office Land officer (AC land officer) 3.7 3.1 Age correction in Birth registration/Mistake correction in Birth 3.4 3.4 registration To receive sewing machine from Women 3.4 1.4 Affairs Office Veterinary service/advice on pisciculture 3.4 4.3 To apply for elderly allowance/widowhood 2.4 1.4 allowance School related work 2.4 0.9 For health service 1.8 12.5 LGED 2.4 1.4 To know some information /To get advice 0.3 2.0 To receive computer training 1.2 0.6 To attend meeting 0.9 1.1 Agricultural training 1.2 3.1 To get seed and fertilizer 4.6 3.4 To get loan, grant 1.2 0.9 To get advice from social welfare office 4.6 8.0 School related work at education office 6.1 4.8 UNO office related 2.4 0.9 Others* 9.2 4.0 The respondent came to UZP earlier (Q103) Yes 82.3 75.1 No 17.7 24.9

Note: Others* include To get death certificate; Trade License; To pay holding tax, to pay tax; Income certificate; Tube well; For disability Card; Road construction/Repair related word; To get irrigation and spray machine; To receive job training; Related to society or club; Freedom Fighter Office related; Relief Office; Youth development; Fisherman registration; Solar project; ANSAR VDP office; To meet police inspector; BRDB.

344 Table-04c: Services for which the respondent comes to Upazila Parishad by type of area (Q104) Characteristics Treatment area Control area Character certificate/Nationality certificate 7.6 4.0 Birth registration 0.3 1.1 NID/ID card 2.8 2.3 Information about old age allowance 6.7 4.8 Age correction in Birth registration/Mistake 4.0 4.5 correction in Birth registration To take rice/VGD/TR/VGF rice 2.1 4.0 To know some information /To get advice 0.3 1.4 Land tax/deed receipt/land related matter/E- 17.4 17.0 record of land etc Village court 4.6 1.4 To received computer training 1.2 1.1 Veterinary service/advice on pisciculture 11.6 6.5 To attend meeting 0.9 1.4 School related work 2.1 0.6 Tubewell 0.3 1.1 Agricultural training 2.4 2.8 To get seed and fertilizer 5.8 3.7 To meet Union/Upazila chairman 1.8 2.5 To get loan, grant 1.5 1.4 Related to society or club 6.1 1.4 To apply for elderly allowance/widowhood 2.4 1.4 allowance To get advice from social welfare office 8.0 10.8 School related work at education office 7.0 5.7 Agricultural information from agriculture office 23.9 17.6 For health service 4.9 15.6 Freedom Fighter Office related 1.2 - To receive sewing machine from women affairs 2.4 1.4 officer Youth development office 1.2 1.4 UNO office related 3.4 2.3 Land officer (AC land officer) 6.4 8.5 Upazila LGED Office 4.3 1.7 Others** 7.3 2.3 n 327 353

Others** include Income certificate; Trade license; Tube well; For disability Card; Road construction/Repair related work; To get irrigation and spray machine; To receive job training; Fisherman registration/ Fisherman card; Relief Office; To lodge a complaint; Solar Energy project; Office of Ansar and VDP; Come to police station to see police Inspector.

345 Table-05: Times required (in day)for different services in UP/UZP by type of area (Q105) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Services Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Character certificate/Nationality certificate, testimonial, attestation, recommendation letter, loan service, pension service, stipend, passport Mean 1.59 1.70 23.76 - Median 1.00 1.00 1.00 - n 44 61 17 - Birth registration Mean 2.28 3.17 - - Median 1.00 1.00 - - n 132 126 - - NID/ID card/ Child card/ Take a photo Mean 7.80 3.16 1.00 - Median 1.00 1.00 1.00 - n 25 31 1 - Information about old age allowance/ tribal allowance/ freedom fighter honorarium/ maternity allowance/disability allowance, draw money Mean 1.83 31.91 4.33 183.50 Median 1.00 30.00 3.00 183.50 n 6 11 6 2 Age correction in Birth registration/Mistake correction in Birth registration Mean 1.0 1.1 15.7 17.5 Median 1.0 1.1 20.0 1.5 n 1 7 13 16 To take rice/VGD/TR/VGF rice/ration card/ relief card/ blanket/Eid grant Mean 1.25 23.64 15.50 100.67 Median 1.00 5.00 15.50 120.00 n 28 44 2 3 To get death certificate Mean 3.25 4.00 - - Median 2.00 4.00 - - n 4 2 - - To get heir certificate Mean 5.00 6.61 - - Median 2.00 2.00 - - n 12 18 - - Land tax, deed receipt, land related matter, record of land, e-record of land, land certificate Mean 3.67 3.50 20.80 2.38 Median 1.00 3.50 4.00 2.00 n 12 6 10 8

346 Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Services Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Village court, arbitration, court related matter, family problem, house related problem, record of law suit, to serve notice Mean 9.53 20.85 2.86 1.00 Median 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 n 17 13 7 1 To pay holding tax, to pay tax Mean 1.00 - - - Median 1.00 - - - n 3 - - - To receive computer training Mean 135.0 1.00 - - Median 135.0 1.00 - - n 2 1 - - Veterinary service, advice on pisciculture Mean - 1.00 1.35 1.00 Median - 1.00 1.00 1.00 n - 1 17 9 To attend meeting Mean 1.00 - 1.00 - Median 1.00 - 1.00 - n 1 - 1 - Trade license Mean 1.86 2.31 - - Median 1.00 1.00 - - n 14 13 - - School related work Mean 30.00 - 12.00 - Median 30.00 - 1.50 - n 1 - 6 - Internet Service Mean 1.00 1.00 15.00 - Median 1.00 1.00 15.00 - n 3 2 1 - For disability card Mean 3.00 1.00 - - Median 3.00 1.00 - - n 1 1 - -

347 Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Services Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Agricultural training Mean 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.22 Median 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n 1 1 5 9 To get seed and fertilizer Mean 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.00 Median 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n 1 2 5 2 To get irrigation and spray machine Mean - 1.00 52.50 - Median - 1.00 52.50 - n - 1 2 - To meet upazila chairman Mean 2.20 - 1.00 1.00 Median 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 n 5 - 1 1 To receive job training Mean - - 3.00 5.00 Median - - 3.00 5.00 n - - 2 2 To get loan, grant Mean - - 47.50 - Median - - 47.50 - n - - 2 - Related to society or club Mean - - 13.71 - Median - - 1.00 - n - - 7 - To get advice from social welfare office Mean - - 1.00 1.32 Median - - 1.00 1.00 n - - 12 19 School related work at education office Mean - - 1.00 1.00 Median - - 1.00 1.00 n - - 3 6 Agricultural information from agricultural office Mean - - 1.21 1.00

348 Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Services Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Median - - 1.00 1.00 n - - 29 18 For health service Mean - - 1.00 1.04 Median - - 1.00 1.00 n - - 16 26 To receive sewing machine from women affairs office Mean 1.00 - 8.60 5.00 Median 1.00 - 1.00 5.00 n 1 - 5 1 Youth development Mean - - 1.00 1.00 Median - - 1.00 1.00 n - - 1 1 Complain service Mean - - 1.00 - Median - - 1.00 - n - - 2 - Land office Mean - - - 1.00 Median - - - 1.00 n - - - 3

Table-06: Required number of times visitfor different services in UP/UZP by type of area (Q106) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Services Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Character certificate/Nationality certificate, testimonial, attestation, recommendation letter, loan service, pension service, stipend, passport Mean 1.63 1.24 1.37 - Median 1.00 1.00 1.00 - n 49 63 19 - Birth registration Mean 1.72 1.96 - 1.00 Median 1.00 1.50 - 1.00 n 133 122 - 1

349 Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Services Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area NID/ ID card/ Child card/ Take a photo Mean 1.31 1.62 1.00 3.00 Median 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 n 26 29 1 1 Information about old age allowance/ tribal allowance/ freedom fighter honorarium/ maternity allowance/disability allowance, draw money, Mean 1.67 2.27 3.33 3.00 Median 1.50 2.00 3.00 3.00 n 6 11 6 2 Age correction in Birth registration/Mistake correction in Birth registration Mean 4.00 1.33 5.00 3.33 Median 4.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 n 1 6 1 3 To take rice/VGD/TR/VGF rice/ration card/ relief card/ blanket/ Eid grant Mean 1.23 2.59 1.00 2.67 Median 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 n 26 46 1 3 To get death certificate Mean 1.50 2.00 - - Median 1.50 2.00 - - n 2 3 - - To get heir certificate Mean 2.33 1.89 - - Median 2.00 1.00 - - n 12 19 - - Land tax, deed receipt, land related matter, record of land, e-record of land, land certificate Mean 3.25 2.00 3.20 3.50 Median 2.00 2.00 3.50 3.00 n 12 6 10 8 Village court, arbitration, court related matter, family problem, house related problem, record of law suit, to serve notice Mean 2.63 4.50 2.83 1.00 Median 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 n 16 12 6 1 To pay holding tax, to pay tax Mean 1.00 - - - Median 1.00 - - - n 2 - - -

350 Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Services Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area To receive computer training Mean 20.00 1.00 - - Median 20.00 1.00 - - n 2 1 - - Veterinary service, advice on pisciculture Mean - 1.00 1.24 1.14 Median - 1.00 1.00 1.00 n - 1 17 7 To attend meeting Mean - - 1.00 - Median - - 1.00 - n - - 1 - Trade license Mean 1.50 1.25 - - Median 1.00 1.00 - - n 14 12 - - School related work Mean 7.00 - 1.50 - Median 7.00 - 1.00 - n 1 - 6 - Internet Service Mean 1.00 1.00 15.00 - Median 1.00 1.00 15.00 - n 3 2 1 - For disability card Mean 1.00 1.50 - - Median 1.00 1.50 - - n 1 2 - - Agricultural training Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Median 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n 1 1 5 To get seed and fertilizer Mean 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 Median 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n 1 2 5 2 To get irrigation and spray machine Mean - 1.00 1.00 -

351 Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Services Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Median - 1.00 1.00 - n - 1 2 - To meet upazila chairman Mean 1.20 - 1.00 1.00 Median 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 n 5 - 1 1 To receive job training Mean - - 1.00 5.00 Median - - 1.00 5.00 n - - 2 2 To get loan, grant Mean - - 8.00 Median - - 8.00 - n - - 2 - Related to society or club Mean - - 3.86 - Median - - 1.00 - n - - 7 - To apply for elderly allowance, widow allowance Mean - 9.25 - - Median - 7.50 - - n - 4 - - To get advice from social welfare office Mean - - 1.08 1.21 Median - - 1.00 1.00 n - - 12 19 School related work at education office Mean - - 1.00 1.50 Median - - 1.00 1.00 n - - 3 6 Agricultural information from agricultural office Mean - - 1.21 1.17 Median - - 1.00 1.00 n - - 29 18 For health service Mean - - 1.00 1.04 Median - - 1.00 1.00 n - - 16 26

352 Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Services Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Freedom fighter office related Mean - - 5.50 - Median - - 5.50 - n - - 2 - To receive sewing machine from women affairs office Mean 7.00 - 1.20 4.00 Median 7.00 - 1.00 4.00 n 1 - 5 1 Youth development Mean - - 1.00 4.00 Median - - 1.00 4.00 n - - 1 1 Complain service Mean - - 1.00 - Median - - 1.00 - n - - 2 - Land office Mean - - - 2.67 Median - - - 2.00 n - - - 3

Table-07: Level of satisfaction with the timelines for receiving service from UP/UZP by type of area (Q107) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad level of satisfaction Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Very Satisfied 26.4 10.2 14.7 5.4 Satisfied 43.6 35.7 53.6 40.2 Fairly Satisfied 22.8 42.2 21.7 47.3 No satisfied 6.8 11.9 10.1 8.2 n 351 353 327 353

353 Table-08: Information on money spent for receiving service from UP/UZP by type of area Service recipient at Service recipient at Money spent for receiving service Union Parishad Upazila Parishad (Q108) Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Yes 36.1 56.7 5.8 17.0 No 63.9 43.3 94.2 83.0 n 352 353 327 353

Table-09: Responsiveness and behavior of service providers of UP/UZP by type of area Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Characteristics Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Responsiveness of service providers (Q110) Sincere 50.3 33.7 42.8 19.8 Moderately sincere 43.7 36.8 50.2 52.7 Not sincere 6.0 29.5 7.0 27.5 Behavior of service providers (Q111) Friendly 61.1 43.9 53.8 34.8 Moderately friendly 35.8 28.9 42.2 40.2 Unfriendly 3.1 27.2 4.0 24.9 n 352 353 327 353

Table-10: Problem/ discrimination faced by female respondents by type of area Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Characteristics Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Female respondent faced any problem/discrimination (Q112) Yes 2.8 8.8 0.0 2.3 No 97.2 91.2 100.0 97.7 n 352 353 327 353 Type of problems/ discrimination faced by female respondents (multiple response) (Q113) Delay dealing or discrimination in #5 12.9 (4) - #1 providing service No service without money - 6.5 (2) - #2 Takes much time #3 32.3 (10) - #3 Chairman unavailable #2 16.1 (5) - - Poor people ignored - 12.9 (4) - #1 Card is not easily available, need to - 16.1(5) - #1 visit frequently

354 Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Characteristics Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area No tribal in UP document or record - 3.2 (1) - - Nepotism (Negligence to person - 6.5 (2) - - unknown to chairman/member) n 10 31 0 8

Table-11: Complain lodged against any service provider at UP/UZP by type of area (Q114) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Complaint lodged ever Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Yes 2.0 1.4 1.8 0.6 No 98.0 98.6 98.2 99.4 n 352 353 327 353

Table-13: Grievance addressed by the authority at UP/UZP by type of area (115) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Grievance addressed Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Yes #5 #1 #4 #1 No #2 #4 #2 #1 n 7 5 6 2

Table-13: Satisfaction with overall quality of the services of UP/UZP by type of area (Q116) Service recipient at Service recipient at Satisfaction level of service Union Parishad Upazila Parishad recipients Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Very Satisfied 26.1 11.0 12.5 9.6 Moderately satisfied 44.6 36.0 62.1 42.2 Dissatisfied 25.0 39.9 21.4 41.6 Moderately dissatisfied 4.3 13.0 4.0 6.5 n 352 353 327 353

355 Table-14: Other reasons, apart from receiving services, for visiting UP/UZP by type of area (multiple response) (q117) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Type of reasons Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area To attend meeting 11.4 8.8 2.8 1.4 With the hope of getting government 2.3 0.6 - - grant To meet chairman 6.0 9.1 8.6 5.1 For land related problem 0.6 0.8 - - For arbitration 8.2 8.2 1.5 0.3 For some development work 2.3 0.8 0.6 1.1 To attend open budget meeting 4.0 - - - To attend tax fair 0.9 - - - Only to see UP/UZP 2.0 2.5 3.4 1.1 Youth society related work. To 2.6 2.0 0.9 0.6 accompany relaties for their works Do not come to UP or Upazila 68.8 71.1 82.0 90.7 Parishad Office without a reason n 352 353 327 353

Table-15: Participation of respondents in meetings at UP/UZP by type of area (q118) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Characteristics Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area Name of the Event Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Union Development Coordination 7.4 92.6 5.1 94.9 14.4 85.6 4.5 95.5 Meeting (UDCC) Budget Meeting 12.2 87.8 6.8 93.2 10.4 89.6 2.8 97.2 Planning Meeting 11.4 88.6 5.7 94.3 7.0 93.0 4.2 95.8 Ward Shava 23.0 77.0 18.4 81.6 - - - - Standing Committee Meeting/ 4.8 95.2 1.4 98.6 3.7 96.3 0.8 99.2 Parishad Meeting Women Development Forum 5.1 94.9 1.4 98.6 4.3 95.7 0.6 99.4 n 352 353 327 353

356 Table-16a: Responsibilities in Union Development coordination meeting at UP/UZP by type of area (multiple response) (Q119_1) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Type of responsibilities Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area To participate as an audience #17 #12 48.9 (23) #7 To submit development scheme #5 - - - To put opinion in the meeting #3 #6 42.6 (20) #9 To speak about problem #2 - 8.5 (4) - n 26 18 47 16

Table-16b: Responsibilities in Budget meeting at UP/UZP by type of area (multiple response) (Q119_2) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Type of responsibilities Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area To participate as an audience 76.7 (33) #18 44.1 (15) #6 To submit development scheme 9.3 (4) #2 - - To put opinion in the meeting 7.0 (3) #2 44.1 (15) #4 To speak about problem - #1 11.8 (4) - For quick implementation 2.3 (1) - - - To give advice for raising budget 4.7 (2) #1 - - n 43 24 34 10

Table-16c: Responsibilities in planning meeting at UP/UZP by type of area (multiple response) (Q119_3) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Type of responsibilities Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area To participate as an audiance 72.5 (29) #12 #10 #8 To submit development scheme 15.0 (6) - - #1 To put opinion in the meeting 7.5 (3) #5 #10 #7 So that women get good Family 2.5 (1) - - - Planning and health service To speak about problem - - #2 - To receive VGD card - #1 - - For quick implementation 2.5 (1) #1 #1 - To give advice for raising budget - #1 - - n 40 20 23 15

357 Table-16d: Responsibilities in ward shava at UP/UZP by type of area (multiple response) (Q119_4) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Type of responsibilities Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area To participate as an audience 65.4 58.5 - - To submit development scheme 16.0 10.8 - - To put opinion in the meeting 11.1 23.1 - - To speak about problem 2.5 7.7 - - To receive VGD card 2.5 1.5 - - For quick implementation - - - - To deliver speech on child marriage 2.5 - - - n 81 65 - -

Table-16e: Responsibilities in standing committee meeting at UP/UZP by type of area (multiple response) (Q119_5) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Type of responsibilities Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area To participate as an audiance #9 62.5 #5 #1 To submit development scheme #1 12.5 - - To put opinion in the meeting #5 25.0 #7 #2 To speak about problem #1 - - - To receive VGD card #1 - - - n 17 5 12 3

Table-16f: Responsibilities in women development forum at UP/UZP by type of area (multiple response) (Q119_6) Service recipient at Service recipient at Union Parishad Upazila Parishad Characteristics Treatment Control Treatment Control area area area area To participate as an audience #10 #4 #5 #2 To submit development scheme #1 - - - To put opinion in the meeting - #1 #9 - So that women get good Family #2 - - - Planning and health service To receive VGD card #1 - - - For quick implementation #1 - - - To deliver speech on child marriage #3 - - - n 18 5 14 2

358 Table-17a: Suggestions of respondents for overall improvement of the service delivery of Union Parishad by type of area (multiple response) (Q120) Service recipient at Union Parishad Type of suggestions Treatment area Control area Service should be quick 17.6 20.1 Service quality should be improved 8.0 12.2 UP & UZP chairman/members should develop their 2.0 3.4 mentality to serve people People do not know about the services rendered by UP & UZP. Wide publicity should be made about the 1.7 2.8 services of UP & UZP Peoples participation should be increased in every 4.0 6.5 activities of UP & UZP Bribe and favoritism in getting old age allowance 2.3 1.4 Widowhood allowance, VGD, VGF, etc. should be stopped UP & UZP chairman/members and secretary should 2.6 2.5 be more responsible to the people UP & UZP chairman/members are not available in their office. People are to wait for longer time to meet 2.0 3.7 them UP & UZP Government should further intensity supervision of 0.9 3.4 UP & UZP activities Ensure poor people’s receiving services-VGF, VGD 2.0 3.7 and other services properly Manpower in UP & UZP office should be increased 4.5 7.4 Officers and employees should be trained properly to 0.6 2.3 increase their efficiency Corruption in UP & UZP offices should be 2.8 2.5 eliminated, arbitration should be just Infrastructure should be developed. UP complex 1.1 3.4 should be built Amount of different allowances should be increased 2.3 1.1 Roads, culverts, irrigation system, electricity system 5.1 2.8 should be repaired regularly To ensure safe drinking water more tubewells should 2.0 0.6 be installed Immediate starting of internet system 1.7 0.8 Providing all sort of certificates free of cost 2.6 3.1 No advice 48.6 30.0 Others* 5.4 4.5 n 352 353 Others* include UP & UZP chairman/members should collect information from right person; Quick implementation of construction works; UP & UZP should create employment opportunity for the poor people; Arbitration cases should be disposal off quickly; Services should be provided to meet the demand; Information should be updated properly; UP & UZP services should be digitalized; Sitting arrangement should be made for visitors; Employment generating training should be arranged; Field level training should be enhanced; Marginal people should get proper service; UP & UZP chairman/members should take initiative to stop addiction; Management reformation should be made in the Land Revenue office; Fish catching should be prohibited during reproduction period; Development of education system.

359 Table-17b: Suggestions of respondents for overall improvement of the service delivery of Upazila Parishad by type of area (multiple response) (Q120) Service recipient at Upazila Parishad Type of suggestions Treatment area Control area Service should be quick 4.9 3.1 Service quality should be improved 4.6 5.4 UP & UZP chairman/members should 1.2 1.1 develop their mentality to serve people People do not know about the services rendered by UP & UZP. Wide publicity 2.1 0.3 should be made about the services of UP & UZP Peoples participation should be increased in 0.9 0.6 every activities of UP & UZP Bribe and favoritism in getting old age allowance Widowhood allowance, VGD, 0.6 0.8 VGF, etc. should be stopped UP & UZP chairman/members and secretary 7.3 7.6 should be more responsible to the people Government should further intensity 1.2 0.3 supervision of UP & UZP activities Corruption in UP & UZP offices should be 2.8 2.3 eliminated, arbitration should be just No advice 72.5 76.2 Others* 6.7 5.4 n 327 353 Others* include UP & UZP chairman/members are not available in their office. People are to wait for longer time to meet them UP & UZP; Ensure poor people’s receiving services-VGF, VGD and other services properly; Manpower in UP & UZP office should be increased; Officers and employees should be trained properly to increase their efficiency; Infrastructure should be developed, UP complex should be built; Amount of different allowances should be increased; UP & UZP should create employment opportunity for the poor people.

360 Appendix 2: Tables of Household survey Socio-Economic Status of The Household

Table-1.1: Background characteristics of household respondents by type of area Characteristics Project area Control area Sex(q103) Male 78.9 69.9 Female 21.1 30.1 Age (in year)(q104) <25 4.7 5.1 25-29 10.1 9.3 30-34 10.3 11.5 35-39 15.9 13.8 40-44 10.8 12.7 45-49 11.9 12.2 50-59 18.1 15.3 60 or above 18.1 20.1 Average (mean) age 44.1 44.5 Education(q106) Illiterate/can sign only/NFE/Qaumi 45.6 46.9 Primary (I-V) 23.2 23.0 Secondary below SSC (VI-IX) 20.1 17.7 SSC and above 11.2 12.4 Occupation(q107) Agriculture 32.3 28.9 Labour 24.8 23.2 Business 15.7 11.8 Housewife 15.5 25.5 Others* 11.7 10.6 Marital status(q105) Never married 4.0 2.9 Currently married 90.3 89.6 Others (divorced, separated, widow) 5.7 7.5 n 1541 1562 Note: * Others include Private service, account keeping in a warehouse, Manager of a fish depot , manager of a private organization, writer of a lawyer , Officer of a private company, Government Officer, Government employee, NGO officer, manager, NGO worker, NGO nurse, BRAC nurse, School teacher/college teacher, NGO school teacher, Para worker, Imam, Thakur, Truck/bus driver, car driver, launch driver, Baby taxi/mishuk/nosimon driver, trawler operator, CNG driver, Lawyer, MBBS doctor, Engineer, journalist, surveyor, poet/Tahshildar, Police, soldier, Student, Village doctor, Homeopath doctor, Retired, Retired teacher, Drama artist, cultural worker, artist, Marriage Register, Elderly, Photographer, Social Worker/Politician

361 Table-1.2: Household size of the sampled households by type of area(q109) Household size Project area Control area Up to 2 7.5 8.1 3-4 37.8 37.6 5-6 36.4 35.7 7 or more 18.4 18.7 n 1541 1562

Table-1.3: Possession of mobile phone by household heads or households by type of area Household head/household has mobile phone Project area Control area Yes 92.7 90.0 No 7.3 10.0 n 1541 1562

Table-1.4: Household monthly income(in Taka)by type of area(q113) Responses Project area Control area Up to 2500 1.4 4.0 2501-5000 14.3 23.3 5001-7500 20.2 19.1 7501-10000 26.2 22.3 10001-15000 18.5 15.7 >15000 19.4 15.5 Average (mean) income 11905.61 10568.76 Average (median) income 9000.00 8000.00

Table-1.4: Main sources of household income by type of area(q110) Responses Project area Control area Agriculture 46.7 47.5 Day labour/fisherman 30.0 29.3 Skill labour 4.9 3.5 Business/shop 23.6 21.1 Service 16.1 15.8 Others* 17.4 23.0 n 1541 1562 Note: Others*: Income from house rent/land rent for erection of mobile tower, Son or daughter or son-in law’s income,Allowance, Brother’s help, Garments worker, Auto rickshaw driver/van driver, Villagedoctor, Kirtan singer (religious song), Cow or goat rearing, Beggar, Remittance from abroad,Rickshaw, Tailoring/sewing.

362 Table-1.5: Socio-economic status of households by type of area Project area Control area Socio economic status (N) Male Female Total Male Female Total Well off /non poor 41.9 24.6 38.3 36.8 26.6 33.7 Low income/poor 45.8 44.9 45.6 47.1 40.4 45.1 Hard core poor 12.3 30.5 16.1 16.1 33.0 21.2 n 1216 325 1541 1092 470 1562

Table-1.3: Item-wise household monthly average expenditure (in Taka) and their individual share (%) in total household monthly average expenditure by type of area(q114) Selected items for Project area Control area average household Mean % Median % Mean % Median % expenditures Food 5522.18 60.55 5000.00 60.24 5277.70 63.30 4000.00 63.49 Clothes and footwear 759.19 8.22 500.00 7.50 702.61 7.91 500.00 7.89 Fuel and lighting 334.41 3.51 250.00 3.00 341.24 3.90 200.00 3.41 Education 1066.93 9.03 500.00 6.41 936.08 8.73 500.00 6.25 Medical Treatment 830.36 8.50 500.00 6.90 781.08 8.43 500.00 6.94 House rent 37.69 0.27 00.00 0.00 21.67 0.18 00.00 0.00 Miscellaneous 1030.31 9.92 500.00 7.52 747.24 7.56 300.00 5.00 Average monthly 9581.06 - 8140.00 - 8807.61 - 7000.00 - expenditure n 1541 1562

363 Union Parishad Related Respondent’s Understanding/Knowledge about UP

Table-2.1a: Respondent’s visit to UP office by type of area(q201) Project area Ever visited Socially Male Female Total Non poor Poor marginalized group Yes 86.1 61.5 80.9 83.7 78.8 80.2 No 12.9 38.5 19.1 16.3 21.2 19.8 n 1216 325 1541 590 703 248 Control area Yes 82.4 51.5 73.1 73.6 72.3 74.0 No 17.6 48.5 26.9 26.4 27.7 26.0 n 1092 470 1562 527 704 331

Table-2.1b: Reasons for respondent’s visit to UP office by type of area Responses Project area Control area Reasons for respondent’s visit to UP(q202) To obtain birth registration and birth certificate 58.8 56.2 To receive different relief and grant such as: cheap price rice, VGD, VGF, TR, old age allowance, fisherman 32.8 32.0 allowance etc. To obtain different types of certificates such as: character certificate, nationality certificate, testimonial, attestation, 30.8 25.8 age correction, death,succession certificate etc. To obtain NID card 6.5 10.4 Village court, arbitration related services 9.5 9.1 To attend meetings 5.2 3.5 To receive trade license 2.8 2.1 To visit chairman 4.3 3.2 Received services related to infrastructure development 3.0 0.3 To obtain Land records/ receipt of land deeds 2.2 1.8 Others* 2.9 5.3 Number of months before respondent visited UP office last(q203) Upto 3 months 44.7 48.3 3 upto 6 months 13.3 16.1 6 upto 12 months 11.8 9.6 >1 Year 30.2 26.1 Mean number of months 11.1 9.7

364 Responses Project area Control area Median number of months 3.0 3.0 n 1247 1142 Note: Others* Received computer training, Received veterinary care service, advice on pisciculture, Received service related to primary school, Received online service, internet service, Received disability card, Received agricultural training, Received seeds and fertilizers, Received irrigation/spray machine, Received saplings, Service related to health service, Received sanitary latrine, Submitted application as a landless, Received electricity/Solar panel, Training on poultry rearing, holding tax, Received tube-well, To receive seeds and fertilizers

Table-2.2a: Respondent’s knowledge about services provided by UP office for local community (q204) Type of knowledge Project area Control area Provide relief and safety net such as: VGD, VGF, TR 65.5 62.6 Construction of roads, culverts and other infrastructure 38.2 30.7 Issue Registration of birth certificate 26.5 26.2 Issue character certificate/ nationality certificate/heirs certificate 21.2 20.8 Hold village court, provide arbitration related services 17.3 8.1 Install tube-well 6.4 4.7 Install sanitary latrine 3.4 1.3 Provide trade license 6.0 1.2 Provide NID card 1.8 5.1 Health care service 0.9 2.8 Do not provide any service 1.1 2.4 Do not know 10.4 15.3 Others* 9.5 5.2 n 1541 1562 Note: Others*: Provide computer training, Provide social security, law and order service, Provide assistance to farmers, Supply seeds and fertilizers, Builds school and college, Provide sapling, Help for religious institution-mosque,temple etc., Provide holding number, Child marriage prevention , To provide information and advice, Tax holding tax related service, Conducts different meetings, Provide online service/ internet service, Provide disability card, Supply irrigation and spray machine, health care service

Table-2.2b: Respondents receiving services from UP office by type of area Responses Project area Control area Respondent ever received any service from UP(q205) Yes 75.9 71.7 No 24.1 28.3 n 1541 1562 Types of services received by respondents from UP office (multiple responses)(q206) Birth registration and certificate 53.4 53.1 Received relief and other safety net in the form of rice at 42.6 40.3 fair price, VGD, VGF, TR Different certificates such as: character certificate, nationality certificate, testimonial, attestation, succession certificates, 25.5 20.8 age correction etc. Village court, arbitration related services 6.0 2.9 NID card 3.8 7.8 Received trade license 3.1 2.3 Received seeds and fertilizers 2.6 2.1

365 Responses Project area Control area Land records/ receipt of land deeds 1.4 1.2 Others* 7.6 3.2 n 1170 1120 Note: Others*: Received tube-well, Received latrines/ sanitation facilities, Received services related to infrastructure development, Received agricultural training, Health care service, Got latrine/ sanitation facility, Information and advice on different issues such as Nationality certificate, Death certificate, Payed tax, holding tax, Received computer training, Received veterinary care service, advice on pisciculture, Receive online service/ internet service, Receive disability card, Visited chairman, Sapling, Receive electricity, Receive school related service, Training on poultry rearing

Table-2.2c: Number of months before respondents received services from UP offices last by type of area (q207) Number of months before respondent received services last Project area Control area Up to 3 months back 37.6 39.6 3 up to 6 months back 13.8 20.8 6 up to 12 months back 11.3 11.3 >1 Year back 37.4 28.4 Mean 15.8 12.2 Median 5.1 3.0 n 1170 1139

Table-2.3a: Way the respondents benefitted from services provided by UP by type of area (q208) Way the respondents benefitted from services of UP Project area Control area Birth/nationality certificates helped them getting jobs or 58.4 56.9 performing various important works VGF/VGD/TR/ rice at fair price helped them survive and get 40.1 39.1 out of abject poverty Arbitration through village courts helped them settle land 6.2 4.7 related and other disputes. Cultivation facilitated 1.6 2.2 No benefit 0.9 0.3 Others* 3.6 4.7 n 1170 1120 Note Others*: I myself and community people use the services, Received medicine and treatment cost, Received electricity, Children’s health have become secured due to vaccination, Women of the community have been benefited, Got safer water, Received sanitary latrine facilities

Table-2.3b: Who benefited from services provided by UP by type of area(q209) Project area Socially Responses Non Male Female Total Poor marginalized poor group Respondent himself/herself 43.8 33.5 42.0 44.6 39.1 44.2 Family 90.8 90.8 90.8 86.3 94.5 91.5 Community 10.8 3.4 9.5 14.1 7.4 4.5 n 951 206 1157 446 512 199

366 Responses Control area Respondent himself/herself 58.1 52.1 56.5 64.1 48.2 62.4 Family 92.7 89.8 91.9 89.6 94.4 90.2 Community 11.9 14.4 12.5 14.0 11.1 13.3 n 832 284 1116 357 504 255

Table-2.4: Respondent’s satisfaction with the services delivered by UPs by type of area Project area Responses(q210) Socially Male Female Total Non poor Poor marginalized group Very satisfied 14.3 13.3 14.1 13.6 13.7 16.6 Satisfied 62.0 56.7 61.1 62.9 59.0 62.3 Fairly satisfied 19.9 22.9 20.4 19.8 23.1 15.1 Not satisfied 3.8 7.1 4.4 3.8 4.2 6.0 n 959 210 1169 450 520 199 Control area Very satisfied 7.5 8.1 7.7 10.6 5.5 7.8 Satisfied 41.7 42.1 41.8 44.6 42.1 37.5 Fairly satisfied 43.1 40.4 42.4 35.7 45.5 45.7 Not satisfied 7.7 9.5 8.1 9.2 6.9 9.0 n 836 285 1121 359 506. 256

Table-2.5a: Respondents’ knowledge about UP chairman, member and female member by type of area Responses Project area Control area UP chairman known to the respondents(q211a) Yes, respondents could recall chair’s name 96.1 92.5 Yes, but the respondents failed to recall chair’s name 0.4 0.2 Did not know 3.5 7.3 UP Ward member known to the respondents(q211c) Yes, respondents could recall chair’s name 97.5 97.1 Yes, but the respondents failed to recall chair’s name 0.4 0.3 Did not know 2.1 2.6 UP female member known to the respondents(q211e) Yes, respondents could recall chair’s name 71.1 70.8 Yes, but the respondents failed to recall chair’s name 0.1 1.1 Did not know 28.1 28.1 n 1541 1562

367 Table-2.6: Respondents’ knowledge about the display of Citizen Charter in/outside UP office by type of area Responses Project area Control area Respondents saw Citizen’s Charter in/outside UP office(q212) Yes 24.1 18.4 No 12.8 16.1 Don't know 63.0 65.4 n 1541 1562 Have the respondents/household applied to UPs for any information(q213) Yes 2.6 1.5 No 97.4 98.5 n 1541 1562 Respondent/household got the information they applied for from the UPs (#)(q214) Yes 55.0 (22) 43.5 (10) No 45.0 (18) 56.5 (13) n 40 26

Status of Participation in UP Activities

Table-3.1a: Respondents participation in UP meetings by type of area (q301) Project area Response Socially Male Female Total Non poor Poor marginalized group Yes 23.2 8.3 20.1 25.6 18.5 11.3 No 76.8 91.7 79.9 74.4 81.5 88.7 n 1216 325 1541 590 703 248 Control area Yes 22.2 5.5 17.2 22.8 15.8 11.2 No 77.8 94.5 82.8 77.2 84.2 88.8 n 1092 470 1562 527 704 331

Table-3.1b: Reasons for participation and type of meeting participated at UP office by type of area Responses Project area Control area Reasons for participation in UP meeting(q302) To resolve conflict/arbitration, was invited 33.3 25.7 To speak out about development of own area 17.2 10.1 To witness arbitration 7.1 10.8 To perform own duty 6.5 10.1 To know 34.6 42.5 Others* 8.2 3.0 n 309 268

368 Responses Project area Control area Types of UP meeting participated(q303) Ward Shava 51.1 37.7 Village Court 41.7 57.8 Budget meeting 17.5 19.0 Planning meeting 13.6 13.1 Union Development Coordination Committee meeting 12.6 10.1 Standing Committee meeting 12.3 7.1 Women Development Forum in Upazila meeting 6.8 4.1 Other** 2.0 3.7 n 309 268 Average number of UP meeting attended last year(q304) Mean 2.39 2.22 Median 1.00 1.00 n 309 268 Note: Others* include: To get VGD/VGF/other allowance: old allowance/disable allowance, To get Pregnant woman’s car, As CBO member Others**: Agricultural information related meeting, Meeting on Fishermen’s shelter project, Tax Fair, Sanitation committee, Stop catching of young fish (Jatka), Terrorism prevention meeting

Table-3.1c: Time when respondents attended UP meeting last time with types and topics of meeting by type of area Responses Project area Control area When did the respondents attend UP meeting last time?(q305) Within 3 months 21.8 28.4 3 to 6 months 18.5 22.8 6 to 12 months 39.6 35.1 > 1year 20.1 13.8 n 309 268 Type of UP meeting attended last(q306) Ward Meeting 39.8 24.3 Village arbitration 23.3 44.8 Standing committee 10.4 5.6 Planning meeting 8.4 4.5 UP meeting, Quarterly meeting 6.8 6.0 Budget meeting 6.1 7.8 Child marriage prevention meeting 2.9 0.4 Women development forum meeting 2.3 1.9 Fishermen’s shelter project meeting - 4.5 Committee for stop catching young fish (Jatka) - 0.4 n 309 268 Topics discussed in the last meeting(q306)

369 Responses Project area Control area Development of the area and the members of the community 46.6 26.5 Resolve family disputes 14.9 27.6 Selection of VGD recipient, distribution of VGD card, 7.8 7.5 Safety net or relief distribution procedures Budget and expenditure 6.1 7.1 Resolve conflict between chairman and members 5.2 4.1 Child marriage prevention 3.9 1.9 Land related dispute 3.9 13.4 Legal aid 3.2 1.9 Identification of problems of the area 3.2 4.1 Affairs related to agricultural 1.9 1.1 Related to help and assistance 1.9 0.4 Others*** 7.1 5.6 n 309 268 Others*** : Related to help and assistance, Awareness raising of women, Cleanliness, Related to addiction, Restriction on catching of fishes, Allowance giving, rice distribution, Children prize, Self-employment, Stop catching young fish, Elimination/root out of terrorism, Goat rearing

Table-3.1d: Benefit obtained from attending the last meeting of UP attended last by type of area (q307) Type of benefit Project area Control area Came to know about development of the Ward 30.1 21.6 Disputes settled 12.0 20.5 General awareness about the UP affairs raised 17.8 14.2 Came to know about legal aid/dowry/tree plantation etc. 8.7 12.3 Received rice before festivals 2.9 3.4 Received ration card 1.9 0.4 Respondent received prize from TNO for stopping child 1.9 0.4 marriage Received Fishermen’s allowance 0.6 0.7 Received no benefit 25.9 26.5 n 309 268

Table-3.2a: Participation of respondents in UP rallies/awareness programmes by type of area Project area Responses(q308) Socially Male Female Total Non poor Poor marginalized group Yes 6.3 2.5 5.5 7.8 3.8 4.8 No 93.7 97.5 94.5 92.2 96.2 95.2 n 1216 325 1541 590 703 248

370 Responses Control area Yes 5.0 1.7 4.0 5.1 3.3 3.9 No 95.0 98.3 96.0 94.9 96.7 96.1 n 1092 470 1562 527 704 331

Table-3.2b: Types of UP rally/awareness programmeattend by type of area(#)(q309) Responses Project area Control area Rallies on establishing women and children’ rights and raising 87.1 (74) 71.0 (44) awareness against child marriage and addiction Rallies in observance of National days: 21 February, National 7.1 (6) 8.1 (5) mourning day, Liberation day Human chain against terrorism 4.7 (4) 21.0 (13) Fishermen development meeting 3.5 (3) 4.8 (3) Transport registration 1.2 (1) - n 85 62

Table-3.2c: Reasons for attending rally/awareness programme of UP by type of area (#) (q310) Responses Project area Control area Sense of responsibility, community feeling, altruism 43.5 (37) 44.4 (28) Respondents were invited 14.1 (12) 9.5 (6) To motivate people, to help others, to make community free 14.1 (12) 4.8 (3) from addiction Chairman personally requested 9.4 (8) 4.8 (3) To play a role in stopping child marriage 7.1 (6) 22.2 (14) For curiosity 2.4 (2) 7.9 (5) To demonstrate the solidarity with others for a good cause such as improvement of law and order situation/ elimination of 2.4 (2) 6.3 (4) terrorism, make the local area addiction free (you may add) Others* 10.6 1.6 n 85 63 Others*: For development of the area, As a member of political Party, As a service holder

Table-3.2d: Average number of UP rallies/awareness programmes attended last year by type of area Responses Project area Control area Average number of UP rallies/awareness programmes attended last year(q311) Mean 3.55 3.02 Median 2.00 2.00 n 85 63 Timeline of UP rallies/awareness programmes attended last(q312) Within 3 months 15.3 36.5 3 to 6 months 16.5 20.6

371 Responses Project area Control area 6 to 12 months 43.5 31.7 > 1year 24.7 11.1 n 85 63

Table-3.2d: Benefits of attending rally/awareness programme of UP by type of area Responses Project area Control area Type of benefits received by attending UP rallies/awareness programmes (#)(q313) Villagers became aware of important issues and got benefited 45.9 (39) 38.7 (24) Received information 35.3 (30) 43.5 (27) Shared information with others 7.1 (6) 8.1 (4) Performed a community responsibility 4.7 (4) 4.8 (3) Almost every household has received hygienic latrine 2.4 (2) 1.6 (1) Patriotism has been developed 1.2 (1) 1.6 (1) The area has been made free from addiction 1.2 (1) - No comment 9.4 (8) 6.5 (4) n 85 62

Table-3.3a: Respondent ever participated in any Ward Shava of UP by type of area Socially Responses (q314) Male Female Total Non poor Poor marginalized group Project area Yes 20.0 6.8 17.2 18.3 17.2 14.5 No 80.0 93.2 82.8 81.7 82.8 85.5 n 1216 325 1541 590 703 248 Control area Yes 12.0 3.0 9.3 10.8 8.9 7.6 No 88.0 97.0 90.7 89.2 91.1 92.4 n 1092 470 1562 527 704 331

Table-3.3b: Number of Ward Shava (meeting) attended last year and number of month before attend last by type of area Project Control Responses(q315) area area Number of Ward Shava (meeting) attended last year (q315) Not attended in Ward Shava 0.4 4.8 One Ward Shava 54.3 53.1 Two or more Ward Shavas 45.3 42.1 Average no. of Ward Shava attended last year 1.9 1.8 Average no. of people participated in last ward shava 72.0 61.3 n 265 145

372 When did the respondents attend the Ward Shava last?(q316) Within 3 months 28.8 25.5 3 to 6 months 21.2 26.2 6 to 12 months 39.4 32.4 > 1year 10.6 15.9 n 264 145 Reasons for participation in Ward Shava (multiple responses)(q318) Invited by the local UP member 43.4 26.2 To propose local development schemes 28.3 33.8 To have an idea about what development schemes are proposed 12.1 21.4 To know/collect information 8.7 12.4 To receive assistance/help 6.0 1.4 As a part of community responsibility 2.6 6.2 Others* 1.9 3.3 n 265 145 Benefit received by participating in Ward Shava (multiple responses)(q319) Became aware of the proposed development/activities of his/her own 58.1 56.0 Ward People benefited by pond platform/road construction 18.1 13.5 Received help (unspecified) 7.5 4.3 Received VGD card 5.7 3.5 No direct benefits received 13.6 21.3 Others** 1.5 1.4 n 265 141 Note Others*: To see how UP member works, To meet influential person, To meet influential person Others**: Self-satisfaction by serving community, Proposed for constructing a road, Benefited in agriculture, Received pregnancy allowance

Table-3.4a: Expressed needs/problems/priorities in the Ward Shava of UP Socially Responses(q321) Male Female Total Non poor Poor marginalized group Responses Project area Yes 35.4 36.4 35.5 50.0 28.9 13.9 No 64.6 63.6 64.5 50.0 71.1 86.1 n 243 22 265 108 121 36 Responses Control area Yes 19.8 35.7 21.4 26.3 22.2 8.0 No 80.2 64.3 78.6 73.7 77.8 92.2 n 131 14 145 57 63 25

373 Table-3.4b: Type of needs/ problems/ priorities expressed and raised issues addressed in the Ward Shava of UP by type of area Responses Project area Control area Type of needs/ problems/ priorities expressed in the Ward Shavameetingof UP (q323) Repair/construct roads/culverts/drains and construct 73.4 (69) 67.7 (21) irrigation system Supply safe water/install deep tube-well 14.9 (14) 12.9 (4) To get different allowances: old allowance/widow 14.9 (14) 3.2 (1) allowance/fisherman allowance etc. Law and order improvement 4.3 (4) 6.5 (2) Repair school building 4.3 (4) 2.6 (1) Irrigation 3.2 (3) - Demand for sewing machine - 3.2 (1) Problem of water-logging 3.2 (3) 3.2 (1) Supply medicine in community clinics 1.1 (1) 6.5 (2) n 94 31 Raised issues addressed in the meeting resolution Yes 67.0 (63) 61.3 (19) No 13.8 (13) 25.8 (8) Don't know 19.2 (18) 12.9 (4) n 94 31

Table-3.5a: Discussion of development plan/budget/satisfaction in Ward Shavaof UP by type of area Responses Project area Control area Any development plan discussed in the Ward Shava(Q323) Yes 33.5 27.9 No 66.5 72.1 n 257 140 Any budget discussion held in Ward Shava(Q324) Yes 17.6 14.2 No 82.4 85.8 n 256 141

Table-3.5b: Satisfaction with the performance of Ward Shava of UP by type of area (#) Project area Responses(Q325) Socially Male Female Total Non poor Poor marginalized group Very satisfied 8.9 4.8 (1) 8.5 8.6 7.6 11.4 (4) Satisfied 41.4 33.3 (7) 40.7 43.8 39.0 37.1 (13)

374 Fairly satisfied 12.7 23.8 (5) 13.6 17.1 11.9 8.6 (3) Not satisfied 37.1 38.1 (8) 37.2 30.5 41.5 42.9 (15) n 237 21 258 105 118 35 Responses Control area Very satisfied 3.9 7.1 (1) 4.3 3.8 4.8 4.0 (1) Satisfied 19.7 21.4 (3) 19.9 18.9 20.6 20.0 (5) Fairly satisfied 22.8 28.6 (4) 23.4 22.6 19.0 36.0 (9) Not satisfied 53.5 42.9 (6) 52.5 54.7 55.6 40.0 (10) n 127 14 141 53 63 25

Table-3.6: Awareness on any standing committee meeting/Women Development Forum meeting in the Ward Shava of UP by type of area Responses Project area Control area Aware of any standing committee meeting(Q326) Yes 7.2 3.2 No 92.8 96.8 n 1541 1562 Have any participation in standing committee meeting(Q327) Yes 27.9 24.0 No 72.1 76.0 n 111 50

Table-3.7a: Type of standing committee meeting attended last year by type of area (#) (Q328) Responses Project area Control area Law and order committee meeting 19.4 (6) #5 Planning meeting 16.1 (5) - Budget meeting 12.9 (4) #2 Arbitration settlement meeting 9.7 (3) - Communication and infrastructure related meeting 22.6 (7) #1 Education related meeting 6.5 (2) #2 Financial management committee meeting 3.2 (1) #2 Sanitation facility/sewerage system 19.4 (6) #2 Agriculture, Fisheries and livestock 12.9 (4) #1 Committee for prevention of child and woman oppression 3.2 (1) #2 Disaster Management 3.2 (1) #1 n 31 12

Table-3.7b: Type of standing committee meeting attended last by type of area (Q329) Responses Project area Control area Law and order committee meeting #4 #5 Planning meeting #2 -

375 Responses Project area Control area Budget meeting #2 #1 Arbitration settlement meeting #2 - Communication and infrastructure related meeting #8 - Education related meeting - #2 Financial management committee meeting - #2 Sanitation facility/sewerage system - #2 Agriculture, Fisheries and livestock #2 - Committee for prevention of child and woman oppression #1 #1 Disaster Management #1 - n 29 12

Table-3.8: Number of months before attended standing committee meetings last by type of area Number of months before attended standing committee Project area Control area meetings last (#) Within 3 months 32.3 (10) #5 3 to 6 months 22.6 (7) #2 6 to 12 months 29.0 (9) #3 > 1year 16.1 (5) #2 n 31 12

Table-3.9: Satisfaction level with the performance of Standing Committees by type of area Satisfaction level with the performance of Standing Project area Control area Committees (#) Very satisfied 12.9 (4) #3 Satisfied 61.3 (19) #6 Fairly satisfied 12.9 (4) #2 Not satisfied 12.9 (4) #1 n 31 12

Table-3.10: Women Development Forum in the Ward Shava of UP by type of area Responses Project area Control area Aware of any Women Development Forum at Upazila(Q331) Yes 5.3 2.7 No 94.7 97.3 n 1541 1562 Any female is member of Women Development Forum(Q332) Yes 28.0 21.4 No 8.5 7.1 Don't know 63.4 71.4 n 82 42

376 Female member(s) attend Women Development Forum meeting (#)(Q332) Yes #15 #6 No - #1 Don't know #8 #3 n 23 10

UP Planning, Budgeting and Auditing Table-4.1: Respondents’ awareness on annual planning of UP by type of area Responses Project area Control area Aware of annual planning of UP(Q401) Yes 9.9 4.2 No 90.1 95.8 n 1541 1562 Participate in annual planning process of UP(Q402) Yes 25.7 20.0 No 74.3 80.0 n 152 65 Contribution in annual planning process of UP (#)(Q403) As audience 53.8 (21) #8 Duty of a village police/As a service holder 12.8 (5) - Proposed to construct a bridge, platform of a pond 35.9 (14) #6 n 39 13 Relatives/neighbors/known persons participate in UP's annual planning(Q404) Yes 31.6 27.7 No 13.8 13.8 Don't know 54.6 58.5 n 152 65

Table-4.2: Respondents’ awareness on five year planning of UP by type of area Responses Project area Control area Aware of five year planning of UP(Q407) Yes 4.0 1.3 No 96.0 98.7 n 1541 1562 Participated in five year planning process of UP (#)(Q408) Yes 31.1 (19) 19.0 (4) No 68.9 (42) 81.0 (17) n 61 21

377 Participation process in 5-year planning process of UP (#)(Q409) Attended with chairman's invitation 31.6 (6) #1 As an audience 68.4 (13) #3 n 19 4 Relatives/neighbors participated in UP's 5-year planning process(Q411) Yes 3.0 2.0 No 7.2 11.2 Don't know 89.7 86.8 n 1541 1562

Table-4.3a: Respondents’ awareness on annual budgetof UP by type of area (Q413) Responses Project area Control area Yes 13.8 6.7 No 86.2 93.3 n 1541 1562

Table-4.3b: Respondents’ participation in budget meeting by type of area Responses Project area Control area Participated in UP's open budget meeting(Q414) Yes 26.3 12.5 No 73.7 87.5 n 213 104 Raised any issue in UP's open budget meeting(Q415) Yes 32.8 (19) #7 No 67.2 (39) #6 n 58 13 Issues raised in UP's annual budget meeting (#)(Q416) Development project 78.9 (15) #5 Proposal for construct a culvert, a bridge 10.5 (2) - Proposal for women’s employment project 5.3 (1) #2 Proposal to construct a shed it the market 5.3 (1) - Talked about keeping allocation for education 5.3 (1) - project/purpose Sinking of a tubewell - #1 n 19 8 UP's open budget meeting accepted issues raised (#)(Q417) Yes #17 #6 No #2 #1 n 19 7

378 Table-4.4: Respondents’ level of satisfaction on UP’s open budget meeting by type of area Level of satisfaction on UP's open budget Project area Control area meeting(Q419) Very satisfied 6.6 5.8 Satisfied 31.1 24.0 Fairly satisfied 24.1 29.8 Not satisfied 38.2 40.4 n 212 104

Table-4.5: Respondents’ opinion on persons to be more involved in UP’s budget meeting by type of area Opinion: Who need to be more involved in UP's Project area Control area budget meeting(multiple responses)(Q420) Male 71.8 74.0 Female 49.3 66.2 Youth (19-25 years) 59.2 63.5 Socially marginalized group 42.7 61.5 Person understand budget well 2.3 1.0 Elder person 0.9 1.0 Don't know 12.7 11.5 n 213 104

Table-4.6: Respondents’ awareness and knowledge on audits of expenditures of UP by type of area Responses Project area Control area UP receipts and expenditures audited in last year(Q421) Yes 3.6 1.6 No 2.1 2.5 Don't know 94.3 95.9 n 1541 1562 Source of information on UP's Audit of last year(Q422) Through chairman 14.3 (8) #3 Heard from the UP secretary 7.1 (4) #1 Heard from community people, former member 55.4 (31) #7 Through UP meeting 8.9 (5) #7 As a member of Answer & Village Police 12.5 (7) #3 Discussion with the auditors 5.4 (3) #4 n 56 25

379 Table-4.7: Respondents’ opinion on people's participation in planning, budgeting and auditing process of UP by type of area Responses Project area Control area Opinion on people's participation in UP planning process needs to be increased(Q424a) Need to increase 94.6 90.7 Satisfied with present level 3.1 5.8 Need to reduce 1.2 0.4 Do not know/not sure 1.0 3.1 n 1541 1562 Opinion on participation of the people in UP budgeting process (Q424b) Need to increase 94.9 91.0 Satisfied with present level 2.8 5.4 Need to reduce 1.2 0.5 Do not know 1.1 3.1 n 1541 1562 Opinion on participation of the people in UP Auditing process needs to be increased(Q424c) Need to increase 94.5 89.7 Satisfied with present level 3.0 6.5 Need to reduce 1.4 0.5 Do not know 1.2 3.3 n 1541 1562

Table-4.8a: Respondents’ knowledge on revenue/tax of UP by type of area(q426) Responses Project area Control area Yes 63.5 60.1 No 12.3 12.0 Don't know 22.3 27.8 n 1541 1562

Table-4.8b: Respondents’ knowledge source of UP revenue/tax by type of area (q425) Responses Project area Control area Holding tax, house tax 53.1 63.6 Fees for different certificates 5.1 3.9 Taxes for ferry-ghat, and lease of hats and markets 5.7 8.1 Land tax 8.6 4.2 Fees for birth registration 2.7 3.5 Trade license fee 11.7 11.2 Land sale tax 0.5 0.2 Van/Rickshaw license fee 1.2 2.5 Don’t know 41.4 34.0 Others* 0.7 1.0 n 1538 1560 Note Others*: Cost of land records, From different resources, Village arbitration fee, Income tax/tax from factories,Boat licensee fee

380 Table-4.9a: Respondents’ knowledge on tax assessment conducted for households in one year preceding the surveyby type of area (q427) Respondents’ knowledge on tax assessment Project area Control area Yes 65.5 60.1 No 12.3 12.0 Don't know 22.3 27.8 n 1541 1562

Table-4.9b: Respondents’ knowledge on appropriateness of assessment for households in one year preceding the survey by type of area (q428) knowledge on appropriateness of assessment Project area Control area Yes 75.2 70.4 No 6.0 11.7 Don't know 18.7 11.9 n 1010 939

Table-4.9c: Tax paid and Amount of tax paid for households in one year preceding the survey by type of area Responses Project area Control area Tax for household paid last year (q429) Yes 74.3 80.2 No 21.6 16.0 Don't know 4.1 3.8 n 1009 940 Mean and median amount of tax for household paid last year (q430) Mean 92.8 85.0 Median 60.0 50.0 n 750 754

Table-4.9d: Other fees and tollpaid in one year preceding the survey by type of area Responses Project area Control area Fees other than holding tax paid by household(q431a) Yes 23.9 17.4 No 76.1 82.6 n 1541 1562 Toll other than holding tax paid by household(q431b) Yes 4.3 3.3 No 95.7 96.7 n 1541 1562 Any amount other than holding tax paid by household(q431c) Yes 12.4 12.3 No 87.6 87.7 n 1541 1562

381 Table-4.10: Respondents’ knowledge on any meeting/event for collecting revenue/holding tax arranged by UPby type of area(q432) Respondents’ knowledge on any meeting/event Project area Control area Yes 7.5 6.3 No 90.8 93.1 Don’t know 1.8 0.6 n 1541 1562

Table-4.11: Respondents’ knowledge on revenue/tax collection by UP by type of area Knowledge on arrangement for revenue/holding tax Project area Control area collection(q433) Collected tax through chowkidars/tax collectors 62.5 49.5 Publicity through amplifier devices 39.1 30.3 Community level meetings for community awareness 17.4 14.1 Organized tax fairs 14.8 2.0 Tax paying household identified and marked 13.0 3.0 Recognition awards for the good tax payers 6.1 2.0 Do not know - 1.0 n 115 99

Overall Assessment of The Functions of UP

Table-5.1a: Respondents’ satisfaction with the overall performance of UP by type of area Responses(q501) Project area Control area Very satisfied 4.9 2.8 Satisfied 35.2 29.3 Fairly satisfied 42.3 48.7 Not satisfied 17.6 19.3 n 1541 1562

Table-5.1b: Respondents’ overall perceived positive performance/strengths of UP by type of area (q502) Responses Project area Control area Development works such as: construction and repair of 50.0 54.0 roads, culverts, bridges Provide different allowance, relief and grants such as: VGD, VGF, old-age allowance, distribution of rice free of cost or 31.4 38.8 at cheap price; 40-day work program etc. Help and assistance to the poor 9.7 9.9 Arbitration through village court 7.8 9.0 Sinking deep tube-well 5.6 5.1

382 Responses Project area Control area Provide hygienic latrine free of cost 3.5 1.3 Providing birth certificate and National certificate 3.4 6.2 Development of religious institutions; providing grants to 1.6 1.5 religious institutions such as: mosques, temples Different awareness raising activities 0.6 0.8 Do not do any good work 5.2 4.1 Everything is good 4.2 5.0 Other* 8.8 7.7 Don’t know/cannot explain 11.6 6.5 n 1541 1562 Note: *Others include:Guarding village at night by village police, Vaccination program, To provide games and sports item like football, cricket etc, To provide trade license, Arrangement for open budget meeting, Excavation of canals, To provide trade license, Arrangement for open budget meeting, Realizing young fish in open water body, Help and assistance in agriculture, Electricity supply, Quick response to work/issue, Information service, Improvement of education standard, Health care service, Supervision of addiction prevention, Child marriage prevention

Table-5.1c: Respondents’ overall perceived negative performance/weakness of UP by type of area (q503) Responses Project area Control area Nepotism and favoritism in distributing grants and 22.8 29.3 allowances/allowances are not provided without paying money Rapport building and sympathetic attitude towards people is 12.7 13.3 quite less Less initiative in performing infrastructure development 10.2 9.5 works/ delay in performing those works Lack of prompt service/lack of sincerity/people are to go to 3.6 6.6 chairman, members several times to get any service Allocation is less 2.7 1.5 There is no comment 16.1 19.4 Do not know 30.4 20.7 Others* 4.9 3.7 n 1541 1562 Note: *Others include:Do not provide relief or help and assistance to the flood affected people, Favoritism is done in arbitration and judgment through village court, Ward meetings are not held regularly, Watchman neglects his duty, Cannot monitor market price/cannot control price of goods, Citizen Charter is not available, Watchman neglects his duty, Do not provide tube well and hygienic latrine, Favoritism is done in arbitration and judgment through village court, Do not control addiction, Collects tax from poor people, Collects birth registration fee, Chairman/member acts/works whimsically

Table-5.2a: Respondents’ suggestions for increasing participation of poor people in Up's activities by type of area (q504a) Responses Project area Control area Poor people’s participation in different meetings should be 30.8 25.5 increased and their grievances should be sympathetically redressed The poor should be provided with sufficient assistance, 18.8 12.3 particularly financial assistance to meet the basic needs/ Poor farmers should be provided agricultural machineries

383 Responses Project area Control area By ensuring proper distribution of government allocation, 10.3 9.7 relief and other grants Create employment opportunity/ other opportunities by 8.7 10.9 different welfare program for the poor people By providing allowances to more poor people 3.4 4.4 Others* 2.1 4.0 No comment 14.7 21.3 Do not know 16.5 17.5 n 1541 1562 Note:*Others include: Provide tubewell, Houses should be provided to those who have no house to live in, Distribute ring slab/ latrine, Poor women should be provided sewing machine, Providing assistance in developing cottage industry, Participation of the poor people should be ensured in selecting the beneficiaries of different safety net programs and /their opinion should be considered in this regard, Constructing shelter centers for the helpless people and distributing khas land to the landless people, Pepairing list of poor people

Table-5.2a: Respondents’ suggestions for increasing participation of non-poor people in Up's activities by type of area (q504b) Responses Project area Control area Increasing their participation in different meetings 26.5 18.8 Motivate them to spend time in social activities/ 2.9 3.6 development works Seeking suggestions from community people 3.0 1.1 Awareness raising activities 2.4 2.0 Providing agricultural assistance such as: distributing agricultural implements; agricultural loan, supplying seeds 1.8 3.4 and fertilizers, and cows Improvement of civic facilities or services/ healthcare 1.7 1.8 service Others* 1.9 0.7 No suggestion/ No comment 34.0 41.2 Do not know 26.4 28.7 n 1541 1562 Note:*Others include: Information assistance to them, Stopping harassing them ,Provide training,

Table-5.2a: Respondents’ suggestions for increasing participation of women in Up's activities by type of area (q504c) Responses Project area Control area Women’s participation to be increased in UP’s different 28.8 19.0 committees, meetings, rallies, and other activities Through training on income generating activities, such as: 12.3 18.4 handicraft making and weaving, garment worker training etc. Providing help to destitute women 4.7 3.7 Awareness raising activities 4.2 2.7

384 Responses Project area Control area Others* 5.1 5.8 No comment 23.6 28.9 Do not know 24.8 25.0 n 1541 1562 Note:*Others include: Providing healthcare service to women and children and maternal care, Free education for women, Increasing the number of widowhood cards, Information service to women, Stopping child marriage ,Providing loans to women

Table-5.2a: Respondents’ suggestions for increasing participation of youth in Up's activities by type of area (q504d) Responses Project area Control area Encourage/motivate them to participate in different UP activities 26.2 13.8 Creating employment opportunities 12.6 10.3 Providing different trainings such as: pisciculture, cow 3.9 5.0 farming, computer training etc. Awareness raising activities to be enhanced 2.7 0.7 Implementing different development program 2.5 4.4 Motivating youths to participate in sports and cultural activities 0.6 3.4 Others* 5.0 4.4 No suggestion/No comment 23.6 32.7 Do not know 25.7 28.1 n 1541 1562 Note:*Others include: Providing moral education, Addiction elimination committee should be created with the youths and elimination activities to be implemented, Law and order situation to be controlled with strong hand, Providing loan for different activities

Table-5.2a: Respondents’ suggestions for increasing participation of marginalized people in Up's activities by type of area (q504e) Responses Project area Control area Their increased participation in different activities, meetings 20.4 15.8 and occasions Providing financial support/ different safety net allowances 19.5 15.6 Providing house for them/rehabilitation of landless people 9.2 4.2 Marginalized people should be given social 7.3 5.8 recognition/equal opportunity should be given to them Training and employment opportunity for them to eliminate 3.2 5.9 their unemployment Others* 1.1 2.2 No suggestion/No comment 20.4 27.6 Do not know 23.6 26.5 n 1541 1562 Note:*Others include:: Fundamental rights should be ensured for them ,Looking after them

385 Upazila Parishad Related Information on Upazila Parishad Services

Table-6.1: Information on respondents’ visiting Upazila Parishad service by type of area Responses Project area Control area Ever visited Upazila Parishad office(q601) Yes 54.0 50.2 No 46.0 49.8 n 1541 1562 Number of time visited Upazila Parishad office in last three month(q602) Mean 1.43 1.49 Median 1.00 1.00 n 832 784 Purpose of visiting Upazila Parishad office (multiple responses)(q603) Health services 49.1 68.4 Land related works 37.0 39.5 Receive banking service 33.0 21.3 Law and order issue 12.6 13.4 Fisheries and livestock related works 11.9 8.8 Resolve local conflict 8.8 7.0 Education related works 8.3 7.5 Family planning 6.7 7.8 Agricultural service procuring seeds and fertilizer 7.1 3.3 Project related works in upazila 4.8 3.7 Sports and cultural related work 2.2 2.3 Upazila social welfare office 1.4 0.5 To get old age allowance, widowhood allowance and 1.3 1.1 disability allowance Election related work 1.1 0.3 UNO office to get card, to lodge complain 1.2 0.4 To Upazila Nirbahi officer 0.9 0.3 To get grant for mosque, temple, madrasa 0.6 0.8 To Chairman Upazila council 1.9 0.6 Only to see 1.7 0.6 To get NID card 1.0 1.1 Others* 0.9 1.1 n 833 784 Note:*Others include:Women welfare office, Poverty eradication office, To get trade license, To youth development office, To receive training on- weaving, sewing, Ansar, VDP training, To know information about law suit and how to go abroad, To get salary, To participate in cooperative rally, Related to rice dealership, To UNO/upazila chairman to request for road development, Related to politics, Related to rice dealership

386 Table-6.2: Respondent’s knowledge on quality of services and score on quality of services of line departments by type of area (q604) Responses Project area Control area Respondent’s knowledge on quality of services of line departments Know (has some idea) 72.7 72.2 Don't know 27.3 27.8 n 1541 1562 Score rating on quality of services of line departments Excellent 0.5 0.0 Good 6.3 4.4 Average 25.1 17.6 Bad 29.2 40.7 Very bad 38.8 37.4 n 1107 1119

Table-6.3: Respondent’s satisfaction levels on quality of services and score on quality of services of line departments by type of area (q604) Responses Project area Control area Satisfaction level of line departments services Law and order Very Good 6.4 3.1 Good 31.6 35.7 Average 21.7 21.2 Bad 2.0 3.6 Very Bad 1.0 0.8 Don’t know 37.3 35.7 Communication and infrastructure development Very Good 3.2 1.1 Good 21.5 24.4 Average 22.3 23.2 Bad 9.3 11.7 Very Bad 7.9 5.4 Don’t know 35.8 34.3 Agriculture and irrigation Very Good 1.9 1.2 Good 19.0 16.6 Average 24.8 23.7 Bad 8.1 8.6 Very Bad 1.9 1.7 Don’t know 44.3 48.3 Secondary and madrasa education Very Good 5.7 2.0

387 Responses Project area Control area Good 24.9 26.4 Average 15.8 17.7 Bad 1.2 5.4 Very Bad 0.5 2.3 Don’t know 52.0 46.2 Primary and mass education Very Good 6.7 2.4 Good 27.6 33.5 Average 15.1 13.9 Bad 1.2 5.1 Very Bad 0.3 2.3 Don’t know 49.1 42.8 Health and family welfare Very Good 4.0 2.1 Good 18.9 22.5 Average 20.6 21.1 Bad 5.8 10.1 Very Bad 1.8 2.1 Don’t know 48.9 42.2 Youth and sports Very Good 0.7 0.7 Good 7.1 7.2 Average 12.5 14.4 Bad 4.6 6.0 Very Bad 1.3 1.5 Don’t know 73.7 70.2 Women and children development Very Good 2.2 0.8 Good 12.8 10.8 Average 15.1 9.7 Bad 3.6 7.2 Very Bad 1.4 1.5 Don’t know 65.0 70.0 Social welfare Very Good 1.0 0.3 Good 7.1 8.7 Average 13.6 8.1 Bad 4.3 5.1 Very Bad 1.8 1.4 Don’t know 72.2 76.4

388 Responses Project area Control area Freedom fighter Very Good 6.4 3.8 Good 11.0 11.0 Average 8.4 4.0 Bad 1.0 1.2 Very Bad 0.5 0.8 Don’t know 72.8 79.1 Fisheries and livestock Very Good 2.3 1.9 Good 9.5 9.3 Average 14.9 11.8 Bad 6.2 5.1 Very Bad 1.9 1.1 Don’t know 65.1 70.8 Rural development and cooperative Very Good 0.3 0.4 Good 6.4 5.6 Average 10.8 7.0 Bad 3.4 4.7 Very Bad 0.7 2.0 Don’t know 78.4 80.3 Culture Very Good 1.0 0.3 Good 9.3 5.9 Average 9.9 10.1 Bad 3.4 4.2 Very Bad 0.8 1.0 Don’t know 75.6 78.6 Forest and environment Very Good 0.7 0.2 Good 7.5 5.3 Average 11.2 7.5 Bad 5.1 3.8 Very Bad 1.8 1.2 Don’t know 73.7 82.0 Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price Very Good 1.1 0.3 Good 4.7 3.5 Average 8.8 6.1 Bad 8.4 9.0

389 Responses Project area Control area Very Bad 3.1 2.2 Don’t know 73.8 78.9 Finance, budget, planning and mobilization of local resources Very Good 0.3 0.3 Good 3.3 3.5 Average 6.6 4.4 Bad 2.3 2.8 Very Bad 1.2 0.8 Don’t know 86.3 88.2 Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking water Very Good 3.6 0.9 Good 11.6 13.4 Average 18.5 12.4 Bad 6.2 7.9 Very Bad 2.5 2.9 Don’t know 57.7 62.5 Land related services Very Good 1.2 0.5 Good 8.1 7.2 Average 15.4 13.6 Bad 7.7 9.7 Very Bad 2.2 3.4 Don’t know 65.3 65.5

Table-6.4: Respondents’ knowledge and satisfaction levels on quality of services of line departments by type of area (q605) Responses Project area Control area Respondent’s knowledge on civic facility of Upazila Parishad office Know (have some idea) 41.4 42.9 Don't know 58.6 57.1 n 1541 1562 Score ratting on satisfaction level on civic facility of Upazila Parishad office Excellent 0.7 0.0 Good 8.9 6.4 Average 28.4 24.1 Bad 34.6 42.4 Very bad 27.4 27.0 n 879 884

390 Table-6.5: Respondents’ satisfaction level on quality of services of line departments by type of area (q605) Responses Project area Control area Satisfaction level on civic facility of Upazila Parishad office Upazila Library Very Good 0.6 0.8 Good 5.4 4.3 Average 4.3 3.2 Bad 1.2 1.0 Very Bad 1.4 0.4 No comments/don’t know 87.0 90.3 Entertainment Very Good 0.8 0.6 Good 10.4 12.7 Average 8.8 8.0 Bad 2.5 4.0 Very Bad 0.8 0.5 No comments/don’t know 76.6 74.2 Sports field Very Good 1.4 1.1 Good 17.5 10.9 Average 12.3 18.6 Bad 2.5 6.0 Very Bad 1.9 4.0 No comments/don’t know 64.4 59.4 Bus/ truck/tempo stand Very Good 1.6 1.2 Good 19.1 18.2 Average 20.3 18.9 Bad 7.2 12.5 Very Bad 4.2 2.3 No comments/don’t know 47.6 46.9 Market place Very Good 2.7 1.7 Good 25.4 22.9 Average 24.1 20.0 Bad 3.1 8.8 Very Bad 1.6 1.7 No comments/don’t know 43.0 44.8

391 Activities of Upazila Parishad Table-7.1: Respondents’ idea on different activities of Upazila Parishad’s by type of area Responses(q701) Project area Control area Have idea about preparation of five year plan and other 4.6 1.9 development plans Have idea about implementation/coordination of 5.1 1.8 different government agencies Have idea about construction, maintenance and repair of 32.7 30.2 inter-union roads Have idea about selection and implementation of small 23.6 12.9 irrigation projects Have idea about public health, nutrition and family 36.3 36.7 planning services Have idea about sanitation, drainage and supply of safe 39.0 32.3 drinking water Have idea about expansion of upazila wise education 26.7 23.3 Have idea about maintenances and donation for 29.3 27.4 secondary and madrasa education Have idea about building and expanding small industries 9.0 5.2 Have idea about financial support to cooperative societies 10.7 6.5 and voluntary organizations Have idea on assistance to women, children, and social 28.0 20.7 welfare, youth and cultural activities Have idea about development of agriculture, livestock, 36.9 28.9 fisheries and forestry Have idea about improvement of law and order 44.1 44.6 Have idea about self-employment and poverty reduction 23.0 16.6 activities Have idea about coordination and assistance to 17.3 9.0 development activities of UP Have idea about preventing acid throwing, abuse of 48.3 44.3 children and women Have idea about preventing theft, robbery, use of 44.6 45.1 narcotics, terrorism, etc. Have idea about social welfare activities 18.8 12.1 Have idea about disaster management activities 27.3 21.5 Have idea about cooperation with other organization 6.3 3.8 Have idea about encouraging governance services 15.6 5.9 Have idea about any other duty imposed by government 7.6 3.3 n 1541 1562

392 Table-7.2: Respondents’ idea about satisfaction level on quality of services of Upazila Parishad and their score rating by type of area (q701) Responses Project area Control area Idea about satisfaction level No idea about activities 36.3 33.9 Has some idea about satisfaction level 63.7 66.0 Did not know about satisfaction level - 0.1 n 1541 1562 Score rating on satisfaction level Very bad 73.6 86.2 Bad 17.0 10.2 Average 6.6 3.1 Good 2.5 0.5 Excellent 0.2 0.0 n 981 1031

Table-7.3: Respondents’ satisfaction level on quality of services of Upazila Parishad by type of area (q701) Responses Project area Control area Satisfaction level on different activities of upazila parishad Prepare five year plan and other development plans Very satisfied 4.2 - Satisfied 33.8 22.6 (7) Fairly satisfied 38.0 51.6 (16) Not satisfied 12.7 6.5 (2) Filly dis satisfied 1.4 3.2 (1) Don’t know 9.9 16.1 (5) n 71 38 Implementation / Coordination of different government agencies agenda Very satisfied 7.7 - Satisfied 38.5 #12 Fairly satisfied 43.6 #11 Not satisfied 1.3 #2- Filly dis satisfied 2.6 - Don’t know 6.4 #3 n 78 28 Construction, maintenance and repair of inter-union roads Very satisfied 4.4 3.6 Satisfied 30.0 37.3 Fairly satisfied 35.5 37.9 Not satisfied 20.6 14.6

393 Responses Project area Control area Filly dis satisfied 8.7 5.7 Don’t know 0.8 0.8 n 504 472 Selection and implementation of small irrigation projects Very satisfied 2.8 4.5 Satisfied 29.2 35.3 Fairly satisfied 44.9 40.8 Not satisfied 18.2 15.9 Filly dis satisfied 4.4 1.5 Don’t know 0.6 2.0 n 363 201 Public health, nutrition and family planning service Very satisfied 7.7 6.1 Satisfied 35.8 41.7 Fairly satisfied 45.4 39.3 Not satisfied 8.9 10.3 Filly dis satisfied 1.6 2.4 Don’t know 0.5 0.2 n 559 573 Sanitation, drainage and supply of safe drinking water Very satisfied 9.3 2.2 Satisfied 30.3 40.8 Fairly satisfied 41.6 35.8 Not satisfied 15.3 18.4 Filly dis satisfied 3.3 2.4 Don’t know 0.2 0.4 n 601 505 Expand of Upazila wise education Very satisfied 10.7 5.5 Satisfied 52.6 62.4 Fairly satisfied 33.1 28.3 Not satisfied 2.7 2.2 Filly dis satisfied 0.2 1.4 Don’t know 0.7 0.3 n 411 364 Maintenance and donation for secondary and madrasa education Very satisfied 8.6 6.5 Satisfied 51.3 57.0 Fairly satisfied 34.5 25.9 Not satisfied 2.9 7.2 Filly dis satisfied 1.1 2.3

394 Responses Project area Control area Don’t know 1.5 0.9 n 452 428 Build and expand small industries Very satisfied 2.9 1.2 Satisfied 21.0 29.3 Fairly satisfied 39.1 19.5 Not satisfied 26.8 28.0 Filly dis satisfied 3.6 19.5 Don’t know 6.5 2.4 n 138 82 Financial assistance to cooperative societies and voluntary organizations Very satisfied 2.4 2.9 Satisfied 32.1 44.1 Fairly satisfied 32.7 26.5 Not satisfied 20.0 12.7 Filly dis satisfied 4.8 7.8 Don’t know 7.9 5.9 n 165 102 Assistance to women, children, social welfare, youth and cultural activities Very satisfied 6.7 2.2 Satisfied 45.0 44.4 Fairly satisfied 39.0 43.5 Not satisfied 7.4 6.8 Filly dis satisfied 0.5 2.2 Don’t know 1.4 0.9 n 431 324 Development of agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry Very satisfied 6.5 5.1 Satisfied 29.4 41.4 Fairly satisfied 42.6 39.8 Not satisfied 17.8 11.3 Filly dis satisfied 3.3 1.8 Don’t know 0.4 0.7 n 568 452 Improvement of law and order Very satisfied 18.7 8.0 Satisfied 48.7 41.8 Fairly satisfied 27.9 43.5 Not satisfied 3.5 5.3 Filly dis satisfied 1.0 1.1 Don’t know 0.1 0.3 n 680 697

395 Responses Project area Control area Self-employment and poverty reduction Very satisfied 3.1 1.9 Satisfied 19.1 17.0 Fairly satisfied 26.1 24.7 Not satisfied 41.0 45.6 Filly dis satisfied 7.9 10.0 Don’t know 2.8 0.8 n 356 259 Coordination and assistance to development activities of Union Parishad Very satisfied 5.6 5.7 Satisfied 28.6 46.4 Fairly satisfied 50.8 41.4 Not satisfied 8.3 5.0 Filly dis satisfied 4.5 1.4 Don’t know 2.3 - n 266 140 Protect acid throwing, abuse of children and women Very satisfied 29.0 19.5 Satisfied 41.1 42.7 Fairly satisfied 23.4 32.0 Not satisfied 5.5 4.8 Filly dis satisfied 0.8 0.6 Don’t know 0.1 0.6 n 744 694 Protecting theft, robbery, use of narcotics, terrorism, etc. Very satisfied 21.1 13.1 Satisfied 44.9 42.3 Fairly satisfied 23.5 31.5 Not satisfied 8.0 9.8 Filly dis satisfied 1.9 2.6 Don’t know 0.6 0.7 n 688 704 Social welfare Very satisfied 4.8 4.2 Satisfied 30.3 46.0 Fairly satisfied 42.8 33.9 Not satisfied 14.8 7.4 Filly dis satisfied 5.5 5.8 Don’t know 1.7 2.6 n 290 189

396 Responses Project area Control area Disaster management Very satisfied 9.8 13.7 Satisfied 30.0 43.2 Fairly satisfied 33.6 27.7 Not satisfied 17.1 13.7 Filly dis satisfied 8.6 1.5 Don’t know 1.0 0.3 n 420 336 Cooperation with other organizations Very satisfied 5.2 5.1 Satisfied 42.3 50.8 Fairly satisfied 40.2 32.2 Not satisfied 4.1 5.1 Filly dis satisfied 2.1 1.7 Don’t know 6.2 5.1 n 97 59 Encourage e-governance services Very satisfied 19.2 16.3 Satisfied 46.3 56.5 Fairly satisfied 27.9 23.9 Not satisfied 4.6 2.0 Filly dis satisfied 0.4 - Don’t know 1.7 1.1 n 240 92 Any duty imposed by government Very satisfied 6.8 3.8 Satisfied 38.5 57.7 Fairly satisfied 42.7 36.5 Not satisfied 3.4 - Filly dis satisfied 1.7 - Don’t know 6.8 1.9 n 117 52

Table-7.4: Knowledge on responsibilities and duties of Upazila Chairman by type of area Responses Project area Control area Respondents have knowledge on responsibilities and duties of Upazila Chairman (UC) Yes 20.6 13.0 No 79.4 87.0 n 1541 1562

397 Responses Project area Control area Knowledge on day to day administrative matters of UC(q703) Yes 77.3 78.3 No 22.7 21.7 n 317 203 Knowledge on chairing all Upazila Parishad meetings of UC Yes 70.0 69.0 No 30.0 31.0 n 317 203 Knowledge on supervision of all staff Yes 62.8 55.7 No 37.2 44.3 n 317 203 Knowledge on recruiting staffs and take disciplinary actions if necessary Yes 57.7 48.3 No 42.3 51.7 n 317 203 Knowledge on preparation and implementation of project Yes 71.9 50.2 No 28.1 49.8 n 317 203 Knowledge on keeping records of all data and document Yes 43.8 35.5 No 56.2 64.5 n 317 203 Knowledge on signing contract Yes 53.0 49.3 No 47.0 50.7 n 317 203 Knowledge on issuing license and permit Yes 62.5 67.0 No 37.5 33.0 n 317 203 Knowledge on crime projection and resolving conflict Yes 83.9 79.3 No 16.1 20.7 n 317 203 Knowledge on any duty delegated by government Yes 53.6 46.3 No 46.4 53.7 n 317 203

398 Responses Project area Control area Knowledge on proceeding to court if necessary Yes 42.9 34.5 No 57.1 65.5 n 317 203 Knowledge on monitoring vice chairman's duties Yes 50.5 38.9 No 49.5 61.1 n 317 203

Table-7.5: Knowledge on responsibilities and duties of Upazila Women Vice-Chairman (UWVC) by type of area (q704 and q705) Responses Project area Control area Respondents have idea about duties and responsibilities of UWVC Yes 9.3 3.5 No 90.7 96.5 n 1541 1562 Opinion: duty of UWVC on ensuring health, nutrition, family planning and maternity services Yes 51.7 83.6 No 12.6 9.1 Don’t know 35.7 7.3 n 143 55 Opinion: duty of UWVC on developing sanitation and drainage systems Yes 38.5 61.8 No 14.7 16.4 Don’t know 46.9 21.8 n 143 55 Opinion: duty of UWVC on develop small industries Yes 49.7 67.3 No 11.9 7.3 Don’t know 38.5 25.5 n 143 55 Opinion: duty of UWVC on self-employment and poverty reduction Yes 22.4 41.8 No 14.0 20.0 Don’t know 63.6 38.2 n 143 55 Opinion: duty of UWVC on improving conditions of women and children Yes 34.3 49.1 No 14.7 16.4

399 Responses Project area Control area Don’t know 51.0 34.5 n 143 55 Opinion: duty of UWVC on protecting abuse of children and women, Dowry, child marriage Yes 56.6 72.7 No 11.9 9.1 Don’t know 31.5 18.2 n 143 55 Opinion: duty of UWVC on developing livestock and fisheries Yes 25.2 49.1 No 16.8 21.8 Don’t know 58.0 29.1 n 145 55 Opinion: duty of UWVC on monitoring cooperative societies and voluntary organizations activities Yes 26.6 43.6 No 14.7 10.9 Don’t know 58.7 45.5 n 143 55

Table-7.6: Opinion on activity of chairman of Upazila Parishad by type of area (q706) Responses Project area Control area Opinionon activity of chairman on visiting project sites Yes 35.2 24.5 No 5.3 10.3 Don’t know 59.6 65.2 n 1541 1562 Opine about the activity of chairman on attending cultural programs Yes 36.3 26.4 No 2.3 9.5 Don’t know 61.5 64.1 n 1541 1562 Opine about the activity of chairman on resolving conflict Yes 40.2 35.5 No 2.5 8.6 Don’t know 57.4 55.9 n 1541 1562 Opine about the activity of chairman on celebrating national days Yes 36.7 27.0 No 1.7 8.5 Don’t know 61.6 64.5 n 1541 1562

400 Table-7.7: Opinion on activity of women vice chairman of Upazila Parishad (q706) Responses Project area Control area Opine about the activity of women vice chairman on visiting project sites Yes 14.8 9.2 No 8.9 13.3 Don’t know 76.3 77.5 n 1541 1562 Opine about the activity of women vice chairman on attending cultural programs Yes 21.5 15.0 No 4.9 12.5 Don’t know 73.6 72.4 n 1541 1562 Opine about the activity of women vice chairman on resolving conflict Yes 16.2 12.0 No 7.4 12.1 Don’t know 76.4 75.9 n 1541 1562 Opine about the activity of women vice chairman on celebrating national days Yes 23.4 16.9 No 5.1 11.5 Don’t know 71.4 71.6 n 1541 1562

Table-7.8: Opinion on activity of vice chairman of Upazila Parishad by type of area(q706) Responses Project area Control area Opinion about the activity of vice chairman on visiting project sites Yes 22.6 14.1 No 6.9 10.8 Don’t know 70.5 75.2 n 1541 1562 Opinion about the activity of vice chairman on attending cultural programs Yes 26.1 18.6 No 3.8 10.1 Don’t know 70.1 71.3 n 1541 1562 Opinion about the activity of vice chairman on resolving conflict Yes 26.1 22.9 No 3.9 9.4 Don’t know 70.0 67.7 n 1541 1562 Opinion about the activity of vice chairman on celebrating national days Yes 28.0 20.4 No 3.3 9.5 Don’t know 68.7 70.1 n 1541 1562

401 Budgeting and Project Implementation of Upazila Parishad Table-8.1: Budgeting and project implementation of Upazila Parishad by type of area Responses Project area Control area Idea about Upazila budget(q801) Yes 4.0 1.5 No 96.0 98.5 n 1541 1562 Whether Upazila budget has been published in any local newspaper (#)(q802) Yes 45.2 (28) 20.8 (5) No 4.8 (3) 25.0 (6) Don’t know 50.0 (31) 54.2 (13) n 62 24 Ever attended Upazila budget meeting (#)(q803) Yes 8.1 (3) 4.2 (1) No 91.9 (57) 95.8 (23) n 62 24 Any suggestion on the budget meeting (q804) Yes 83.3 (5) - No 16.7 (1) 100.0 (1) n 6 1 Open budget meeting arranged by UP (#)(q805) Yes 21.0 (13) 8.3 (2) No 12.9 (8) 8.3 (2) Don’t know 66.1 (41) 83.3 (20) n 62 24 Ever attended open Upazila budget meeting(q806) Yes 53.8 (7) 0.0 (0) No 46.2 (6) 100.0 (2) n 13 2 Any suggestion on the open budget meeting(q807) Yes 100.0 (7) 0 No 0.0 (0) 0 n 7 0 Any project undertook by Upazila Parishad that can bring benefit of all Union Parishads(q808) Yes 8.0 3.1 No 92.0 96.9 n 1541 1562 If yes, types of projects undertaken (q809) Constructed a bridge 26.8 10.2 (5) Construction of roads 56.9 79.6 (39) Embankment through relief work 0.8 2.0 (1)

402 Responses Project area Control area School development project 8.1 4.1 (2) Irrigation project 7.1 - Release of young fish in open water 3.3 6.1 (3) Others* 3.3 2.0 n 123 49 Any officer or UP chairman or Vice-chairman of UP came to inspect(q810) Yes 71.0 34.7 (17) No 26.6 63.3 (31) Don’t know 2.4 2.0 (1) n 124 49 Note Others*: Provide electricity community, eliminated childe marriage, providing sport items, providing computer,

Structure of Upazila Parishad Table-9.1: Perception and knowledge on structure of Upazila Parishad by type of area Responses Project area Control area Officials of Upazila Parishad (as per household respondents’ perception and knowledge)(q901) Upazila Chairman 57.8 58.9 Upazila Nirbahi Officer/UNO 13.3 26.1 Upazila Vice-chairman 29.2 27.1 Upazila Women vice-chairman 13.2 9.3 Upazila level officers: Education Officer/Fisheries 12.3 13.1 Officer/Social Welfare Officer/ Agricultural Officer etc. Assistant Commissioner, Land 1.1 1.2 Member of Parliament (MP 0.4 0.1 Land Officer 1.3 1.3 Officer -in- charge of the Police Station 1.2 1.5 Upazila Health and Family Planning Officer/Doctor 1.4 6.0 Do not know 39.1 37.8 Mayor 0.3 0.3 Commissioner 0.1 0.1 n 1541 1562 Opinion: easy to meet upazila officials or people’s representative(q902) Yes 36.9 29.9 No 63.1 70.1 n 1541 1562 As per household respondents’ perception the easiest person to meet with(q903) Upazila Chairman 79.8 82.7 Upazila Vice-chairman 62.5 50.7 Upazila Women vice-chairman 44.7 40.5 Upazila Nirbahi Officer/UNO 49.5 54.0 Union Parishad Chairman 65.5 63.4

403 Pourashava Mayor 20.1 14.1 Women members (reserved seats) 39.6 36.0 Doctor/Health Officer 5.1 5.6 Education Officer 0.7 0.2 Land Officer 1.2 - Fisheries Officer 0.4 0.2 Agriculture Officer 2.5 2.8 Police Officer/OC 0.2 0.4 Male member - 1.1 n 568 467 Opinion: Knowledge on what to do if not easy to meet upazila officials or people’s representative(q904) Yes 2.4 0.9 No 97.6 99.1 n 1001 936

Good Governance Table-10.1: Right to obtain Information from Upazila Parishad office by type of area Responses Project area Control area Respondent ever tried to get information from UZP(q1001) Yes 1.8 0.7 No 98.2 99.3 n 1541 1562 Respondent got information sought from UZP (#)(q1002) Yes 59.3 (16) 63.6 (7) No 40.7 (11) 36.4 (4) n 27 11 Average number of days got information after complaint (q1003) Mean 13.2 4.7 Median 7.0 2.0 n 16 7 Table-10.2: Citizen Charter issues of Upazila Parishad office by type of area Responses Project area Control area Knowledge: whether UZP Citizens' Charter has been prepared(q1004) Yes 8.1 5.2 No 5.5 5.8 Don’t know 86.4 86.4 n 1541 1562 Respondent has seen UZP Citizens' Charter(q1005) Yes 86.4 91.4 No 13.6 8.8 n 125 120

404 Where the respondent has seen UZP Citizens' Charter(q1006) Notice Board of Upazila Parishad 17.6 20.3 Signboard in front of Upazila Parishad 81.5 81.5 Website of Upazila Parishad 0.9 0.9 n 108 108 Issues included UZP Citizens’ Charter(q1007) Different facilities to citizens 16.7 8.1 To know information 4.6 13.5 To know about fees for different services 6.5 2.7 Education related 0.9 1.4 Cooperative related 0.9 - Woman development 0.9 1.4 Different laws 1.9 1.4 Information on birth registration/National ID Card, 0.9 - Have not read/ Do not recall 76.9 79.7 n 108 74

Table-10.3: Upazila chairman available in office in the morning as per respondent’s knowledge by type of area(q1009) Upazila Chairman available in the office in morning Project area Control area as per respondents’ knowledge Morning 33.2 43.9 noon 7.3 4.8 After noon 0.9 1.3 Never been before 58.5 49.9 n 1541 1562

Table-10.4: Availability of public representative in Upazila Parishad office in the morning by type of area(q1009) Responses Project area Control area Upazila Chairman available in the office in morning as per respondents’ knowledge Yes 60.1 64.5 No 2.8 2.6 Sometimes 5.8 2.6 Don't know 31.3 30.6 n 639 782 Vice Chairman available in the office Yes 46.6 53.9 No 3.0 1.7 Sometimes 7.0 2.0 Don't know 43.3 43.4 n 639 782

405 Responses Project area Control area Women Vice Chairman available in the office Yes 39.0 42.8 No 3.4 2.3 Sometimes 7.0 3.6 Don't know 50.5 51.3 n 639 782 Upazila Nirbahi Officer available in the office Yes 58.2 61.0 No 0.2 1.2 Sometimes 2.7 2.3 Don't know 39.0 35.3 n 639 782 Upazila Health Officers/ Doctors available in the office Yes 53.5 73.9 No 1.1 3.8 Sometimes 12.1 2.3 Don't know 33.3 19.9 n 639 782 A C (land) available in the office Yes 44.4 51.8 No 1.1 4.1 Sometimes 4.4 0.9 Don't know 50.1 42.7 n 639 782 Social welfare officer available in the office Yes 28.6 26.3 No 0.3 2.3 Sometimes 1.3 0.6 Don't know 69.8 70.7 n 639 782 Upazila Engineer availablein the office Yes 29.3 25.4 No 0.2 2.6 Sometimes 1.3 0.9 Don't know 69.3 71.1 n 639 782 Upazila Agricultural Officer availablein the office Yes 38.8 33.0 No 0.6 2.3 Sometimes 4.1 0.6 Don't know 56.5 64.1 n 639 782

406 Responses Project area Control area Upazila Cooperative Officer available in the office Yes 26.1 26.0 No 0.2 2.2 Sometimes 1.3 0.6 Don't know 72.5 71.2 n 639 782 Upazila Rural Development Officer available in the office Yes 25.2 26.3 No 0.2 1.8 Sometimes 1.4 0.5 Don't know 73.2 71.4 n 639 782 Project Implementation Officer available in the office Yes 26.0 26.1 No - 1.8 Sometimes 1.9 0.5 Don't know 72.1 71.6 n 639 782

Table-10.5: Availability of Public representative in the Upazila Parishad office at noon by type of area(q1009) Responses Project area Control area Upazila Chairman available in the office at noon Yes 28.8 22.5 No 1.7 15.5 Sometimes 13.6 21.2 Don't know 55.9 40.9 n 639 782 Vice Chairman availablein the office Yes 20.3 15.2 No 1.9 15.1 Sometimes 12.4 18.0 Don't know 65.4 51.7 n 639 782 Availability of Women Vice Chairman in the office Yes 15.3 13.0 No 4.4 15.1 Sometimes 11.9 9.6 Don't know 68.4 62.3 n 639 782

407 Responses Project area Control area Availability of Upazila Nirbahi Officer in the office Yes 28.2 32.2 No 0.9 12.9 Sometimes 10.0 10.1 Don't know 60.9 44.8 n 639 782 Availability of Upazila Health Officers/ Doctors in the office Yes 31.6 38.0 No 0.9 12.5 Sometimes 8.8 17.6 Don't know 58.7 31.8 n 639 782 Availability of A C land in the office Yes 25.0 19.7 No 0.9 13.2 Sometimes 6.4 17.0 Don't know 67.6 50.1 n 639 782 Availability of Social welfare officer in the office Yes 10.8 7.8 No 0.2 13.0 Sometimes 5.3 4.5 Don't know 83.7 74.7 n 639 782 Availability of Upazila Engineer in the office Yes 12.4 8.3 No 0.5 12.0 Sometimes 4.1 4.6 Don't know 83.1 75.1 n 639 782 Availability of Upazila Agricultural Officer in the office Yes 20.8 10.8 No 0.9 13.0 Sometimes 5.3 6.9 Don't know 72.9 69.7 n 639 782 Availability of Upazila Cooperative Officer in the office Yes 9.4 7.4 No 0.3 12.8 Sometimes 3.9 3.7 Don't know 86.4 76.1 n 639 782

408 Responses Project area Control area Availability of Rural Development Officer in the office Yes 10.3 7.4 No 0.3 13.0 Sometimes 3.8 3.8 Don't know 85.6 75.7 n 639 782 Availability of Project Implementation Officer in the office Yes 9.1 8.3 No 0.5 12.8 Sometimes 3.9 3.6 Don't know 86.5 75.3 n 639 782

Table-10.6: Availability of Public representative in the office of Upazila Parished in afternoon by type of area(q1009) Responses Project area Control area Availability of Upazila Chairman in the office Yes 13.8 22.5 No 4.9 5.5 Sometimes 10.0 18.7 Don't know 71.4 53.3 n 639 782 Availability of Vice Chairman in the office Yes 10.0 12.8 No 5.2 5.2 Sometimes 6.9 17.4 Don't know 77.9 64.6 n 639 782 Availability of Women Vice Chairman in the office Yes 6.7 7.2 No 6.3 7.4 Sometimes 5.5 11.0 Don't know 81.5 74.4 n 639 782 Availability of Upazila Nirbahi Officer in the office Yes 13.6 26.5 No 3.6 3.7 Sometimes 5.2 14.5 Don't know 77.6 54.4 n 639 782 Availability of Upazila Health Officers/ Doctors in the office Yes 13.9 30.3 No 3.8 8.2

409 Responses Project area Control area Sometimes 8.0 12.8 Don't know 74.3 48.7 n 639 782 Availability of A C land in the office Yes 10.3 21.2 No 3.4 5.4 Sometimes 3.8 11.3 Don't know 82.5 62.1 n 639 782 Availability of Social welfare officer in the office Yes 5.8 5.1 No 3.0 4.6 Sometimes 2.5 4.7 Don't know 88.7 85.5 n 639 85.5 Availability of Upazila Engineer in the office Yes 6.1 5.0 No 2.5 3.6 Sometimes 2.0 5.4 Don't know 89.4 86.1 n 639 782 Availability of Upazila Agricultural Officer in the office Yes 7.4 6.5 No 3.4 3.6 Sometimes 4.2 6.5 Don't know 85.0 83.4 n 639 782 Availability of Upazila Cooperative Officer in the office Yes 4.1 4.9 No 3.0 4.1 Sometimes 2.0 4.7 Don't know 90.9 86.3 n 639 782 Availability of Rural Development Officer in the office Yes 5.3 4.9 No 2.5 3.7 Sometimes 2.0 5.0 Don't know 90.1 86.4 n 639 782 Availability of Project Implementation Officer in the office Yes 4.1 5.4 No 3.0 3.3

410 Responses Project area Control area Sometimes 2.0 4.5 Don't know 90.9 86.8 n 639 782

Table-10.7: Availability of Public representative/ officer of Upazila Parishad at home by type of area Responses Project area Control area If officials absent from the office, respondents go to their residence(q1010) Yes 5.2 4.8 No 94.8 95.2 n 639 812 They available at residence (#)(q1011) Yes 78.8 (26) 87.2 (34) No 21.2 (7) 12.8 (5) n 33 39 Reasons for unavailability of officials at residence(q1012) They don't reside regularly at government quarter #5 #3 Don't meet even at home #1 #2 n 6 5 knowledge: which Upazila officials don't regularly reside at govt. residences(q1013) Upazila Chairman #4 #3 Upazila Vice Chairman #5 #2 Upazila Woman Vice Chairman #4 #2 Upazila Nirbahi Officer #2 #1 Pourashava Mayor #1 #1 Do not know #1 #2 n 7 6 Any complaint box in Upazila Parishad office(q1014) Yes 6.9 6.4 No 6.0 3.3 Don’t know 87.1 90.3 n 1541 1562 Respondent ever complained in Upazila Parishad office (#)(q1015) Yes 3.8 (4) 4.0 (4) No 96.2(102) 96.0 (96) n 106 100 Respondent received any response to the complaint (q1016) Yes #2 #1 No #2 #3 n 4 4

411 Strengthening Upazila System Table-11.1: Roles of Upazila Parishadin development of locality by type of area(q1101) Project Control Roles of Upazila Parishadin developing locality area area Development and renovation (school, madrasa, hospital, road, 56.1 58.6 bridges, mosque, temple etc.) Financial and other support for poor (allowance, grants, relief etc) 17.9 18.1 Educational development- increase number of educational 5.8 5.4 institutions. Providing educational equipment/aids Agricultural development and agricultural training ,Subsidy on 3.8 2.8 Agriculture Installation of deep-tube-well in every household 3.8 10.2 Employment opportunity for the unemployed youths 2.4 2.7 Supervision of development works in the area 1.7 1.4 Providing hygienic latrines 1.2 2.3 Work in co-ordination with union parishad 0.6 0.3 Further improvement of law and order 1.9 3.3 Improving health care service in the upazila health complex 1.7 3.4 No comments 4.7 5.4 Do not know 22.5 17.9 Others* 3.4 4.9 n 1541 1562 Note Others*: Can provide arbitration,Peoples participation/ listen to peoples grievance, Upazila level officers will perform their duties earnestly,Supervision of the activities of Ups,Elimination of water-logging , Child marriage prevention special committee,Provide different information, Prize control through market monitoring, Veterinary service

Table-11.2: Expected service from Upazila Parishad by type of area(q1102) Project Control Expected service from Upazila Parishad area area Infrastructure development for school, roads, bridge, market, mosque, 16.9 18.3 temple Providing different safety net, allowances, grant, relief etc. 13.6 12.8 Seed and fertilizer assistance for agricultural development 5.3 4.0 Financial support or house building assistance 4.5 3.3 Creating employment opportunity for youth and women 4.3 4.9 Arrangement for safe water- installation of deep tube-well in every house 3.3 9.2 Training for technical assistance and employment 2.5 2.8 Officers should provide services properly 2.4 4.0 Supply of electricity 2.5 7.3 Public representatives and officers of Upazila Parishad should be more 2.0 3.3 public welfare oriented Hygienic latrine at every house 0.8 2.7 Supplying sufficient sports items 0.1 0.2 Establishment of school, hospital etc at UPZ head quarters 1.6 2.7 No expectation 16.5 13.5

412 Others * 6.7 6.3 Do not know 30.0 17.6 n 1541 1562 Note Others*: Quick implementation of development works; hygienic latrine in every household, Arrangement for lodging complain through mobile phone, Help and assistance to those who are in troubles, Permanent fish market, Establishing digital systems, Stopping child marriage, Market monitoring for price control, Supplying sufficient sport items, Helping the helpless persons, Allowance and benefit for fisherman, Women can become self-employed if they are provided with sewing machines and proper training, Provide livestock by government, Control of terrorism, and addiction, Improvement of education, Irrigation scheme ,Supervision of UP budget

Table-11.3: Suggestions for further strengthening Upazila Parishad by type of area(q1103) Project Control Suggestions for further strengthening Upazila Parishad area area Be accountable to the people; Providing people information that they seek 6.0 2.4 Public representatives and government officers of Upazila Parishad 9.3 13.0 should be more responsible and cordial to the public Corruption, nepotism, partisan attitude and favoritism in Upazila 5.8 9.4 Parishad office should be stopped, Conduct development works in consultation with /participation of 4.3 8.5 peoples of the area Government supervision on the Upazila Parishad should be intensified 2.4 2.4 Rules and procedures should be strictly followed in performing respective duties and responsibilities. Law and order situation should be 2.0 1.9 improved Number of VGD and VGF facilities should be increased 0.4 0.2 Others * 7.0 4.3 No suggestion 27.3 33.4 Do not know 39.6 31.3 n 1541 1562 Note Others*: On the spot inspection of the development projects should be done, Partisan attitude should be shuned, Upazila Parishad should verify the activities of UP chairman, Power and authority of the chairman, Upazila Parishad should be enhanced, Chairman, Upazila Parishad should reside at Upazila headquarters, More emphasis should be given to stop child marriage and dowry, VGD and VGF distribution activities should be properly monitored, Instead of political leaders, UNO should be the project head, Standing Committee members should be provided training, Digitalize Upazila Parishad office, Electricity supply throughout the area, NGO programs should be strengthened, Providing better services, There should not be any conflict between the members of the Upazila Parishad, Employment opportunity for the unemployed, Budget allocation should be increased, Upazila Parishad should implement those projects which UP cannot implement such as: joint project, education project, roads and bridges connecting several unions, Helping the victims of severe accidents or calamities like: flood, fire, burn, and helping poor people should be the responsibility of the Upazila Parishad

413 Appendix 3: Tables of Union Parishad Observation Information of respondent Table-01: Backgroundcharacteristics of information providers by type of area Characteristics Project area Control area Sex Male 77.2 77.2 Female 22.8 22.8 Designation UP chairman 11.7 11.2 Male Member 51.6 54.1 Female Member 22.2 21.4 UP secretary 12.7 11.5 Promoter/Entrepreneur/UDC 1.5 1.6 Others 0.3 0.2 n 797 898

General Information of Union Parishad /Union Profile

Table-02: Involvement of Union Parishadin LGSP or other donor agency/NGO programbefore the study by type of area(Q101) Programs Project area Control area LGSP 98.4 99.2 Other donor agency/ NGO 0.8 0.8 None 0.8 0.0 n 120 120

Table-03: Area, population,villages, households and votersof Union Parishad by type of area Indicators Project area Control area Area (in square kilometer) of the UP(Q104) Up to 15 sq. km 25.0 23.5 15.01-25.00 sq. km 23.3 28.6 25.01-35.00 sq. km 22.3 22.7 35.01-45.00 sq. km 10.7 10.1 45.01-55.00 sq. km 7.1 4.2 >55 sq. km 11.6 10.9 Mean 34.8301 29.5927 Median 25.6900 25.0000 n 112 119 Total no. of households in UP (Q105) Up to 4000 19.7 15.3

414 Indicators Project area Control area 4001-5000 23.3 22.9 5001-6000 15.0 23.7 6001-7000 14.2 15.3 7001-8000 6.7 11.0 >8000 20.8 11.9 Mean no. of HH 5927.69 6009.84 Median no. of HH 5492.00 5293.50 n 117 118 Total population in UP(Q106) Mean no. of male population of the Union 17959.31 14770.45 Median no. of male population of the Union 14886.50 14519.00 Mean no. of female population of the Union 20292.94 17234.66 Median no. of female population of the Union 14416.00 14349.00 Mean no. of total population of the Union 38252.25 32005.11 Median no. of total population of the Union 29388.00 29000.00 n 112 109 Total voters in UP(Q107) Mean no. of male voters of the Union 9523.60 10450.01 Median no. of male voters of the Union 9096.00 8857.00 n (number of male voters) 105 95 Mean no. of female voters of the Union 9238.53 9486.40 Median no. of female voters of the Union 8996.00 8440.00 n (number of female voters) 104 95 Mean no. of total voters of the Union 18293.91 17941.46 Median no. of total voters of the Union 17617.00 17151.00 n 115 111 Total number of villages in UP(Q108) Mean no. of number of villages 21.12 21.64 Median no. of number of villages 18.00 18.00 n 120 120

Table-04: Facilities and infrastructure of Union Parishad by type of area Indicators Project area Control area UP have a copy of Union Parishad Act(Q109) Yes 95.8 81.7 No 4.2 18.3 n 120 120 Length of Metal Roads in the Union(Q110) Mean 16.86 17.06 Median 13.00 15.00 n 119 118

415 Indicators Project area Control area Number of health facilities at UP(Q111) Mean 4.06 3.93 Median 4.00 4.00 n 120 120 Total number of Hats in the Union(Q112) Mean 2.00 2.18 Median 2.00 2.00 n 120 120 Total number of markets (Bazar) in the Union(Q112) Mean 2.95 2.86 Median 2.00 3.00 n 120 120 Number of service related organizations (CBOs, NGOs & other associations/clubs)(Q113) Mean 7.62 6.04 Median 6.00 5.00 n 119 118

Table-05: Average number of elected persons in place in UP by type of area (Q114) Indicators Project area Control area Number of elected persons (chairman) in place in UP Mean 0.98 0.99 Median 1.00 1.00 n 120 120 Number of elected persons (male member) in place in UP Mean 8.92 8.88 Median 9.00 9.00 n 120 120 Number of elected persons (female member) in place in UP Mean 3.02 2.98 Median 3.00 3.00 n 120 120

Table-06: Average number of different equipment available in UP by type of area (Q115) Indicators Project area Control area Number of chair was available at UP office Mean 55.17 56.48 Median 54.00 52.50 n 120 120

416 Indicators Project area Control area Number of table was available at UP office Mean 6.84 6.86 Median 6.00 6.00 n 120 120 Number of Almeria was available at UP office Mean 3.94 3.71 Median 4.00 4.00 n 120 120 Number of electric fan was available at UP office Mean 9.33 9.82 Median 9.00 10.00 n 120 120 Number of shelf was available at UP office Mean 1.99 1.68 Median 2.00 1.00 n 120 120 Number of computer was available at UP office Mean 2.08 1.93 Median 2.00 2.00 n 120 120 Number of Sound box was available at UP office Mean 0.73 1.93 Median 0.00 2.00 n 120 120 Number of Printer was available at UP office Mean 1.98 2.03 Median 2.00 2.00 n 120 120 Number of laptop/not book was available at UP office Mean 1.57 1.63 Median 1.00 1.00 n 120 120 Number of generator was available at UP office Mean 0.19 0.19 Median 0.00 0.00 n 120 120 Number of camera was available at UP office Mean 0.98 0.96 Median 1.00 1.00 n 120 120

417 Indicators Project area Control area Number of projector was available at UP office Mean 0.88 0.90 Median 1.00 1.00 n 120 120 Number of TV was available at UP office Mean 0.1750 0.0667 Median 0.0000 0.0000 n 120 120 Number of photocopy machine was available at UP office Mean 0.2333 0.1000 Median 0.0000 0.0000 n 120 120 Number of solar panel was available at UP office Mean 0.4667 0.4833 Median 0.0000 0.0000 n 120 120 Number of scanner was available at UP office Mean 0.2833 0.3750 Median 0.0000 0.0000 n 120 120 Number of laminating machine was available at UP office Mean 0.2333 0.1000 Median 0.0000 0.0000 n 120 120 Number of modem/wifi machine/router was available at UP office Mean 0.4500 0.3833 Median 0.0000 0.0000 n 120 120 Number of file cabinet/steel showcase was available at UP office Mean 0.2583 0.0917 Median 0.0000 0.0000 n 120 120 Number of IPS/UPS was available at UP office Mean 0.1917 0.2250 Median 0.0000 0.0000 n 120 120 Number of other equipment was available at UP office Mean 0.7917 0.3417 Median 0.0000 0.0000 n 120 120

418 Table-07: Formation of Union Parishadcommittees by type of area(Q116) Formation of Union Parishad committees Project area Control area Union Parishad Development Committees (UDCC) 87.5 71.7 Ward Committees 97.5 96.7 Scheme Supervision Committee (SSC) 97.5 96.7 Procurement Committee 86.7 9.2 n 120 120

Table-08: Type of registers available in UP by type of area Type of registers available in UP Project area Control area Number of register maintained by UP (Q117) Mean 28.9 23.9 Median 27.5 22.0 Type of registers available in UP (Q118) Cash Book 100.0 99.2 Daily Collection Book of Tax, Rate 97.5 97.5 Tax and Rate collection receipt 98.3 98.3 Miscellaneous Receive receipt 92.5 90.0 Stock and Issue Register of receipt books 96.7 95.0 Register of imposed value added tax on land and 84.2 85.0 building Register of imposed tax on profession, trade and 88.3 86.7 business Register of imposed tax on transport etc. 55.0 48.3 Register of miscellaneous demand and collection 78 .3 63.3 Register of grant 80.8 75.0 Register of lone received 49.2 47.5 Register of subscription and donation 60.0 50.8 Register of permanent advance 67.5 46.7 Register of establishment bill 86.7 56.7 Register of establishment expenditure 82.5 56.7 Incidental bill register 77.5 70.0 Advance register 65.8 42.5 Advance cooperative register 50.0 45.8 Labour register 61.7 44.2 Village court register 95.8 66.7 Monthly register 95.8 82.5 Register of yearly Statement of Accounts 95.8 88.3 Investment register 60.0 55.8 Immovable asset register 95.0 63.3 Store stock register 51.7 40.8 Stamp register 54.2 38.3

419 Type of registers available in UP Project area Control area Number of other registers available in UP (Q118A) Mean 9.59 10.33 Median 7.50 6.00 n 120 120

UP General Meeting (Review The Documents and Record The Information)

Table-09: General meeting of Union Parishad by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Number of UP monthly general meetings were held last year(Q201) 0-11 meeting 31.7 59.3 12 or more meeting 68.3 40.7 Mean 11.5 10.2 Median 12.0 10.0 n 120 118 Number of monthly general meetings of UP resolutions were recoded(Q202) 0-11 meeting 37.5 61.0 12 or more meeting 62.5 39.0 Mean 11.3 10.1 Median 12.0 10.0 n 120 118 Number of monthly general UP meetings with quorum(Q203) 0-11 meeting 35.0 60.2 12 or more meeting 65.0 38.9 Mean 10.4 10.0 Median 12.0 10.0 n 120 118 Number of UP General meetings where all women members participated(Q204) 0-11 meeting 55.0 73.7 12 or more meeting 45.0 26.3 Mean 10.2 9.2 Median 11.0 10.0 n 120 118 Number of male member participated in the last UP general meeting(Q205) Mean 9.0 8.2 Median 9.0 8.0 n 118 111 Number of female member participated in the last UP general meeting(Q205) Mean 2.9 2.3 Median 3.0 3.0 n 117 111

420 Number of total persons participated in the last UP general meeting(Q205) Mean 11.9 10.5 Median 12.5 11.0 n 118 111 Number of decisions were taken in the UP general meetings in the last financial year(Q206) Mean 32.2 25.9 Median 30.5 23.0 n 116 114 Number of decisions were implemented in the UP general meetings in the last financial year(Q207) Mean 27.07 23.0 Median 25.00 21.5 n 115 114

Access to Information By The Citizen

Table-10: Access to information by the citizenof UP by type of area Indicator Project area Control area UP assigned any person for providing information to public(Q301) Yes 62.5 45.8 No 37.5 54.2 Any one applied to UP for any information in last financial year (July 2015-June 2016)(Q302) Yes 42.5 10.0 No 57.5 90.0 Number of applications for information(Q303) Mean 11.6 10.1 Median 00.0 00.0 Number of request have addressed (Q304) Mean 10.9 8.8 Median 00.0 00.0 Citizens charter in the UP(Q305) Yes 82.5 75.0 No 17.5 25.0 n 120 120

Table-11: Information posted on UP notice board and informed to the people by the citizen of UP by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Information posted on UP notice board(Q306) Annual plan 77.5 60.0 5-year-plan 67.5 50.8

421 Indicator Project area Control area Annual budget posted on board 80.0 69.2 Last audit report 65.0 50.8 Annual scheme list 76.7 59.2 Annual income & expender 73.3 51.7 Informed to the people(Q306) Annual plan 90.8 73.3 5-year-plan 82.5 61.7 Annual budget posted on board 93.3 79.2 Last audit report 78.3 56.7 Annual scheme list 88.3 66.7 Annual income & expender 86.6 68.3 n 120 120 Way of people informed about different UP planning(Q307) Open budget meeting 37.6 15.7 Ward meeting 60.7 37.0 Leaflet distribution/ display of flip chart/ book 12.8 7.4 Displayed in the notice board 60.7 58.3 Making 20.5 25.9 Website/ internet/ web portal 12.0 13.0 Committee meeting/different meeting/ standing 23.1 20.4 committee meeting Newspaper 1.7 8.3 Displaying on bill board/ baner/project board 0.9 9.3 Beating drum, verbal communication through village police 4.3 7.4 Letters 2.6 5.6 others (through open discuss/ courtyard meeting/ UP 9.4 6.5 member ) n 117 108

Training Of Union Parisad Functionaries

Table-12: Training of UP on their roles and responsibilities by the citizen of UP by type of area Indicator Project area Control area UP chairmen, members and Secretary received training(Q401) Yes 94.2 87.7 No 5.8 12.5 Number of UP chairmen received training(Q402) No one 15.8 64.2 One person 84.2 35.8 Mean no. of chairman received training 0.9 0.36 Median no. of chairman received training 1.0 0.0

422 Number of UP member (male) received training No one 22.5 39.2 1-4 persons 10.9 37.5 5-8 persons 5.0 4.1 9 persons 61.7 19.2 Mean no. of UP male member received training 6.1 2.9 Median no. of UP male member received training 9.0 2.0 Number of UP member(female) received training No one 22.5 48.3 One person 5.0 21.7 Two person 2.5 7.5 Three person 70.0 22.5 Mean no. of UP female member received training 2.2 1.0 Median no. of UP female member received training 3.0 1.0 Number of UP secretary received training No one 8.3 16.7 One person 90.8 81.7 Two person 0.8 1.7 Mean no. of UP secretary received training 0.9 0.9 Median no. of UP secretary received training 1.0 1.0 n 120 120

Table-13: Training onkey areas of Union ParishadAct 2009 received by UP Chairman, Members, and Secretary by type of area(Q403) Indicator Project area Control area Training received on mandatory activity of UP Yes 87.6 73.3 No 12.4 26.7 n 113 105 Number of days received training Mean 6.6 2.7 Median 3.0 3.0 Number of person/personnel received training Mean 7.8 4.7 Median 4.0 2.0 Organizer of the training DC Office/Additional Deputy Commissioner 18.2 28.6 UNO/UpazilaParishad Office/Upazila Resource Centre 24.2 19.5 NGOs 9.1 9.1 UNDP/DF 1.0 - BARD/RDRS - 3.9

423 DDLG 2.0 6.5 UPGP/ MISE/MIS/ LGED/ LGDT/ Local Government 22.2 7.8 Division/ Planning Academy/LGSP NILG 19.2 24.7 n 99 77

Table-14: Training on financial management including Tax & collection received by UP Chairman, Members, and Secretary by type of area(Q403) Indicator Project area Control area Training received on financial management Yes 88.5 71.2 No 11.5 28.8 n 113 104 Number of days training received Mean 5.5 2.5 Median 3.0 3.0 Number of person/personnel received training Mean 6.3 4.5 Median 2.5 2.0 Organizer of the training DC Office/Additional Deputy Commissioner 26.0 26.0 UNO/UpazilaParishad Office/Upazila Resource Centre 15.0 15.0 NGOs 8.0 8.0 UNDP/DF 2.0 - BARD/RDRS - 2.0 DDLG 5.0 5.0 UPGP/ MISE/MIS/ LGED/ LGDT/ Local Government 23.0 23.0 Division/ Planning Academy/LGSP NILG 21.0 21.0 n 100 77

Table-15: Training on open budget received by UP Chairman, Members, and Secretary by type of area(Q403) Indicator Project area Control area Training received on open budget Yes 70.8 51.0 No 29.2 49.4 n 113 104 Number of days training received Mean 3.8 2.0 Median 2.0 2.0

424 Number of person/personnel received training Mean 6.2 5.4 Median 2.0 2.50 Organizer of the training DC Office/Additional Deputy Commissioner 25.0 30.3 UNO/UpazilaParishad Office/Upazila Resource Centre 12.5 16.1 NGOs 13.8 14.3 UNDP/DF 3.8 - BARD/RDRS - 3.6 DDLG 2.5 7.1 UPGP/ MISE/MIS/ LGED/ LGDT/ Local Government 26.3 14.3 Division/ Planning Academy/LGSP NILG 16.3 14.3 n 80 53

Table-16: Training on local resources mobilization & utilization received by UP Chairman, Members, and Secretary by type of area(Q403) Indicator Project area Control area Training received on local resources mobilization & utilization Yes 65.5 41.3 No 34.5 58.7 n 113 113 Number of days training received Mean 4.4 2.2 Median 2.0 2.0 Number of person/personnel received training Mean 6.3 5.1 Median 3.0 2.0 Organizer of the training DC Office/Additional Deputy Commissioner 23.0 23.4 UNO/UpazilaParishad Office/Upazila Resource Centre 14.9 23.4 NGOs 8.1 12.8 UNDP/DF 5.4 - BARD/RDRS - 8.5 DDLG 1.4 4.3 UPGP/ MISE/MIS/ LGED/ LGDT/ Local Government 25.7 12.7 Division/ Planning Academy/LGSP NILG 21.6 14.9 n 74 43

425 Table-17: Training on women development received by UP Chairman, Members, and Secretary by type of area(Q403) Indicator Project area Control area Training received on women development Yes 59.3 47.1 No 40.7 52.9 n 113 104 Number of days training received Mean 2.5 2.2 Median 1.0 2.0 Number of person/personnel received training Mean 6.1 4.5 Median 3.0 3.0 Organizer of the training DC Office/Additional Deputy Commissioner 19.4 18.8 UNO/UpazilaParishad Office/Upazila Resource Centre 38.8 16.7 NGOs 4.5 37.5 Upazila Women and Children Affairs officer - 6.3 UNDP/DF 3.0 - BARD/RDRS 1.5 4.2 DDLG - 2.1 UPGP/ MISE/MIS/ LGED/ LGDT/ Local Government 20.9 4.2 Division/ Planning Academy/LGSP NILG 11.9 10.4 n 67 48

Table-18: Training on planning, scheme formulation & implementation received by UP Chairman, Members, and Secretary by type of area(Q403) Indicator Project area Control area Training received on planning, scheme formulation & implementation Yes 75.2 51.0 No 24.8 49.0 n 113 104 Number of days training received Mean 4.0 2.0 Median 2.0 2.0 Number of person/personnel received training Mean 7.3 5.2 Median 3.0 2.0 Organizer of the training DC Office/Additional Deputy Commissioner 25.9 18.9 UNO/UpazilaParishad Office/Upazila Resource Centre 12.9 18.9 NGOs 4.7 11.3

426 UNDP/DF 4.7 - BARD/RDRS 1.2 3.8 DDLG 1.2 5.7 UPGP/ MISE/MIS/ LGED/ LGDT/ Local Government 23.5 22.6 Division/ Planning Academy/LGSP NILG 25.9 18.9 n 85 53

Table-19: Technical supportof UP by type of area Indicator Project area Control area UP get any technical support (such as training) from Upazila level(Q404) Yes 64.2 44.2 No 35.8 55.8 n 120 120 How many times did UP receive technical support last year(Q405) Never received 35.8 55.8 One-Two 45.0 30.0 Three and more 19.2 14.1 n 120 120 Type of Agency(Q406) DC office/ZilaParishad/ Resource persons from the Ministry 18.2 22.6 UpazilaParishad/ UNO/Office of the Upazila Engineer/ 48.1 54.7 (LGSP)/ UZP Directorate General of women and children affairs 7.8 5.7 Upazila Youth and Sports Office 2.6 11.3 Upazila Fisheries Office 1.3 5.7 Upazila LGED Office 15.6 17.0 Agricultural office 16.9 3.8 DDLG 9.1 9.4 UPGP 15.6 - BARD/ RDRS 5.2 - PIO - 7.5 n 77 53

Reporting Of Union Parisad

Table-20: Reporting on UP by type of area Indicator Project area Control area UP prepare any report(Q501) Yes 100.0 95.8 No 0.0 4.2 n 120 120

427 UP prepare Quarterly report(Q502a) Yes 95.8 58.3 No 4.2 41.7 n 120 115 To whom tri-monthly report is sent(Q502a) DDLG, Ministry, Project Director, LGSP 67.0 38.8 UNO 52.2 88.1 Deputy Commissioner 19.1 22.4 DF 11.3 6.0 n 115 67 UP prepare Half yearly report(Q502b) Yes 95.8 94.8 No 4.2 5.2 n 120 115 To whom half-yearly report is sent(Q502b) DDLG, Ministry, Project Director, LGSP 68.7 67.0 UNO 55.7 65.1 Deputy Commissioner 20.0 24.8 NPD 1.7 - DF 11.3 13.8 n 115 109 UP prepare yearly report(Q502c) Yes 95.0 86.1 No 5.0 13.9 n 120 115 To whom yearly-report is sent(Q502c) DDLG, Ministry, Project Director, LGSP 69.3 65.7 UNO 57.9 72.7 Deputy Commissioner 18.4 26.3 NPD 1.8 - DF 14.0 15.2 n 114 99

Performance Grant System and Union Parishad Governance

Table-21: Effectiveness of Performance grant system by type of area(Q601) Indicator Project area Control area Performance grant system was an effective mechanism to stimulate UP governance Yes 99.2 97.5 No 0.8 2.5 Difficult to assess 120 120

428 Table-22A: Performance grant's contribution in planning, budgeting & governance by type of area(Q602) Indicator Project area Control area Performance grant's contribution in planning, budgeting & governance Make additional funds available Fully agree 88.3 65.8 Partially agree 10.8 13.3 Disagree 0.8 20.8 Strongly disagree - - Create a sense of competition Fully agree 94.2 68.3 Partially agree 5.0 12.5 Disagree 0.8 19.2 Strongly disagree - - Improve good governance as a whole Fully agree 86.7 60.0 Partially agree 13.3 20.8 Disagree - 19.2 Strongly disagree - - Hold Ward Shava as envisaged in the Act Fully agree 90.8 79.2 Partially agree 8.3 17.5 Disagree - 1.7 Strongly disagree 0.8 1.7 Create incentive and positive obligations to prepare five year and annual plan Fully agree 89.2 77.5 Partially agree 10.0 20.0 Disagree 0.8 2.5 Strongly disagree - - Pay attention to citizen’s charter and its implementation Fully agree 80.0 65.0 Partially agree 15.8 29.2 Disagree 4.2 4.2 Strongly disagree - 1.7 Maintain multi-sector (MDG) focused plans Fully agree 73.3 52.5 Partially agree 22.5 27.5 Disagree 4.2 20.0 Strongly disagree - - Maintain gender balance in expenditure and women empowerment Fully agree 86.7 72.5 Partially agree 12.5 25.0

429 Indicator Project area Control area Disagree 0.8 2.5 Strongly disagree - - Achieve inclusive local governance Fully agree 81.7 70.8 Partially agree 17.5 25.8 Disagree 0.8 2.8 Strongly disagree - 0.8 Prepare budget following the established rules and regulations Fully agree 85.8 77.5 Partially agree 112.5 18.3 Disagree 1.7 3.3 Strongly disagree - 0.8 Effective office management (keeping proper documentation and updating those regularly) Fully agree 86.7 75.8 Partially agree 13.3 20.8 Disagree - 2.5 Strongly disagree - 0.8 Score obtained for performance grant's contribution in planning, budgeting & governance Excellent 98.3 90.0 Good 1.7 8.3 Average - 1.7

Table-22B: Performance grant's contribution in financial management by type of area (Q603) Indicator Project area Control area Performance grant's contribution in financial management Prepare the annual financial statement Fully agree 91.7 78.3 Partially agree 6.7 20.0 Disagree 0.8 1.7 Strongly disagree 0.8 - Maintain cash book and updating it on a regular basis Fully agree 92.5 80.0 Partially agree 5.8 16.7 Disagree 1.7 2.5 Strongly disagree - 0.8 Pay attention to bank reconciliation Fully agree 83.3 68.3 Partially agree 13.3 22.5 Disagree 3.3 6.7 Strongly disagree - 2.5

430 Indicator Project area Control area Prepare for the external audit Fully agree 76.7 70.8 Partially agree 19.2 20.8 Disagree 4.2 5.8 Strongly disagree - 2.5 Follow the procurement rules and keep records of the procurement related documents Fully agree 83.3 71.7 Partially agree 15.0 25.0 Disagree 1.7 2.5 Strongly disagree - 0.8 Keep the asset register and update it Fully agree 88.3 85.0 Partially agree 11.7 15.8 Disagree - 4.2 Strongly disagree - 0.8 Hold open budget meetings to share information Fully agree 93.3 80.8 Partially agree 5.8 14.2 Disagree 0.8 4.2 Strongly disagree 120 0.8 Disclose budget document Fully agree 86.7 72.5 Partially agree 12.5 23.3 Disagree 0.8 4.2 Strongly disagree - - Enhance local tax efforts Fully agree 79.2 72.5 Partially agree 20.0 22.5 Disagree 0.8 4.2 Strongly disagree - 0.8 Increase own source revenue generation Fully agree 77.5 70.0 Partially agree 20.8 23.3 Disagree 0.8 6.7 Strongly disagree 0.8 - Organize innovative initiatives for enhanced revenue generation Fully agree 70.8 56.7 Partially agree 24.2 33.3 Disagree 3.3 6.7 Strongly disagree 1.7 3.3

431 Indicator Project area Control area Prepare the defaulter’s list Fully agree 60.8 50.0 Partially agree 25.0 31.7 Disagree 9.2 13.3 Strongly disagree 5.0 5.0 Disclose and serve the defaulter list Fully agree 60.0 50.0 Partially agree 22.5 30.0 Disagree 11.7 15.0 Strongly disagree 5.8 5.0 Score obtained for performance grant's contribution in financial management Excellent 95.8 85.8 Good 4.2 10.8 Average - 3.3

Table-23A: Points of contribution and money allocated under PBG system by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Points to which PBG contributed most for good governance(Q604) Transparency in actions 45.8 49.1 People’s participation in planning and undertaking 38.3 30.2 projects/schemes based on popular choice Accountability/Abiding by rules and regulation 35.0 44.0 Collection of taxes; particularly holding tax 18.3 14.7 Infrastructure development-roads, culverts, & sanitation facilities 18.3 9.5 Preparation and sharing of Five Year Plan 10.0 7.8 Being transparent to the people through open budget meeting 10.0 11.2 Development of educational institutions 10.0 4.3 Managing Standing Committees 2.5 1.7 Supervision and management of ward level activities 9.2 8.6 /organizing ward savas Undertaking woman and child friendly projects for 7.5 6.0 woman and child development Implementation of development programs 4.2 6.0 Office Management 6.7 6.9 Awareness raising 5.0 0.9 Annual Financial Statement 5.0 1.7 Women empowerment 5.8 6.0 Others* 4.2 4.3 Don’t know - 0.9 n 120 116

432 Indicator Project area Control area Allocated money under PBG system adequate to create incentive structure(Q605) Yes 45.8 35.8 No 33.4 27.5 Difficult to assess 0.8 6.7 So So 19.2 29.2 Don’t know 0.8 0.8 n 120 120 Note: Others* include Easy access to information, Preparation of reports, Different meetings, Undertaking environment friendly projects, Publication of budget document, Maintaining neutrality, Equitable distribution of benefits and facilities, Child marriage prevention, Development of community clinics and vaccination centers, Quality of services improved, Training provided to the persons unemployed, Undertaking social sector projects, Increased Allocation, Maintaining and regular updating of cash book, Conflict resolution through village court, Competitiveness Table-23B: Problems faced to meet criteria of PBG and suggestions to improve PBG method by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Problems faced to meet criteria of PBG(Q606) Shortage of manpower 77.5 84.6 Lack of training and skill 55.8 67.5 Lack of commitment of elected public representatives 24.2 49.6 Insufficient allocation/fund compared to demand 5.0 - Law honorarium of elected public representitive - 0.9 Lack of efficiency of UP members 0.8 - Negative attitude of people with regard to paying tax 1.7 - Inability to fulfil theconditions 1.7 - Lack of awareness 1.7 1.7 Every UP secretary does not have computer - 0.9 n 120 117 Suggestions to improve PBG method(Q607) Allocation of fund to be based on area, population and 45.0 39.3 poverty level of UP A post of Assistant Secretary should be created 42.5 35.7 Intensive training should be provided to the Secretaries 30.8 34.8 Timely disbursement of funds 8.3 10.7 Technical support should be increased 3.3 8.0 Conditions should be relaxed 7.5 8.9 Officials DC office should monitor the activities of UP 5.0 5.4 Increasing efficiency of employees 6.7 7.1 Commitment of the elected public representatives to 4.2 4.5 obtain PBG facilities and to make it sustainable Making people aware through publicity 5.0 5.4 Others * 2.5 2.7

433 Indicator Project area Control area No suggestion 5.0 5.4 n 120 112 Note: Others* include Others* Collection of holding tax would be easy if government order is provided in this regard, Skilled personnel should be employed for document preparation in UP & UZP office, Review Audit team will examine relevant papers and documents in addition to auditing, Allocation should be on the basis of population and poverty level, Proper evaluation on the basis of marks, Partnership and cooperation should be there in project implementation, A senior official of the Upazila office should be made responsible for the supervision of UP activities, To facilitate tax collection officials should attend ward meetings, Committees should be created with efficient persons, Free information dissemination, Special fund for the poor should be created, Transparency should be increased further, Information should be updated, Online activities should be intensified, I increasing own revenues of UP, Translating the English documents into Bangla for easy understanding of all, Special manpower for tax collection, Projects should be implemented through’ Project Implementation Committee’

Ward Shava (Review the Documents and Records) Table-24a: Ward Shava by type of area(Q701) Indicator Project area Control area Held 2 Ward Shavas with required quorum (5% voters) in UP (9 wards) held duringFY 2015-16 Yes 65.8 49.2 No 34.2 50.8 Ward Shavasin UP (9 wards) held during FY 2015-2016 Held Two ward shava in 9 UP (9 wards) (%) 65.8 51.7 Mean 15.77 13.39 Median 18.00 18.00 Ward Shava attended by 5% voter in UP (9 wards) held dring (FY 2015-2016) Held 2 Ward Shavas with required quorum (5% 65.8 49.2 voters) in UP (9 wards) (%) Mean 15.47 12.72 Median 18.00 16.50 Ward Shava in UP (9 wards) where UP members attended (FY 2015-2016) Held 2 Ward Shavas where UP Member attend in UP 58.3 43.3 (9 wards) (%) Mean 15.03 12.59 Median 18.00 15.00 Ward Shava in UP (9 wards) where female UP members attended (FY 2015-2016) Held 2 Ward Shavas where female UP Member 50.8 39.2 attend in UP (9 wards) (%) Mean 14.13 11.29 Median 18.00 9.00 Ward Shava in UP (9 wards) where UP Secretary attended (FY 2015-2016) Held 2 Ward Shavas where UP Secretary attend in 46.7 30.8 UP (9 wards) (%) Mean 12.76 9.10

434 Indicator Project area Control area Median 15.50 8.50 n (number of Union) 120 120 Ward Shavas held in wards during FY 2015-2016 No ward shava 4.6 15.8 One ward shava 23.6 24.6 Two or more ward shava 71.8 59.5 n (number of ward) 1080 1080 Ward Shavas attended by 5% voter in wards during FY 2015-2016 No ward shava 5.6 18.1 One ward shava 23.2 26.5 Two or more ward shava 71.2 55.5 n (number of ward) 1080 1080 Ward Shavas presided by UP members in wards during FY 2015-2016 No ward shava 7.7 19.4 One ward shava 24.4 25.0 Two or more ward shava 68.0 55.6 n (number of ward) 1080 1080 Ward Shavas where female UP members participated in wards during FY 2015-2016 No ward shava 10.6 27.1 One ward shava 27.8 22.9 Two or more ward shava 61.6 50.0 n (number of ward) 1080 1080 Ward Shavas where where UP Secretary participated in wards during FY 2015-2016 No ward shava 19.4 41.4 One ward shava 26.2 19.6 Two or more ward shava 54.4 39.0 n (number of ward) 1080 1080

Table-24b: Functions of Ward Shavas by type of area (Q701) Indicator Project area Control area Female members raise/discuss any issue in the ward shava (Q702) Ward Shava Attended by 5% voter 98.1 94.9 Ward Shava presided by UP members 95.4 94.0 Ward Shava where female UP members participated 89.6 83.6 Ward Shava where UP Secretary participated 80.9 67.9 n (number of Sava) 1892 1607

435 Table-24c: Female members raise/discuss in the ward shavaby type of area Indicator Project area Control area Female members raise/discuss any issue in the ward shava(Q702) Yes 89.2 73.3 No 10.8 26.7 n 120 120 Points female members raised in Ward Shava(Q703) Women empowerment/employment 39.3 38.6 Infrastructure development such as: construction and 25.2 34.1 repair of roads, culverts, platform for women in ponds Child marriage prevention 24.3 26.1 Demand for sewing machines 16.8 13.6 Prevention of woman oppression 13.1 15.9 Seeking for hygienic latrines for women in 11.2 13.6 schools/market places /public places Allowances such as: maternity allowance, widow 11.2 6.8 allowance, disability allowance Preparation and implementation of development projects 9.3 5.7 Project related development such as: LGSP, TR, VGD, 9.3 8.0 VGF, Food for works program Raising awareness of health and hygiene issues among 4.7 3.4 school and college girls Installation of deep tube wells 9.3 8.0 Making a list of social safety net programs 7.5 - Supplying furniture in educational institutions 2.8 4.5 Maternal and child health 2.8 10.2 Child friendly budget for child development 2.8 1.1 Improvement of education particularly for children 1.9 3.4 Prevention of dowry 4.7 8.0 Others* 1.9 1.1 Female members raise/ discuss issue was reflected in the ADP(Q704) Yes 99.1 96.6 No 0.9 3.4 Female members raise/ discuss issue was implemented(Q705) Yes 95.3 87.5 No 4.7 12.5 n 107 88 Note: Others* includedLoan facility from LGSP, Training on livestock rearing, Training on cottage industry, Development of community clinics, Preparation of Five Year plan, Putting an end to the practice of begging, Supplying sanitary napkins in schools and colleges through “Labannaya Project”, Holding tax/UP tax payment, Legal Aid activities

436 Standing Committees (Review the Documents and Records) And the Women Members Table-25a: Standing committees by type of area(Q801) Indicator Project area Control area Standing committees formed till June 2016 Yes 100.0 89.2 No 0.0 10.8 n 120 120 Number of standing committee whether formed till June 2016 None 0.8 11.7 1-3 committee 0.8 0.8 4-6 committee - 1.7 7-12 committee 3.3 9.2 13 committee 95.0 76.7

Table-25b: Type of standing committee whether formed by type of area (Q802) Indicator Project area Control area Finance & establishment Committees 98.3 87.7 Audit & accounts Committees 98.3 85.0 Tax assessment & collection Committees 97.5 80.8 Education, health & family planning Education, health 98.3 86.7 & family planning Committees Agriculture, fisheries & livestock Committees 98.3 86.7 Rural infrastructure development/maintenance 98.3 83.3 Committees Maintenance of law & order Committees 99.2 85.8 Birth & death registration Committees 95.8 84.2 Water, sanitation & drainage Committees 97.5 84.2 Social welfare & disaster management Committees 96.7 85.8 Environment protection and plantation Committees 98.3 81.7 Women, children and family affairs Committees 98.3 83.3 Culture & sports Committees 98.3 82.5 n 120 120

Table-25c: Number of meetings hold during last financial year by type of area (Q802) Indicator Project area Control area Finance & establishment Committees 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.0 n 118 105 Audit & accounts Committees 2.8 2.0 2.3 2.0 n 118 102 Tax assessment & collection Committees 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.0

437 Indicator Project area Control area n 117 97 Education, health & family planning Education, health 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.0 & family planning Committees n 118 104 Agriculture, fisheries & livestock Committees 3.1 3.0 2.2 2.0 n 118 104 Rural infrastructure development/maintenance 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.0 Committees n 118 100 Maintenance of law & order Committees 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.0 n 119 103 Birth & death registration Committees 2.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 n 115 101 Water, sanitation & drainage Committees 2.8 3.0 2.4 2.0 n 117 101 Social welfare & disaster management Committees 2.7 3.0 2.1 2.0 n 116 103 Environment protection and plantation Committees 2.6 2.0 2.1 2.0 n 118 98 Women, children and family affairs Committees 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.0 n 118 100 Culture & sports Committees 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.0 n 118 99

Table-25d: Type of standing committee headed by female member year by type of area (Q802) Indicator Project area Control area Type of standing committee headed by female member (Q802) Finance & establishment Committees 22.9 6.7 n 118 105 Audit & accounts Committees 9.3 5.9 n 118 102 Tax assessment & collection Committees 7.7 4.1 n 117 97 Education, health & family planning Education, health 51.7 50.0 & family planning Committees n 118 104 Agriculture, fisheries & livestock Committees 8.5 5.8 n 118 104 Rural infrastructure development/maintenance 11.9 16.0 Committees n 118 100

438 Indicator Project area Control area Maintenance of law & order Committees 1.7 2.9 n 120 103 Birth & death registration Committees 31.3 24.8 n 115 101 Water, sanitation & drainage Committees 28.2 19.8 n 117 101 Social welfare & disaster management Committees 21.6 25.2 n 116 103 Environment protection and plantation Committees 34.7 25.5 n 118 98 Women, children and family affairs Committees 82.2 77.0 n 118 100 Culture & sports Committees 19.5 24.2 n 118 99

Table-25E: Type of standing committee headed by SC Prepared at least 2 monitoring reports during FY July 2015-June 2016 by type of area (Q802) Indicator Project area Control area Finance & establishment Committees 27.1 28.6 n 118 105 Audit & accounts Committees 22.0 25.5 n 118 102 Tax assessment & collection Committees 26.5 22.7 n 117 97 Education, health & family planning Education, health 29.7 20.2 & family planning Committees n 118 104 Agriculture, fisheries & livestock Committees 21.2 19.2 n 118 104 Rural infrastructure development/maintenance 22.9 26.0 Committees n 118 100 Maintenance of law & order Committees 22.7 23.3 n 118 103 Birth & death registration Committees 23.5 22.8 n 115 101 Water, sanitation & drainage Committees 23.1 24.8 n 117 101 Social welfare & disaster management Committees 14.7 15.5 n 116 103 Environment protection and plantation Committees 18.6 20.4 n 118 98 Women, children and family affairs Committees 20.3 24.0

439 Indicator Project area Control area n 118 100 Culture & sports Committees 16.9 19.2 n 118 99

Table-25F: Number of Standing Committees headed by female by type of area (Q802) Indicator Project area Control area None 1.7 15.1 One - Two 0.8 15.9 Three - Four 95.0 68.0 More than four 2.5 0.8 Mean no. of standing committee headed by female 3.3 2.3 Median no. of standing committee headed by female 3.0 3.0 SD of standing committee headed by female 0.974 1.226 Minimum of standing committee headed by female 0 0 Maximum of standing committee headed by female 11 5 n 120 119

Table-26: Women Development Forum (WDF) by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Any female member of UP a member of WDF at Upazila(Q804) Yes 80.0 59.2 No 20.0 40.8 n 120 120 Number of women member of WDF at Upazila(Q805) None 20.0 40.8 One - Two 65.0 40.0 Three and More 14.9 19.1 Mean no. of women member of WDF 1.3 1.0 Median no. of women member of WDF 1.0 1.0 n 120 120 Representatives from UP attend WDF at Upazila level(Q806) Yes 79.2 57.5 No 20.8 42.5 n 120 120 Number of WDF meetings at Upazila Level were attended by UP representatives during FY2015-2016(Q807) None 22.7 47.1 One -Two 20.2 16.8 Three - Four 26.0 18.5 Five and more 31.0 17.7 Mean no. of WDF meetings 3.4 2.3

440 Indicator Project area Control area Median no. of WDF meetings 3.0 1.0 n 119 119 Women members organize any awareness campaign last year(Q808) Yes 60.8 45.0 No 39.2 55.0 n 120 120 Issues addressed in awareness raising program(Q809) Meeting and street drama on child marriage prevention 80.8 74.1 Prevention of child and woman oppression 23.3 18.5 Dowry prevention activities 19.2 9.3 Women empowerment/courtyard meeting on woman 13.7 16.7 development and woman right Raising awareness on health and sanitation 12.3 25.5 Maternal health 5.5 5.6 Health and Sanitation 5.5 9.3 Meeting on eve-teasing prevention 5.5 7.4 Rally on Womens’ day 5.5 - Birth and death registration 4.1 3.7 Maternity allowance 2.7 - Children’s birth registration - 1.9 Self-initiated program for helping the poor 2.7 - Making roads to school suitable for students commuting 2.7 1.9 Rally on Mothers’ day - 1.9 Family conflict resolution 2.7 1.9 n 73 54

Annual and Five Years Plans of Union Parishad

Table-27: Annual plan of Union Parishad by type of area(Q901, Q902) Indicator Project area Control area Annual plan available Yes 97.5 90.8 No 2.5 9.2 n 120 120 Reasons for unavailability of annual plan (#) Conflict between UP chairman and UP members #2 #1 Lack of initiative of elected public representatives #2 #11 n 3 11 Items/components of annual plan Infrastructural development 98.3 89.9 Education 98.3 85.3

441 Indicator Project area Control area Women empowerment 84.6 65.1 Agriculture 91.5 89.9 Water and sanitation 93.2 90.8 Child and Youth development 59.0 42.2 Health care 95.7 78.0 Culture & sports 68.4 66.1 Program for hard core poor 78.6 74.3 Program for socially marginalized people e.g. program 22.9 26.5 for low cast people or low level occupational groups Environment development 8.5 0.9 Tree Plantation 2.6 0.9 Grant for the disabled 2.6 1.8 ICT 0.9 2.8 Old age allowance/ Widow allowance n 117 109

Table-28: Five year plan of Union Parishad by type of area (Q901, Q902) Indicator Project area Control area Availability of Five year plan Yes 97.5 79.2 No 2.5 20.8 n 120 120 Reasons for unavailability of fiver year plan (#) Conflict between UP chairman and UP members #2 #5 Lack of initiative of elected public representatives #2 #21 n 3 25 Items/components of five year plan Infrastructural development 98.3 95.8 Education 100.0 87.4 Women empowerment 85.5 73.7 Agriculture 96.6 92.6 Water and sanitation 94.0 93.7 Child and Youth development 65.8 49.5 Health care 95.7 88.4 Culture & sports 76.1 72.6 Program for hard core poor 77.8 74.7 Program for socially marginalized people e.g. program 22.1 28.2 for low cast people or low level occupational groups Environment development 8.5 1.1 Tree Plantation 3.4 2.1

442 Indicator Project area Control area Grant for the disabled 1.7 2.1 ICT 0.9 2.1 n 117 95

Table-29: Average number of schemes planned, implemented and include from five year plan by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Number of schemes was planned FY 2015-2016(Q903) Mean 48.2 36.3 Median 38.0 26.5 SD 38.1 40.2 Minimum 0 0 Maximum 198 315 n 120 120 Number of schemes was fully implemented financial years 2015-2016(Q904) Mean 31.3 24.7 Median 25.0 19.0 SD 23.4 25.1 Minimum 0 0 Maximum 131 192 Percent fully implemented completely (%) 64.8 68.0 n 120 120 Number of projects of the five year plan have been included in the annual plan(Q905) Mean 28.7 17.0 Median 20.0 11.0 SD 26.5 21.5 Minimum 0 0 Maximum 138 162 n 120 120

Union Parishad Budget, Audit and Resource Mobilization

Table-30: Budget, audit and resource mobilization of Union Parishad by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Availability of Annual Budget(Q1001) Yes 100.0 98.3 No 0.0 1.7 Annual budget approved in the UP general meeting(Q1002) Yes 99.2 97.5 No 0.8 2.5 n 120 120

443 Indicator Project area Control area Main items/components of budget(Q1003) Physical infrastructure 64.2 66.4 Development of educational institutions 42.5 23.5 Tax collection 33.3 48.7 Health and family planning 32.5 26.9 Agriculture and market development 30.8 17.6 Office Establishment cost/Maintenance cost 26.7 26.4 Trade license 18.3 28.6 Income from the leazed out haats and markets 17.5 21.8 Sewerage and waste disposal management 15.8 8.4 Sanitation/installation of latrine 14.2 9.2 Woman empowerment/woman and child development 10.8 2.5 Government grant 10.8 5.9 Honorarium 9.2 16.8 Poverty reduction through employment generation for 7.5 3.4 the poor Honorarium for Chairman and Members 6.7 8.4 Human resource development 6.7 1.7 Transport registration fee 5.8 6.7 Tube-well and water supply 5.0 2.5 Management of natural resources 3.3 0.8 Food for works program/TR/VGD/VGF/40 days work 2.5 5.0 program Income from own asset 2.5 1.7 Land development tax 1.7 9.2 LGSP 1.7 10.9 Birth and death registration 0.8 3.4 Birth registration 1.7 4.2 Entertainment 0.8 7.6 Others* 3.3 2.5 n 120 119 Number of sources UP uses to mobilize resources(Q1004) Mean 7.92 5.54 Median 5.00 5.00 n 118 118 Note: Others* include Salary of village police, Inheritance certificate, Disaster management, Transfer of immoveable property, Expenditure for UDC, Development allowance, Assistance for the Poor, House building, Training, Solar panel, Social security, ADP, Games and sports

444 Table-31: Amount (Taka) of revenue collected and Amount (Taka) received from center (Government Allocation) of Union Parishad by type of area(Q1005) Indicator Project area Control area Amount (Taka) of revenue collected Financial years 2011-2012 Mean 194101.21 136227.77 Median 121466.00 82798.50 n 114 108 Financial years 2012-2013 Mean 282850.25 266833.57 Median 166777.00 143000.00 n 115 111 Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 347698.61 315816.69 Median 186748.00 161228.00 n 116 113 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 424935.62 260557.77 Median 230284.00 238259.00 n 116 114 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 496934.13 459872.53 Median 289288.00 290069.00 n 119 116 Amount (Taka) received from center (Government Allocation) Financial years 2011-2012 Mean 4427251.89 2895000.06 Median 2348398.00 1468126.00 n 114 109 Financial years 2012-2013 Mean 7282432.72 4888564.62 Median 5034381.00 2112553.50 n 115 112 Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 8681476.62 5828989.10 Median 7353919.00 3299004.00 n 117 113 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 8644552.16 7371681.85 Median 7510995.00 4700000.00 n 117 114 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 8346983.16 8250974.26 Median 7567133.00 6525064.00 n 118 116

445 Table-32: Number of schemes and Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP investment by type of area(Q1006A) Indicator Project area Control area Number of schemes in UP investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 31.38 23.63 Median 26.00 21.00 n 111 113 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 32.60 25.44 Median 30.00 22.00 n 115 112 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 35.71 28.35 Median 30.00 26.00 n 115 113 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 5919401.33 3961111.98 Median 4723007.00 2500000.00 n 118 114 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 6922214.23 5273433.61 Median 4008437.50 2960000.00 n 118 114 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 7091147.17 6081765.29 Median 5399270.00 3636674.00 n 116 114

Table-33: Number of schemes and Amount (Taka) for different schemes in UP investment by type of scheme and type of area(Q1006B) Indicator Project area Control area Number of schemes in UP education investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 3.24 2.61 Median 2.00 1.50 n 93 76 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 3.81 2.23 Median 2.00 1.00 n 97 75

446 Indicator Project area Control area Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 3.92 2.71 Median 3.00 2.00 n 96 77 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP education investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 476987.55 245615.62 Median 300000.00 105344.50 n 107 84 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 541824.46 357328.44 Median 272598.50 115435.00 n 108 84 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 630802 402536.75 Median 400000.00 200000.00 n 108 83 Number of schemes in UP agriculture and irritation investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 2.47 2.00 Median 2.00 1.00 n 85 66 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 4.24 2.90 Median 2.00 2.00 n 84 68 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 2.64 2.26 Median 2.00 1.00 n 87 65 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP agriculture and irritation investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 299451.87 282628.26 Median 160000.00 80000.00 n 95 73 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 333496.84 235724.78 Median 208000.00 156844.00 n 96 73

447 Indicator Project area Control area Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 307765.35 210996.27 Median 177598.00 100000.00 n 96 73 Number of schemes in UP health investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 4.28 3.04 Median 2.00 2.00 n 89 78 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 4.03 3.13 Median 3.00 1.00 n 92 75 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 4.10 3.56 Median 3.00 3.00 n 92 73 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP health investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 444616.88 538080.33 Median 222835.50 150000.00 n 102 81 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 544351.54 640834.57 Median 253432.00 136000.00 n 103 81 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 803418.69 799097.074 Median 253432.00 136000.00 n 103 81 Number of schemes in UP infrastructure for communication investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 17.81 12.88 Median 14.00 7.00 n 97 92 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 15.69 13.19 Median 14.00 10.00 n 99 89 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 14.66 14.95 Median 12.00 11.00 n 97 88

448 Indicator Project area Control area Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP infrastructure for communication investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 3523209.98 2933288.77 Median 2500000.00 161755.00 n 110 101 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 544351.54 3459226.97 Median 253432.00 1848000.00 n 103 101 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 4809648.34 3245060.58 Median 3020160.00 2150000.00 n 111 101 Number of schemes in UP poverty alleviation investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 3.13 5.03 Median 2.00 3.00 n 56 40 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 4.19 5.63 Median 2.00 3.00 n 57 40 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 4.07 6.56 Median 3.00 4.00 n 57 36 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP poverty alleviation investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 1358342.36 1035710.17 Median 200000.00 325000.00 n 64 41 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 1295018.13 2885796.90 Median 267818.50 475893.00 n 64 41 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 2155858.92 1715260.29 Median 495360.00 771096.00 n 64 41 Number of schemes in UP women development investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 1.02 3.00

449 Indicator Project area Control area Median 1.00 1.00 n 51 35 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 1.86 3.34 Median 1.00 1.00 n 51 35 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 1.79 2.77 Median 1.00 1.00 n 52 35 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP women development investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 131421.25 295880.71 Median 50000.00 60000.00 n 55 38 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 266079.67 2548750.32 Median 100000.00 105962.50 n 55 38 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 287395.89 617723.50 Median 82364.00 131115.00 n 55 38 Number of schemes in youth development investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 0.75 0.72 Median 0.00 0.00 n 40 25 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 1.33 1.71 Median 1.00 1.00 n 39 24 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 1.26 1.96 Median 1.00 1.00 n 39 24 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP youth development investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 73119.73 121691.93 Median 00.00 00.00 n 44 27

450 Indicator Project area Control area Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 224805.82 281760.89 Median 93500.00 50000.00 n 44 27 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 221197.23 409465.48 Median 91950.00 100000.00 n 44 27 Number of schemes in UP ICT investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 0.84 1.42 Median 1.00 0.00 n 55 52 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 1.58 1.00 Median 1.00 1.00 n 53 50 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 1.62 1.50 Median 1.00 1.00 n 50 46 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP ICT investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 94799.98 97583.85 Median 25000.00 00.00 n 57 54 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 133598.19 338320.57 Median 30000.00 50000.00 n 57 53 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 616360.98 542352.53 Median 84920.00 60447.00 n 57 53 Number of schemes in UP sanitation; sewerage and waste disposal investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 6.09 7.61 Median 1.00 3.00 n 22 18 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 7.58 6.41 Median 3.00 3.00 n 24 17

451 Indicator Project area Control area Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 9.39 4.76 Median 3.00 3.00 n 23 17 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP sanitation; sewerage and waste disposal investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 850341.92 310075.95 Median 190005.00 297415.00 n 26 19 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 998991.63 332349.79 Median 240000.00 314687.00 n 27 19 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 1023205.26 271974.74 Median 356540.00 255743.00 n 27 19 Number of schemes in UP development of mosques and temples investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 7.08 3.00 Median 1.00 1.00 n 12 5 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 7.17 1.80 Median 0.00 0.00 n 12 5 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 3.67 2.60 Median 3.00 1.00 n 9 5 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP development of mosques and temples investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 240945.33 169190.40 Median 4000.00 134000.00 n 12 5 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 395380.42 123303.60 Median 00.00 00.00 n 12 5 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 490185.25 139687.60 Median 346500.00 75880.00 n 12 5

452 Indicator Project area Control area Number of schemes in UP infrastructure development for social safety and security (shelter during disasters) investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 10.13 2.36 Median 2.50 0.00 n 16 14 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 5.44 5.58 Median 2.50 3.00 n 18 12 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 6.22 5.90 Median 2.00 3.00 n 18 4 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP infrastructure development for social safety and security (shelter during disasters) investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 626732.92 237857.14 Median 287188.00 00.00 n 26 14 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 863635.15 1593369.36 Median 446002.50 473267.50 n 26 14 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 1573529.69 2063815.93 Median 607630.00 660578.00 n 26 14 Number of schemes in supply of water and tubewell investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 6.43 1.38 Median 4.00 1.50 n 7 8 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 2.00 3.00 Median 2.00 3.00 n 6 7 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 7.86 3.00 Median 2.00 2.00 n 7 7

453 Indicator Project area Control area Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP water and tube well investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 1016079.78 231319.13 Median 500000.00 82500.00 n 9 8 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 538938.00 548278.50 Median 300000.00 412915.00 n 9 8 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 2126987.33 602426.25 Median 275000.00 641808.50 n 9 8 Number of schemes in sports and culture investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 1.00 2.00 Median 1.00 2.00 n 3 2 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 2.33 0.00 Median 1.00 0.00 n 3 2 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 1.00 1.00 Median 1.00 1.00 n 3 2 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP sports and culture investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 201314.40 43000.00 Median 206572.00 43000.00 n 5 2 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 296509.20 00.00 Median 400000.00 00.00 n 5 2 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 264506.60 94896.50 Median 272533.00 94896.50 n 5 2

454 Indicator Project area Control area Number of schemes in awareness raising project investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 1.00 0.00 Median 1.00 0.00 n 3 2 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 5.50 - Median 4.50 - n 4 - Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 4.50 - Median 3.50 - n 4 - Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP awareness raising project investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 732804.25 1214800.33 Median 65000.00 00.00 n 4 3 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 1188015.75 2005203.00 Median 450523.00 58466.00 n 4 3 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 1758290.50 1183674.33 Median 442500.00 10000.00 n 4 3 Number of schemes in tree plantation investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean - 0.50 Median - 0.50 n - 4 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 0.50 4.33 Median 0.00 0.00 n 4 3 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 2.40 0.50 Median 1.00 0.50 n 5 4 Amount (Taka) for schemes in UP tree plantation investment Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 100000.00 19526.50 Median 00.00 5000.00 n 5 4

455 Indicator Project area Control area Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 30000.00 1775.00 Median 00.00 00.00 n 5 4 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 285292.80 25000.00 Median 150000.00 25000.00 n 5 4

Table-34A: Information of local bank in UP by type of area(Q1007) Indicator Project area Control area Number of bank account increased Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 5207.59 5303.02 Median 2547.50 3937.00 n 54 49 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 5553.19 5758.49 Median 2899.00 4534.00 n 53 49 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 6088.53 5884.20 Median 3179.00 5580.00 n 53 51 Amount of deposit Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 271124238.72 236708122.24 Median 33215213.50 81397195.00 n 54 49 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 323865567.83 272158639.45 Median 35831500.00 70318000.00 n 54 49 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 373824722.54 300013865.59 Median 41142500.00 57000000.00 n 54 51 Amount of credit Financial years 2013-2014 Mean 75466154.72 81120172.33 Median 24871000.00 19959000.00 n 54 49

456 Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 122943685.00 95599173.94 Median 40350000.00 21000000.00 n 54 49 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 160397435.87 111834294.3 Median 54216500.00 30464000.0 n 54 50

Table-34B: Holding Tax from househol in UP by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Tax assessment done(Q1008) 2015 –2016 financial year 11.7 15.00 2014 – 2015 financial year 19.2 13.3 2013 – 2014 financial year 22.5 14.2 Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 46.6 57.5 n 120 120 Total number of household assessed for holding tax(Q1009) Mean 5845.46 5684.02 Median 5356.50 5233.00 SD 2306.46 3564.83 Minimum 450 750 Maximum 14000 38920 Percent of HH eligible to pay holding tax (%) 97.4 90.6 n 120 113 Notices household were served for tax payment(Q1010) Mean 556.25 167.58 Median 115.00 00.00 SD 1209.37 629.50 Minimum 0 0 Maximum 7351 4358 n 118 106 Number of household paid holding tax (July2015 – June 2016)(Q1011) Mean 4220.08 2959.75 Median 2262.50 1050.00 SD 12999.79 9384.97 Minimum 0 0 Maximum 130255 94755 Percent paid holding tax (those eligible to pay holding 70.60 44.16 taxes) (%) n 118 106

457 Table-35: Amount of holding tax collected and items where resource/amount of revenue spent in UP investment by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Amount (Taka) of holding tax collected(Q1012) Financial years 2014-2015 Mean 190138.72 142495.30 Median 105232.50 95850.00 SD 301295.119 133062.450 Minimum 200 500 Maximum 2920605 657594 n 118 106 Financial years 2015-2016 Mean 199667.76 142818.76 Median 104200.00 108595.00 SD 303754.364 148707.113 Minimum 2905 1690 Maximum 2500000 732870 n 115 107 Items where resource/amount of revenue spent in last financial year (2015-2016)(Q1013) Salary and allowances for employees/honorarium for 49.6 41.7 chairman and members Office Establishment and management 72.6 65.7 Development of educational institutions 17.1 21.3 Health 13.7 20.4 Development of Road, Culvert, Water supply 46.2 56.5 Agriculture, irrigation 8.5 11.1 Hospitality 19.7 25.0 Recruiting employees 4.3 2.8 Information technology 2.6 3.7 Woman development 2.6 4.6 Poverty eradication 1.7 0.9 Electricity bill payment 17.1 13.9 Relief and grants 6.8 6.5 Sanitation, Sewerage, printing and stationary 22.2 16.7 Furniture 2.6 - Computer - 0.9 Expenditure for tax collection 0.9 0.9 Educational implements 0.9 - n 117 108

458 Table-36: Information of Budget in UP by type of area Indicator Project area Control area Budget openly discussed with the people in last financial years (2015-16)(Q1014) Yes 94.2 70.0 No 5.8 30.0 n 120 120 Any female member present in budget openly discussed(Q1015) Yes 99.1 85.7 No 0.9 14.3 n 113 84 Raise any issue by female member(Q1016) Yes 86.6 76.2 No 13.4 23.8 n 112 84 Reflected in the budget later on (raise by female member)(Q1017) Yes 92.9 81.0 No 7.1 19.0 n 112 84 Budget sent for ratification by UNO (July 2015-June 2016)(Q1018) Yes 95.8 90.8 No 4.2 9.2 n 120 120 Time of sending budget for ratification (Q1019) Before fiscal year 2015-2016 100.0 98.2 After fiscal year 2015-2016 0.0 1.8 n 115 109 Income and expenditures of the union maintained properly in cash book(Q1020) Yes 97.5 90.0 No 2.5 10.0 n 120 120 Budget of previous Financial years audited (July 2016-June 2016)(Q1021) Yes 54.2 49.2 No 45.8 50.8 n 120 120 Any audit objection by auditor(Q1022) Yes 4.6 20.3 No 95.4 79.7 n 65 59 Objections have been raised to answer(Q1023) Yes 100.00 (3) 100.00 (12) No 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) n 3 12

459 Indicator Project area Control area UP disclosed information on revenue/expenditure of previous Financial years(Q1024) Yes 93.3 64.2 No 6.7 35.8 n 120 120 Disclosing methods of revenue-expenditure of last fiscal year to the people(Q1025) Notice board 84.8 80.5 UP meetings 56.3 64.9 Public forum 10.7 15.6 Ward Shava 52.7 37.7 n 112 77 Under take any development project form UP own source revenue(Q1026) Yes 65.0 55.0 No 35.0 45.0 n 120 120 Types of development program undertaken(Q1027) Road construction or repair 71.8 80.3 Educational 33.3 36.4 Health related 17.9 22.7 Religious institute 10.3 12.1 Building repair and renovation/Infrastructure 10.3 3.0 Relief distribution - 1.4 Women’s development 1.3 4.5 Agricultural assistance 1.3 2.8 Construction of culvert 1.3 1.5 Bill board - 1.5 Information and service centre 3.8 - Computer training 1.3 - Hospitality 1.3 - Expenditure for UDC 1.3 4.5 n 78 66

460 Status of Supervision and Major Services Rendered by Union Parishad Table-37: Government official’s supervision of UP activities by type of area(Q1101, Q1102) Indicator Project area Control area Any government official (DDLG/UNO/Others) come to UP to supervise activities Yes 91.7 88.3 No 8.3 11.7 n 120 120 Number of times did they come (July 2015- June 2016) Mean 10.0 13.4 Median 2.0 3.0 n 120 119 Name of the organizations UNO 79.1 81.1 Upazila level officers (Upazila family planning 2.7 7.5 officer/upazila education officer) DF (UPGP)/UNDP 20.0 28.3 DDLG 57.3 67.9 Tax officer - 3.8 DC/ADC (general) 34.5 27.4 AC (land) - 1.9 PIO - 0.9 n 110 106 Number of services does UP provide to the people Mean 26.74 24.56 Median 28.00 20.00 n 120 120

Table-38: Activities Implemented last financial year (July 2015-June 2015) of Union Parishad by type of area(Q1103) Indicator Project area Control area Infrastructure development 92.5 96.7 Education program 94.2 80.0 Women empowerment 73.3 45.0 Agriculture program 82.5 75.0 Water and sanitation program 90.0 83.3 Child and youth development program 49.2 30.0 Health care program 90.8 71.7 Sports and cultural activities 61.7 45.8 Development program for hard core poor 75.0 68.3 Program for socially marginalized people 54.2 40.8 n 120 120

461 Table-39: Organize any awareness campaign last year and Type of development program undrtakenof Union Parishad by type of area(Q1104, Q1105) Indicator Project area Control area Organize any awareness campaign last year Yes 83.3 76.7 No 16.7 23.3 n 120 120 Type of issues of the awareness campaignby Union Parishad Child marriage prevention 66.0 68.5 Awareness raising on tax paying through arranging tax fair 36.0 1.1 Health care service (Women and Child) 20.0 3.3 Discussion program on bad consequence of dowry 18.0 14.1 Education improvement meeting or awareness program 17.0 10.9 Terrorism prevention 16.0 22.8 Prevention of woman and child oppression and eve- 14.0 13.0 teasing Global Hand Washing Day observation 13.0 9.8 Maintenance of law & order/seminar on legal 3.0 10.9 aid/community police Prevention of drug addiction 9.0 8.7 Birth and death registration 8.0 4.3 Open budget 5.0 4.3 Training program for women for employment 3.0 2.2 Awareness on disaster preparedness 2.0 5.4 Discussion on UDC services 2.0 1.1 Awareness program on Earthquake preparedness - 1.1 Village Court - 2.2 Social afforestation 1.0 5.4 Public hearing 1.0 1.1 Sanitation 1.0 1.1 n 100 92

462 Appendix 4: Tables of Upazila Parishad Observation Respondent Identification Table-01: Background characteristics of information providers by type of area(QL) Characteristics Project area Control area Sex (#) Male 69.3 (158) 75.7 (168) Female 30.7 (70) 24.3 (54) Designation (#) Upazila Chairman 12.3 (28) 15.3 (34) Vice-Chairma 10.1 (23) 12.6 (28) Women Vic-chairman (Reserved) 16.2 (37) 14.6 (32) UNO 14.5 (33) 15.8 (35) CA, UZP/CS, UNO/CA, UNO/Office Super/Office Assistant/CA Chairman/Certificate Assistant /Steno 11.8 (27) 15.3 (34) typist Upazila Woman Affairs officer (UWAO) 7.5 (17) 5.9 (13) Upazila Education officer 3.5 (8) 2.3 (13) Fisheries Officer/ Agricultural Officer 3.5 (8) 0.9 (2) Upazila Engineer (UE) 8.8 (20) 9.0 (20) Other 11.8 (27) 8.6 (19) n 228 222

Profile of the Upazila Table-02: Profile of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Involvement of previous program in this Upazila Parishad(#)(Q101) LGSP 72.5 (29) 70.0 (28) Nothing 27.5 (11) 30.0 (12) n 40 40 Mean area, number of union, pourashava and running project in this Upazila Parishad(Q102, Q103, Q104, Q105) Mean area (Sq.k.m.) 351.7760 339.8880 Mean number of Union 9.10 9.25 Mean number of Pouroshava 0.53 0.63 Mean number of running project 0.98 0.73 n 40 40 Physical resources in this Upazila Parishad(Q106A) Mean area pucca (Metalled) roads (km) 114.3010 1678.6610 Mean area Semi-pucca roads (km) 46.7943 711.7788 Mean area Kutcha roads (km) 414.8713 474.7668 Mean number of health centers 22.00 14.60

463 Characteristics Project area Control area Mean number of hospitals 1.48 1.45 Mean number of hospital beds 59.65 61.33 Mean number of charitable dispensaries 4.45 2.50 Mean number of Primary schools 135.10 143.83 Mean number of High schools 32.03 35.35 Mean number of Madrasas 23.38 21.58 Mean number of Colleges 6.70 7.78 n 40 40 Human resources in this Upazila Parishad(Q106B) Mean number of population (2010 census) 267045.25 243686.60 n 40 40 Mean literacy rate 47.9153 52.4865 n 40 40 Mean number of doctors 11.30 14.33 n 33 27 Mean number of compounders 21.75 11.38 n 20 27 (Mean number of mid-wives 48.94 23.56 n 17 16 Mean number of nurses 27.57 21.48 n 28 17 Natural resources in this Upazila Parishad(Q106C) Mean agricultural land area (in acres) 32824.9075 58886.1843 n 40 40 Mean number of ponds 4964.85 3769.70 n 40 40 Mean number of beels 34.00 12.65 n 32 26 Mean number of rivers 3.40 2.95 n 40 40

Table-03: Existing development programs of Upazila Parishad by type of area (Q107) Characteristics Project area Control area This activities do exist in this Upazila parishad (#) Removal, collection, and disposal of refused waste and 70.0 (28) 70.0 (28) rubbish Establishment of public markets 92.5 (37) 42.5 (17) Maintenance of public markets 95.0 (38) 57.5 (23) Plantation of trees on road side 85.0 (34) 92.5 (37) Prevention of Infectious diseases and epidemics 72.5 (29) 67.5 (27) Establishment and maintenance of slaughter house 65.0 (26) 37.5 (15) Construction and maintenance of drainage 90.0 (36) 52.5 (21)

464 Characteristics Project area Control area Establishment and maintenance of graveyards and 87.5 (35) 45.0 (18) burning places Preventing adulteration of food products 97.5 (39) 97.5 (39) Maintenance of educational institutions 100.0 (40) 100.0 (40) Provision of flood and famine relief 100.0 (40) 92.5 (37) Establishment of welfare homes, orphanages 67.5 (27) 70.0 (28) Social welfare Centre 75.0 (30) 75.0 (30) Establishment of public dispensaries 85.0 (34) 45.0 (18) Establishment of public urinals and toilets 87.5 (35) 85.0 (34) Establishment of veterinary hospitals 80.0 (32) 85.0 (34) Registration of cattle sale 85.0 (34) 82.5 (33) Arrangement of improvement of livestock 92.5 (37) 87.5 (35) Celebration of national holidays 100.0 (40) 100.0 (40) Arranging accommodation and refreshment for 97.5 (39) 97.5 (39) distinguished visitor Establishment of public libraries and reading rooms 82.5 (33) 92.5 (37) Promotion of community development schemes 100.0 (40) 57.5 (23) n 40 40

Upazila Parishad Law/Manual/By-Laws Table-04: Availability of laws, manuals, and bylaws in the Upazila parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Availability of laws and manuals (#)(Q201) Upazila Parishad Manual 97.5 (39) 97.5 (39) UP operational manual 95.0 (38) 92.5 (37) Guideline for budget preparation 100.0 (40) 97.5 (39) Guideline for preparation of five year plan 95.0 (38) 87.5 (35) Guideline for preparation of annual plan 90.0 (36) 37.5 (15) RTI Act 75.0 (30) 77.5 (31) Is there any by-law at the Upazila Parishad 77.5 (31) 35.0 (14) Guideline for tendering 90.0 (36) 85.0 (34) Guideline for procurement 87.5 (35) 87.5 (35) Planning book 95.0 (38) 30.0 (12) Availability of by-laws (#)(Q202) Yes 77.5 (31) 40.0 (16) No 22.5 (9) 60.0 (24) n 40 40 Reasons for not availability (#)(Q203) By laws not prepared #3 #3 There is no need for by laws #4 #8

465 Characteristics Project area Control area Lack of initiative from the central ministry #3 - Weak demand from the Upazilas for by- laws No - #1 policies and principles of own n 9 12

Standing committees and Effectiveness Table-05: Standing committees and their types by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Formed any standing committee (#)(Q301) Yes 100.0 (40) 97.5 (39) No 0.0 2.5 (1) n 40 40 Type of standing committee formed in this Upazila Parishad (#)(Q302_3) Law and Order 97.5 (39) 89.7 (35) Communication and infrastructure development 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Agriculture and irrigation 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Secondary and madrasha education 97.5 (39) 89.7 (35) Primary and mass education 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Health and family welfare 100.0 (40) 84.6 (33) Youth and sports 100.0 (40) 84.6 (33) Women and children development 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Social welfare 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Freedom fighter 97.5 (39) 87.2 (34) Fisheries and livestock 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Rural development and cooperative 97.5 (39) 89.7 (35) Culture 100.0 (40) 89.7 (35) Forest and environment 100.0 (40) 87.2 (34) Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price 97.5 (39) 84.6 (33) Financial management budget, planning and 97.5 (39) 87.2 (34) mobilization of local resources Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking 100.0 (40) 87.2 (34) water n 40 39* Note: * 1 case missing

Table-06: Time when different standing committee was formed by type of area (#)(Q302_4) Characteristics Project area Control area Law and Order (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.6 (1) 5.9 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 7.7 (3) 55.9 (19) 2013 – 2014 financial year 87.2 (34) 38.2 (13) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.6 (1) - n 39 34

466 Characteristics Project area Control area Communication and infrastructure development (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 5.9 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 10.0 (4) 55.9 (19) 2013 – 2014 financial year 85.0 (34) 38.2 (13) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 34 Agriculture and irrigation (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 5.9 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 12.5 (5) 55.9 (19) 2013 – 2014 financial year 82.5 (33) 38.2 (13) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 34 Secondary and madrasha education (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.6 (1) 5.9 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 7.7 (3) 61.8 (21) 2013 – 2014 financial year 87.2 (34) 32.4 (11) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.6 (1) - n 39 34 Primary and mass education (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 5.9 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 10.0 (4) 58.8 (20) 2013 – 2014 financial year 85.0 (34) 35.3 (12) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 34 Health and family welfare (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 6.3 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 10.0 (4) 53.1 (17) 2013 – 2014 financial year 85.0 (34) 40.6 (13) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 32 Youth and sports (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 9.4 (3) 2014 – 2015 financial year 10.0 (4) 56.3 (18) 2013 – 2014 financial year 85.0 (34) 34.4 (11) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 32 Women and children development (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 5.9 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 10.0 (4) 55.9 (19) 2013 – 2014 financial year 85.0 (34) 38.2 (13) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 34 Social welfare (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 5.9 (2)

467 Characteristics Project area Control area 2014 – 2015 financial year 10.0 (4) 55.9 (19) 2013 – 2014 financial year 85.0 (34) 38.2 (13) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 34 Freedom fighter (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 5.1 (2) 6.1 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 7.7 (3) 51.5 (17) 2013 – 2014 financial year 84.6 (33) 42.4 (14) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.6 (1) - n 39 33 Fisheries and livestock (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 5.9 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 10.0 (4) 52.9 (18) 2013 – 2014 financial year 85.0 (34) 41.2 (14) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 34 Rural development and cooperative (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.6 (1) 5.9 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 7.7 (3) 52.9 (18) 2013 – 2014 financial year 87.2 (34) 41.2 (14) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.6 (1) - n 39 34 Culture (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 5.9 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 10.0 (4) 52.9 (18) 2013 – 2014 financial year 85.0 (34) 41.2 (14) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 34 Forest and environment (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.5 (1) 6.1 (2) 2014 – 2015 financial year 10.0 (4) 54.5 (18) 2013 – 2014 financial year 85.0 (34) 39.4 (13) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 40 33 Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 5.1 (2) 9.4 (3) 2014 – 2015 financial year 7.7 (3) 53.1 (17) 2013 – 2014 financial year 84.6 (33) 37.5 (12) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.6 (1) - n 39 32 Financial management budget, planning and mobilization of local resources (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.6 (1) 9.1 (3) 2014 – 2015 financial year 7.7 (3) 54.5 (18) 2013 – 2014 financial year 87.2 (34) 36.4 (12)

468 Characteristics Project area Control area Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.6 (1) - n 39 33 Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking water (#) 2015 – 2016 financial year 2.6 (1) 12.1 (4) 2014 – 2015 financial year 7.7 (3) 51.5 (17) 2013 – 2014 financial year 87.2 (34) 36.4 (12) Before 2013 – 2014 financial year 2.5 (1) - n 39 33

Table-07: Number of standing committee formed during 2015-2016 financial year by type of area (#)(Q302_5) Characteristics Project area Control area Law and Order (#) None 13.3 (4) 42.9 (12) One 13.3 (4) 7.1 (2) More than one 73.3 (22) 50.0 (14) n 30 28 Communication and infrastructure development (#) None 18.8 (6) 34.5 (10) One 3.1 (1) 6.9 (2) More than one 78.1 (25) 58.6 (17) n 32 29 Agriculture and irrigation (#) None 15.2 (5) 26.7 (8) One 3.0 (1) 3.3 (1) More than one 81.8 (27) 70.0 (21) n 33 30 Secondary and madrasha education (#) None 13.3 (4) 30.0 (9) One 3.3 (1) 3.3 (1) More than one 83.3 (25) 66.7 (20) n 30 30 Primary and mass education (#) None 12.5 (4) 25.0 (7) One 3.1 (1) 3.6 (1) More than one 84.4 (27) 71.4 (20) n 32 28 Health and family welfare (#) None 18.8 (6) 34.6 (9) One - 3.8 (1) More than one 81.3 (26) 61.5 (16) n 32 26 Youth and sports (#) None 15.6 (5) 30.8 (8)

469 Characteristics Project area Control area One - 69.2 (18) More than one 84.4 (27) - n 32 26 Women and children development (#) None 12.5 (4) 24.1 (7) One - 6.9 (2) More than one 87.5 (28) 69.0 (20) n 32 29 Social welfare (#) None 16.1 (5) 25.0 (7) One 3.2 (1) 10.7 (3) More than one 80.6 (25) 64.3 (18) n 31 28 Freedom fighter (#) None 13.3 (4) 39.3 (11) One 10.0 (3) 7.1 (2) More than one 76.7 (23) 53.6 (15) n 30 28 Fisheries and livestock (#) None 18.8 (6) 32.1 (9) One 3.1 (1) 10.7 (3) More than one 78.1 (25) 57.1 (16) n 32 28 Rural development and cooperative (#) None 6.5 (2) 31.0 (9) One 6.5 (2) 6.9 (2) More than one 87.1 (27) 62.1 (18) n 31 29 Culture (#) None 16.1 (5) 25.0 (7) One 12.9 (4) 3.6 (1) More than one 71.0 (22) 71.4 (20) n 31 28 Forest and environment (#) None 16.1 (5) 30.8 (8) One 9.7 (3) 7.7 (2) More than one 74.2 (23) 61.5 (16) n 31 26 Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price (#) None 16.7 (5) 37.0 (10) One 6.7 (2) 11.1 ()3 More than one 76.7 (23) 51.9 (14) n 30 27

470 Characteristics Project area Control area Financial management budget, planning and mobilization of local resources (#) None 10.0 (3) 50.0 (13) One 10.0 (3) 11.5 (3) More than one 80.0 (24) 38.5 (10) n 30 26 Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking water (#) None 9.4 (3) 32.1 (9) One - 3.6 (1) More than one 90.6 (29) 64.3 (18) n 32 28

Table-08: Sex of the standing committee chairperson by type of area (#)(Q302_8) Characteristics Project area Control area Law and Order (#) Male 74.4 (29) 76.5 (26) Female 25.6(10) 23.5 (8) n 39 34 Communication and infrastructure development (#) Male 72.5 (29) 64.7 (22) Female 27.5 (11) 35.3 (12) n 40 34 Agriculture and irrigation (#) Male 77.5 (31) 61.8 (21) Female 22.5 (9) 38.2 (13) n 40 34 Secondary and madrasha education (#) Male 79.5 (31) 61.8 (21) Female 20.5 (8) 38.2 (13) n 39 34 Primary and mass education (#) Male 40.0 (16) 55.9 (19) Female 60. 0 (24) 44.1 (15) n 40 35 Health and family welfare (#) Male 27.5 (11) 31.3 (10) Female 72.5 (29) 68.8 (22) n 40 32 Youth and sports (#) Male 72.5 (29) 68.8 (22) Female 27.5 (11) 31.3 (10) n 40 32 Women and children development (#)

471 Characteristics Project area Control area Male 5.0 (2) 8.8 (3) Female 95.0 (38) 91.2 (31) n 40 34 Social welfare (#) Male 25.0 (10) 20.6 (7) Female 75.0 (30) 79.4 (27) n 40 34 Freedom fighter (#) Male 46.2 (18) 42.4 (14) Female 53.8 (21) 57.6 (19) n 39 33 Fisheries and livestock (#) Male 35.0 (14) 41.2 (14) Female 65.0 (26) 58.8 (20) n 40 34 Rural development and cooperative (#) Male 41.0 (16) 29.4 (10) Female 59.0 (23) 70.6 (24) n 39 34 Culture (#) Male 35.0 (14) 34.3 (12) Female 65.0 (26) 65.7 (23) n 40 35 Forest and environment (#) Male 50.0 (20) 64.7 (22) Female 50.0 (20) 35.3 (12) n 40 34 Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price (#) Male 53.8 (21) 68.8 (22) Female 46.2 (18) 31.3 (10) n 39 32 Financial management budget, planning and mobilization of local resources (#) Male 56.4 (22) 63.6 (21) Female 43.6 (17) 36.4 (12) n 39 33 Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking water (#) Male 20.5 (8) 27.3 (9) Female 80.0 (32) 72.7 (24) n 40 33

472 Table-09: Average number of members in different standing committee by type of area Characteristics (Q302_9) Project area Control area Law and Order Mean 5.56 5.68 Median 5.00 5.00 n 39 34 Communication and infrastructure development Mean 5.73 5.68 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 34 Agriculture and irrigation Mean 5.55 5.65 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 34 Secondary and madrasha education Mean 5.49 5.79 Median 5.00 5.00 n 39 34 Primary and mass education Mean 5.45 5.62 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 34 Health and family welfare Mean 5.63 5.78 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 32 Youth and sports Mean 5.43 5.50 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 32 Women and children development Mean 5.50 5.53 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 34 Social welfare Mean 5.35 5.59 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 34 Freedom fighter Mean 5.62 5.58 Median 5.00 5.00 n 39 33

473 Characteristics (Q302_9) Project area Control area Fisheries and livestock Mean 5.45 5.59 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 34 Rural development and cooperative Mean 5.49 5.65 Median 5.00 5.00 n 39 34 Culture Mean 5.38 5.71 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 35 Forest and environment Mean 5.40 5.62 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 34 Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price Mean 5.51 5.53 Median 5.00 5.00 n 39 32 Financial management budget, planning and mobilization of local resources Mean 5.44 5.70 Median 5.00 5.00 n 39 33 Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking water Mean 5.43 5.61 Median 5.00 5.00 n 40 33

Table-10: Average number of female members in different standing committee by type of area (Q302_10) Characteristics Project area Control area Law and Order Mean 0.51 0.59 Median 0.00 1.00 n 39 34 Communication and infrastructure development Mean 0.51 0.65 Median 0.00 1.00 n 39 34

474 Characteristics Project area Control area Agriculture and irrigation Mean 0.46 0.62 Median 0.00 1.00 n 39 34 Secondary and madrasha education Mean 0.51 0.71 Median 0.00 1.00 n 39 34 Primary and mass education Mean 0.73 0.68 Median 1.00 1.00 n 40 34 Health and family welfare Mean 0.80 1.09 Median 1.00 1.00 n 40 32 Youth and sports Mean 0.56 0.69 Median 1.00 1.00 n 40 32 Women and children development Mean 1.80 1.94 Median 2.00 2.00 n 40 34 Social welfare Mean 0.88 1.09 Median 1.00 1.00 n 40 34 Freedom fighter Mean 0.72 0.82 Median 1.00 1.00 n 39 33 Fisheries and livestock Mean 0.73 0.85 Median 1.00 1.00 n 40 34 Rural development and cooperative Mean 0.79 0.91 Median 1.00 1.00 n 39 34

475 Characteristics Project area Control area Culture Mean 0.93 0.83 Median 1.00 1.00 n 40 35 Forest and environment Mean 0.68 0.62 Median 1.00 1.00 n 40 34 Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price Mean 0.62 0.53 Median 1.00 1.00 n 39 32 Financial management budget, planning and mobilization of local resources Mean 0.53 0.55 Median 1.00 1.00 n 39 33 Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking water Mean 0.87 0.85 Median 1.00 1.00 n 39 33

Citizens’ charter and anti-corruption strategy

Table-11a: Citizens’ charter by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Have citizen’s charter (#)(Q401) Yes 90.0 (36) 60.0 (24) No 10.0 (4) 40.0 (16) n 40 40 Reasons for not having citizen charter (#)(Q402) Has not been prepared yet 25.0 (1) 43.8 (7) Has not been deemed important 75.0 (3) 25.0 (4) Don’t think it is necessary 18.8 (3) Under preparation /process - 18.8 (3) n 4 16 Prepared citizens’ charter incorporating the arrangements necessary for UZP (#)(Q403) Yes 90.0 (36) 90.0 (36) No 10.0 (4) 10.0 (4) n 40 40 Means and Process to implement citizen charter (#)(Q404) Upazila Parishad Signboard 77.5 (31) 65.0 (26) Signboard in front of Upazila Parishad Office 62.5 (25) 47.5 (19)

476 Characteristics Project area Control area Upazila Parishad Website 85.0 (34) 70.0 (28) Office of Pourasava 65.0 (26) 22.5 (9) Handbill 2.5 (1) - Local TV/Cable network 2.5 (1) - Indigenous theatre/drama/street drama/Market publicity 2.5 (1) - Don’t Know - 10.0 (4) n 40 40

Table-11: Anti-corruption strategy by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Any anti-corruption strategy or action plan (#)(Q405) Yes 100.0 (40) 80.0 (32) No 0.0 (0) 20.0 (8) n 40 40 Types of anti-corruption strategy or action plan (#)(Q406) Citizens Charter 67.5 (27) 78.1 (25) Open budget system 75.0 (30) 59.4 (19) Opinion sharing meeting 60.0 (24) 25.0 (8) Auditing 100.0 (40) 40.6 (15) Following public procurement rules 75.0 (30) 90.6 (29) Inspecting, monitoring and evaluating project sites 80.0 (32) 96.9 (31) Arranging public hearing for corruption 87.5 (35) 84.4 (27) Arrangement of Complaint Box for corruption 92.5 (37) 31.3 (10) Reasons for not having anti-corruption strategy or action plan (#)(Q407) This is not the responsibility of the Upazila Parishad #1 #2 No such instructions from the higher authority - #5 n 1 7

Information regarding Upazila Budget Table-12: Budget preparation and procedures of the Upazila parishad by type of area Indicators (#) Project area Control area Prepare budget every year(Q501) Yes 100.0 (40) 100.0 (40) No 0.0 0.0 n 40 40 Properly follow the procedures in preparing budget(Q503) Yes 100.0 (40) 85.0 (34) No - 15.0 (6) The procedures that followed in preparing budget(Q504) Sending draft copy of budget to MP, each Union 90.0 (36) 88.2 (30) Parishad, Pourashava, local press club etc. Publish planning documents and draft budget in the 90.0 (36) 29 (85.3) own website of Upazila Parishad.

477 Indicators (#) Project area Control area Discussing the planning document and draft budget with all the UP members, pourashava councilors, head 80.0 (32) 55.9 (19) of the educational institutes, private organizations, bank, private entrepreneurs, and civil society. Budget was finalized after the discussion meeting 52.5 (21) 41.2 (14) n 40 34 Reasons for not following the procedures properly in preparing budget(Q505) Lack of trained manpower - #1 Importance was not given - #4 Lack of monitoring - #1 Lack of clear idea about the law - #1 n 0 6 Persons prepare the budget(Q506) UNO/Officials of UNO Office 65.0 (26) 80.0 (32) Upazila Chairman & Vice Chairman 60.0 (24) 77.5 (31) Upazila Engieer 65.0 (26) 77.5 (31) Upazila Agricultural officer 55.0 (22) 10.0 (4) Upazila Education officer 52.5 (21) 15.0 (6) Others (Other officer/Civil Society/Teachers etc) 25.0 (10) 2.5 (1) Member of Finance and Budget Committee 5.0 (2) 10.0 (4) All Union Porishad Chairman 10.0 (4) 10.0 (4) n 40 40

Table-13: Training on budget preparation of the Upazila parishad by type of area (#) Indicators Project area Control area Prior experience or training on budget preparation(Q507) Yes 97.5 (39) 77.5 (31) No 2.5 (1) 22.5 (9) n 40 40 Type of organizations provided training on budget preparation(Q508) NILG 94.9 (37) 64.5 (20) NAPD 94.9 (37) - Divisional Commissioners office 25.6 (10) 19.4 (6) BIM 17.9 (7) 6.5 (2) NGO Officials 15.4 (6) 6.5 (2) ADC (Revenue) office 12.8 (5) 9.7 (3) BARD, Comilla 2.6 (1) - DC office 2.6 (1) - n 39 31 Average number of days for training on budget preparation(Q509) Mean number of days 4.37 4.29

478 Indicators Project area Control area Median number of days 5.00 3.00 n 38 31 Type of training necessary for those not received training on budget preparation(Q510) On budget preparation #1 #8 On accounting #1 #7 On government policies regarding preparation of #1 #6 budget On budget forecastiong #1 #5 On previous assumption regarding income and #1 #8 expenditure n 1 8 Appointing skilled person for preparing budget is essential(Q511) Yes 67.5 (27) 65.0 (26) No 32.5 (13) 35.0 (14) n 40 40

Table-14: Special budget session of the Upazila parishad by type of area (#) Indicators Project area Control area Special budget session held(Q512) Yes 100.0 (40) 72.5 (29) No - 27.5 (11) n 40 40 Average number of members participated in the special budget session (Q513) Mean 119.44 127.28 Median 100.00 100.00 n 39 29 Type of members participated in the special budget session(Q514) Members of civil societies/Elites of the society 76.3 (29) 72.0 (18) Representatives of professional groups- farmers, 34.2 (13) 28.0 (7) labourer Line department officials 31.6 (12) 28.0 (7) Upazila Chairman and vice chairman 26.3 (10) 12.0 (3) Union Parishad Member 18.4 (7) 28.0 (7) UP Chairman 15.8 (6) 8.0 (2) Officials of Upazila Parishad 13.2 (5) 16.0 (4) NGO officers 13.2 (5) 16.0 (4) UNO 7.9 (3) 4.0 (1) Reserved member 2.6 (1) 4.0 (1) n 38 25

479 Table-15: Average mean amount (Taka) of revenue budget in the financial year by type of area (#)(Q515) Indicators Project area Control area Part-1 (Revenue) Revenue Financial years 2013-2014 12088961.18 45707262.14 Financial years 2014-2015 14024422.18 11447632.21 Financial years 2015-2016 15513403.05 13943624.76 Receipts Financial years 2013-2014 138070015.35 1803732.38 Financial years 2014-2015 851785.58 2371562.38 Financial years 2015-2016 524083.68 1512222.97 Grant Financial years 2013-2014 3103459.60 792981.31 Financial years 2014-2015 2067782.03 422618.48 Financial years 2015-2016 2374123.25 461551.72 Total receipt Financial years 2013-2014 26846581.43 9976876.86 Financial years 2014-2015 15912028.85 17221826.97 Financial years 2015-2016 17954968.20 14466073.03 Revenue expenditure Financial years 2013-2014 14619746.23 5484725.97 Financial years 2014-2015 8801103.25 8318251.93 Financial years 2015-2016 21665213.73 9737617.21 Revenue surplus/deficit Financial years 2013-2014 13238725.45 4962738.34 Financial years 2014-2015 7661215.48 5430811.72 Financial years 2015-2016 8779847.40 6003164.31 Part-2 (Development account) Development grant Financial years 2013-2014 47480200.68 28872153.00 Financial years 2014-2015 18846927.45 30312466.72 Financial years 2015-2016 18557382.40 20879897.62 Others grants/revenue surplus Financial years 2013-2014 11184067.60 14345093.93 Financial years 2014-2015 13265652.50 10767844.24 Financial years 2015-2016 8698755.70 9091424.90 n 40 29

480 Revenue Mobilization and Expenditure

Table-16: Average mean amount (Taka) of income source of the Upazila parishad by type of area(Q516) Indicators Project area Control area Total Financial years 2013-2014 22655688.08 9910040.17 Financial years 2014-2015 13844162.00 12534402.62 Financial years 2015-2016 15123492.43 13816830.41 n 40 29 Income from house rent of UPZ parishad Financial years 2013-2014 3741038.40 868173.36 Financial years 2014-2015 1186998.98 907055.79 Financial years 2015-2016 1227933.15 1051920.89 n 40 28 Income from haat-bazar, transferred water bodies and farryghat Financial years 2013-2014 4719474.72 1958649.17 Financial years 2014-2015 2636538.05 2611281.07 Financial years 2015-2016 2591269.46 2929669.41 n 39 29 Tax from trade shop, business center, factory and industry Financial years 2013-2014 438909.13 177364.73 Financial years 2014-2015 159213.25 192049.73 Financial years 2015-2016 417293.75 171170.45 n 8 11 Tax from cinema hall Financial years 2013-2014 269900.00 00.00 Financial years 2014-2015 15000.00 150000.00 Financial years 2015-2016 00.00 00.00 n 2 1 Tax from theatre, games and traditional cultural activities Financial years 2013-2014 2433759.25 175200.00 Financial years 2014-2015 2771536.75 135250.00 Financial years 2015-2016 4780825.00 162300.00 n 4 4 Tax from street lighting Financial years 2013-2014 25650.00 170100.00 Financial years 2014-2015 25000.00 319812.00 Financial years 2015-2016 2500.00 152500.00 n 2 1 Tax from fair, exhibition and recreational activities Financial years 2013-2014 464412.50 164328.80 Financial years 2014-2015 144025.90 224722.80 Financial years 2015-2016 145400.00 271000.00 n 10 5

481 Indicators Project area Control area Tax from issuing trade license Financial years 2013-2014 302454.71 0.00 Financial years 2014-2015 150427.14 20964.00 Financial years 2015-2016 115785.71 26390.00 n 7 2 Registration fees (1%) Financial years 2013-2014 14604633.27 6354810.05 Financial years 2014-2015 8134390.31 8019381.29 Financial years 2015-2016 8657764.04 9105820.81 n 26 21 1% tax from land transfer Financial years 2013-2014 4472351.65 3535413.30 Financial years 2014-2015 4927051.76 4000537.90 Financial years 2015-2016 5550498.59 4042530.00 n 17 10 2% land development tax Financial years 2013-2014 742448.38 74346.62 Financial years 2014-2015 154871.58 142323.12 Financial years 2015-2016 160522.03 189435.46 n 40 26 Initial balance Financial years 2013-2014 2709791.40 2034640.33 Financial years 2014-2015 4513385.07 2032453.25 Financial years 2015-2016 5191052.67 2735199.58 n 15 12 Leasing out of different property/ assets such as pond Financial years 2013-2014 200000.00 70000.00 Financial years 2014-2015 00.00 55979.00 Financial years 2015-2016 00.00 392500.00 n 1 2 Government grants Financial years 2013-2014 3067583.33 3185725.00 Financial years 2014-2015 1687212.33 4060775.00 Financial years 2015-2016 2891166.67 4000000.00 n 6 2 Sale of tender schedule Financial years 2013-2014 200400.00 118333.33 Financial years 2014-2015 768864.67 433746.67 Financial years 2015-2016 516666.67 510250.00 n 3 3 Auction-sale of trees/Other auction-sale Financial years 2013-2014 - 120000.00 Financial years 2014-2015 - 179000.00 Financial years 2015-2016 - 240000.00 n - 3

482 Indicators Project area Control area Miscellaneous income/ building and other construction Financial years 2013-2014 1104167.67 36805.57 Financial years 2014-2015 1158150.00 1644298.29 Financial years 2015-2016 1231283.33 250075.00 n 6 7

Table-17: Revenue collection and amount received from center (Government allocation) of the Upazila Parishad by financial year and by type of area(Q517) Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Mean amount (Taka) of revenue collected Financial years 2011-2012 6014533.10 40 2872624.38 30 Financial years 2012-2013 8993203.18 40 4304075.00 30 Financial years 2013-2014 16831695.28 40 9203233.90 30 Financial years 2014-2015 18192844.83 40 11622900.00 30 Financial years 2015-2016 28980880.90 40 14552936.00 30 Mean amount (Taka) received from center (Government Allocation) Financial years 2011-2012 4745317.23 40 5946969.23 30 Financial years 2012-2013 13971516.45 40 7005731.63 30 Financial years 2013-2014 20898770.08 40 8823495.50 30 Financial years 2014-2015 20372767.45 40 9389766.77 30 Financial years 2015-2016 21654300.20 40 15684929.17 30

Expenditure of Upazila Parishad Table-18: Expenditure of Upazila parishad of the Upazila Parishad by financial year and by type of area (Q518) Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Mean total Expenditure of Upazila Parishad Financial years 2013-2014 5020229.35 40 3628832.45 29 Financial years 2014-2015 5394469.68 40 4523322.45 29 Financial years 2015-2016 7928552.03 40 5119694.59 29 Source wise mean expenditure of Upazila Parishad in financial year (2013-2016) Honorarium /allowance /salary of Chairman, vice-chairman and staff of Upazila Parishad Financial years 2013-2014 902380.25 40 1300259.59 29 Financial years 2014-2015 1120111.68 40 1379829.93 29 Financial years 2015-2016 1188580.95 40 1325066.17 29 Conveyance of Chairman and vice-chairman Financial years 2013-2014 168527.11 28 223116.06 16 Financial years 2014-2015 256878.71 28 208434.06 16 Financial years 2015-2016 293838.39 28 315579.81 16

483 Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Stationery Financial years 2013-2014 35415.12 17 123805.56 9 Financial years 2014-2015 33320.18 17 39569.00 9 Financial years 2015-2016 53968.24 17 70888.89 9 House rent for chairman Financial years 2013-2014 98548.39 18 62000.00 10 Financial years 2014-2015 88977.22 18 50671.50 10 Financial years 2015-2016 100444.44 18 54000.00 10 Provident fund Financial years 2013-2014 1013810.400 9 128050.00 4 Financial years 2014-2015 2876837.56 9 1206436.50 4 Financial years 2015-2016 3379038.78 9 1339762.50 4 Vehicle maintenance and fuel Financial years 2013-2014 107520.30 37 87280.00 27 Financial years 2014-2015 145248.84 37 105365.52 27 Financial years 2015-2016 260986.86 37 130519.93 27 Expenes for tax collection Financial years 2013-2014 20000.00 1 - - Financial years 2014-2015 00.00 1 - - Financial years 2015-2016 00.00 1 - - Utilities bill (phone, electricity, gas, water) Financial years 2013-2014 141103.53 38 179118.59 29 Financial years 2014-2015 212658.92 38 303960.14 29 Financial years 2015-2016 224670.92 38 308679.14 29 Expenditure for internal audit Financial years 2013-2014 7769.23 13 10500.00 12 Financial years 2014-2015 20384.62 13 17225.25 12 Financial years 2015-2016 24230.77 13 25375.00 12 Expenditure for entertainment Financial years 2013-2014 65223.68 28 62894.27 26 Financial years 2014-2015 126098.89 28 136099.42 26 Financial years 2015-2016 235673.68 28 175192.31 26 Operation and maintenance service charge Financial years 2013-2014 284130.09 23 415744.09 23 Financial years 2014-2015 211880.57 23 284500.65 23 Financial years 2015-2016 385705.65 23 523050.43 23 Office and residential building repairing Financial years 2013-2014 662747.96 27 573645.88 16 Financial years 2014-2015 608335.11 27 740584.69 16 Financial years 2015-2016 703092.15 27 550000.00 16

484 Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Furniture and equipment Financial years 2013-2014 107365.52 27 97986.58 19 Financial years 2014-2015 107209.96 27 177910.16 19 Financial years 2015-2016 114376.48 27 199963.89 19 Printing of forms and money receipt, etc. Financial years 2013-2014 59488.57 21 24852.94 18 Financial years 2014-2015 26796.33 21 41826.83 18 Financial years 2015-2016 86666.67 21 32444.44 18 Donation to social and religious organizations Financial years 2013-2014 99497.96 25 32444.44 21 Financial years 2014-2015 175340.24 25 240975.48 21 Financial years 2015-2016 272200.00 25 403976.19 21 Celebrating national days Financial years 2013-2014 22957.05 39 51811.20 25 Financial years 2014-2015 70013.46 39 106371.08 25 Financial years 2015-2016 97872.67 39 126496.00 25 Construction of boundary wall Financial years 2013-2014 142034.55 11 47814.33 6 Financial years 2014-2015 628047.00 11 554710.67 6 Financial years 2015-2016 1066415.82 11 1098116.67 6 Vehicle purchase Financial years 2013-2014 - - 101184.00 2 Financial years 2014-2015 - - 126316.50 2 Financial years 2015-2016 - - 110000.00 2 Furniture purchase Financial years 2013-2014 117812.18 22 49261.00 14 Financial years 2014-2015 108486.64 22 56945.00 14 Financial years 2015-2016 219750.00 22 162114.29 14 Initial balance Financial years 2013-2014 5430893.45 11 419474.33 3 Financial years 2014-2015 3258545.82 11 1503742.67 3 Financial years 2015-2016 5166260.36 11 1423991.00 3 Salary of village police/Salary of the employees of Upazila Parishad Financial years 2013-2014 1234041.50 2 2476342.00 3 Financial years 2014-2015 1240490.00 2 1531353.33 3 Financial years 2015-2016 2092065.00 2 2410409.33 3 Miscellaneous expenditure Financial years 2013-2014 972132.15 40 603914.55 29 Financial years 2014-2015 974529.98 40 793225.24 29 Financial years 2015-2016 2054092.55 40 816613.41 29

485 Income for Development Fund Table-19: Income of Upazila Parishad for development fund of Upazila Parishad by financial year and by type of area (Q519) Characteristics Project area Control area Mean total income of Upazila Parishad for development fund in years (2013-2016) Financial years 2013-2014 9,007,010.01 9,255,053.61 Financial years 2014-2015 12,287,688.64 11,120,471.47 Financial years 2015-2016 13,771,222.82 7,666,457.91 n 39 35 Source wise mean income of Upazila Parishad for development fund Grant (Development) Financial years 2013-2014 13966657.55 16789348.91 Financial years 2014-2015 16565482.26 19129590.58 Financial years 2015-2016 17721437.71 9160661.82 n 38 33 Other sources (specify) Financial years 2013-2014 10614856.83 11568599.20 Financial years 2014-2015 13132628.33 9159948.40 Financial years 2015-2016 14357766.67 10339887.40 n 6 5 Repairing of Upazila Parishad building Financial years 2013-2014 1363200.00 1245968.46 Financial years 2014-2015 2210000.00 1919584.62 Financial years 2015-2016 3445454.55 2420430.77 n 11 13 Voluntary Donation Financial years 2013-2014 00.00 2199665.50 Financial years 2014-2015 1785000.00 2199665.50 Financial years 2015-2016 1200000.00 4449665.50 n 3 2 Revenue surplus transferred to development

account Financial years 2013-2014 6006639.41 2801845.00 Financial years 2014-2015 11416545.38 5800236.27 Financial years 2015-2016 13690867.31 82009915.23 n 29 22

486 Number of Schemes and Amount for schemes in Upazila Parishad Table-20: Number of schemes and amount (Taka) for schemes of the Upazila Parishad by financial year and by area(Q520) Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Mean number of schemes in Upazila Parishad investment Financial years 2013-2014 53.12 25 41.92 25 Financial years 2014-2015 57.92 26 62.88 26 Financial years 2015-2016 61.75 28 51.69 29 Mean amount (Taka) for schemes in Upazila Parishad Financial years 2013-2014 9439214.69 29 7597261.44 27 Financial years 2014-2015 13344882.87 30 9854258.53 30 Financial years 2015-2016 20197356.61 31 18505142.41 34

Table-21A: Number of schemes of the Upazila Parishad by item, financial year and type of area (Q520A) Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Item wise mean number of schemes for Upazila Parishad investment Education Financial years 2013-2014 9.86 22 10.81 21 Financial years 2014-2015 12.46 24 10.96 23 Financial years 2015-2016 10.85 27 8.00 26 Agriculture and Irrigation Financial years 2013-2014 4.55 20 2.63 19 Financial years 2014-2015 3.40 20 3.60 20 Financial years 2015-2016 5.76 25 2.09 23 Health Financial years 2013-2014 13.50 22 9.95 20 Financial years 2014-2015 9.08 24 19.55 21 Financial years 2015-2016 11.11 27 14.71 27 Physical infrastructure Financial years 2013-2014 25.96 22 22.95 21 Financial years 2014-2015 31.38 24 32.27 22 Financial years 2015-2016 28.85 27 24.67 27 Poverty eradication Financial years 2013-2014 1.79 14 4.56 9 Financial years 2014-2015 2.36 14 1.22 9 Financial years 2015-2016 2.71 17 1.91 11

487 Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Women development Financial years 2013-2014 1.21 19 0.75 16 Financial years 2014-2015 1.780 20 1.06 18 Financial years 2015-2016 3.38 21 1.89 19 Youth Development Financial years 2013-2014 1.00 10 0.64 11 Financial years 2014-2015 0.75 12 1.58 12 Financial years 2015-2016 3.08 13 1.33 15 ICT Financial years 2013-2014 0.20 5 0.80 5 Financial years 2014-2015 2.67 3 1.33 6 Financial years 2015-2016 4.00 3 1.86 7 Others (Relief, supervision etc) Financial years 2013-2014 1.60 5 4.50 2 Financial years 2014-2015 3.00 4 4.50 2 Financial years 2015-2016 5.60 5 3.33 3 Small and cottage industry Financial years 2013-2014 2.50 2 - - Financial years 2014-2015 1.50 2 - - Financial years 2015-2016 4.50 2 - - Social welfare Financial years 2013-2014 - - - 0 Financial years 2014-2015 - - - 0 Financial years 2015-2016 - - 1.00 1 Sports and culture Financial years 2013-2014 3.50 2 0.00 1 Financial years 2014-2015 2.00 1 0.00 1 Financial years 2015-2016 4.00 1 3.00 1 Fisheries and livestock Financial years 2013-2014 1.33 3 - - Financial years 2014-2015 1.67 3 - - Financial years 2015-2016 4.00 3 - -

488 Table-21B: Mean amount (Taka) for schemes of the Upazila Parishad by item, financial year and type of area (Q520B) Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Item wise mean amount (Taka) for schemes for Upazila Parishad investment Education Financial years 2013-2014 2179918.10 29 838613.79 24 Financial years 2014-2015 2501126.93 30 1684953.38 26 Financial years 2015-2016 2395230.06 31 1753784.70 33 Agriculture and Irrigation Financial years 2013-2014 795834.85 27 457138.43 23 Financial years 2014-2015 96897.29 28 681635.12 25 Financial years 2015-2016 1163240.66 29 910473.33 30 Health Financial years 2013-2014 1882348.04 28 1109267.96 24 Financial years 2014-2015 2077972.14 29 1109267.96 27 Financial years 2015-2016 2922395.90 30 2041855.15 33 Physical infrastructure Financial years 2013-2014 4179745.00 29 3943168.48 24 Financial years 2014-2015 776164.90 30 5260182.85 27 Financial years 2015-2016 10265282.29 31 6707137.61 33 Poverty eradication Financial years 2013-2014 319251.38 16 439100.0 10 Financial years 2014-2015 554267.24 17 173500.00 10 Financial years 2015-2016 669028.11 18 269166.67 12 Women development Financial years 2013-2014 213192.48 23 72562.50 16 Financial years 2014-2015 396254.17 24 126315.79 19 Financial years 2015-2016 851158.21 24 432350.95 22 Youth Development Financial years 2013-2014 502421.92 13 75909.09 11 Financial years 2014-2015 443200.29 14 286346.15 13 Financial years 2015-2016 1007671.00 14 325937.50 16 ICT Financial years 2013-2014 40000.00 5 105000.00 5 Financial years 2014-2015 711243.20 5 158805.83 6 Financial years 2015-2016 755406.40 5 366752.14 7 Others (Relief, supervision etc) Financial years 2013-2014 362598.43 7 211175.00 2 Financial years 2014-2015 419309.00 7 106900.00 2 Financial years 2015-2016 2333276.29 7 365000.00 3 Small and cottage industry Financial years 2013-2014 243444.50 2 - -

489 Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Financial years 2014-2015 165081.50 2 - - Financial years 2015-2016 1214550.00 2 - - Social welfare Financial years 2013-2014 - - - - Financial years 2014-2015 - - - - Financial years 2015-2016 - - 400000.00 1 Sports and culture Financial years 2013-2014 1043444.50 2 - - Financial years 2014-2015 275581.50 2 - - Financial years 2015-2016 705000.00 2 350000.00 1 Fisheries and livestock Financial years 2013-2014 252963.00 3 - - Financial years 2014-2015 650254.33 3 - - Financial years 2015-2016 809700.00 3 - -

Allocations of the line departments Table-22: Integration of allocations of the line departments with the last year’s budget by area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Allocations of the line departments integrated with the last year’s budget(Q521) Yes 20.0 (8) 10.0 (4) No 80.0 (32) 90.0 (36) n 40 40 Total mean amount of allocation(Q522) Financial years 2013-2014 54,318,802.25 5,144,342.50 Financial years 2014-2015 84,354,623.88 15,789,217.50 Financial years 2015-2016 96,467,998.75 119,494,600.25 Item wise mean amount of allocation(Q523) Law and order Financial years 2013-2014 856040.38 55000.00 Financial years 2014-2015 889293.13 58263.25 Financial years 2015-2016 951901.75 69274400.00 Communication and infrastructure development Financial years 2013-2014 4361861.13 1948442.00 Financial years 2014-2015 7669259.38 9561088.75 Financial years 2015-2016 8431797.25 3227750.00 Agriculture and irrigation Financial years 2013-2014 5470725.88 187500.00 Financial years 2014-2015 10121831.13 87347.50 Financial years 2015-2016 8616150.00 6940000.00

490 Characteristics Project area Control area Secondary and madrasa education Financial years 2013-2014 28063005.63 25000.00 Financial years 2014-2015 29474416.00 389562.50 Financial years 2015-2016 40038338.50 18115125.00 Primary and mass education Financial years 2013-2014 283987.50 790870.00 Financial years 2014-2015 597066.00 1320121.50 Financial years 2015-2016 926798.00 8093650.00 Health and family welfare Financial years 2013-2014 8994472.38 50000.00 Financial years 2014-2015 16166057.88 489815.00 Financial years 2015-2016 19692645.25 1624517.00 Youth and sports Financial years 2013-2014 781338.50 46229.25 Financial years 2014-2015 1494283.75 164250.00 Financial years 2015-2016 1865990.13 646327.00 Women and children development Financial years 2013-2014 287070.88 512500.00 Financial years 2014-2015 416678.00 621000.00 Financial years 2015-2016 725791.13 3259947.50 n 8 4 Social welfare Financial years 2013-2014 834461.75 896745.25 Financial years 2014-2015 6406493.75 903825.00 Financial years 2015-2016 7530212.50 1346250.00 n 8 4 Freedom fighter Financial years 2013-2014 0.00 0.00 Financial years 2014-2015 0.00 0.00 Financial years 2015-2016 50000.00 894032.25 n 8 4 Fisheries and livestock Financial years 2013-2014 1371875.00 37500.00 Financial years 2014-2015 1680166.75 225000.00 Financial years 2015-2016 2234010.25 1512500.00 n 8 4 Rural development and cooperative Financial years 2013-2014 874919.75 0.00 Financial years 2014-2015 6408162.50 175500.00 Financial years 2015-2016 1365600.00 413000.00 n 8 4

491 Characteristics Project area Control area Culture Financial years 2013-2014 391526.38 130000.00 Financial years 2014-2015 694179.13 225840.00 Financial years 2015-2016 980425.00 276750.00 n 8 4 Forest and environment Financial years 2013-2014 720070.75 112500.00 Financial years 2014-2015 803640.13 115000.00 Financial years 2015-2016 945411.13 137500.00 n 8 4 Observation, maintaining and controlling of market price Financial years 2013-2014 0.00 0.00 Financial years 2014-2015 0.00 0.00 Financial years 2015-2016 0.00 0.00 n 8 4 Budget, planning and mobilizing fund Financial years 2013-2014 88299.63 0.00 Financial years 2014-2015 93195.63 0.00 Financial years 2015-2016 119405.63 0.00 n 8 4 Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drinking water Financial years 2013-2014 939146.75 352056.00 Financial years 2014-2015 1439900.75 666480.00 Financial years 2015-2016 1993522.25 3732851.50 n 8 4

Own fund and allocation for MDG Table-23: Own fund and development project in Upazila Parishad by area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Own fund in Upazila Parishad(Q523) Yes 90.0 (36) 56.4 (22) No 10.0 (4) 43.6 (17) n 40 39 Amount of own fund in Upazila Parishad(Q524) Mean 9325947.39 7318581.04 Median 5620250.00 4118285.00 n 36 23 Any development project undertaken with own source(Q525) Yes 66.7 (24) 43.5 (10) No 33.3 (12) 56.5 (13) n 36 23

492 Types of development project undertaken with own source(Q526) Road 70.8 (17) 100.0 (9) Education 100.0 (24) 88.9 (8) Health related 87.5 (21) 88.9 (8) Religious institute 37.5 (9) 44.4 (4) Women’s development 83.3 (20) 44.4 (4) Development of Upazila complex 8.3 (2) - Co- finance project 4.2 (1) - n 24 9

Table-24: Priority and allocation of MDG in Upazila Parishad by area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Whether priority given to MDGs in budget(Q527) Yes 87.5 (35) 66.7 (26) No 12.5 (5) 33.3 (13) n 40 39 Item wise allocation for MDG in last financial years (2015-2016) (Q528) Eradication of hunger and poverty 51.4 53.8 Universal education 80.0 73.1 Women empowerment and equal right for men & women 60.0 46.2 Reduction of infant and maternal mortality 45.7 30.8 Improvement of maternal health 45.7 38.5 Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 22.9 26.9 Sustainable development 22.9 0.0 Global partnership for development 2.9 0.0 n 35 26 Item wise mean amount of allocation for MDG in last financial years (2015-2016) (Q528) Eradication of hunger and poverty 497496.17 355298.58 Universal education 1505833.03 702523.54 Women empowerment and equal right for men & women 284721.46 150490.65 Reduction of infant and maternal mortality 222638.51 132442.92 Improvement of maternal health 215133.31 103433.85 Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 332838.57 314048.96 Sustainable development 105330.00 0.00 Global partnership for development 74910.57 0.00 n 35 26

493 Information on bank account Table-25: Information on bank account in Upazila by area (#)(Q529) Characteristics Project area Control area Mean n Mean n Mean number of bank account in Upazila Financial years 2013-2014 9065.09 33 10769.94 23 Financial years 2014-2015 12925.94 33 11652.63 24 Financial years 2015-2016 15337.03 33 13255.00 24 Mean amount of deposit in Upazila Financial years 2013-2014 617134840.18 33 321368684.30 23 Financial years 2014-2015 684968746.27 33 372764250.71 24 Financial years 2015-2016 839812761.91 33 4395542334.38 24 Mean amount of credit in Upazila Financial years 2013-2014 444820127.85 33 90318973.91 23 Financial years 2014-2015 499025234.76 33 95969939.54 24 Financial years 2015-2016 572857920.24 33 107566844.37 24

Development planning of the Upazila Parishad Table-26: Development planning of the Upazila Parishad by area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Any annual development plan(Q601) Yes 95.0 (38) 70..0 (28) No 5.0 (2) 30.0 (12) n 40 40 Reasons for not having annual development plan (Q602) Lack of adequate funds - 8.3 (1) Importance was not given 50.0 (1) 41.7 (5) Public representatives not interested 50.0 (1) 50.0 (6) n 2 12 Development plan and budget preparing guideline (Q603) Yes 100.0 (40) 92.5 (37) No - 7.5 (3) n 40 40 Officials trained on planning and budgeting guideline(Q604) Yes 95.0 (38) 72.5 (29) No 5.0 (2) 27.5 (11) n 40 40 Type of organization provided training for development plan and budget preparing(Q605) NLG 100.0 (38) 100.0 (29) ADC (Revenue) office 26.3 (10) 3.4 (1) Divisional Commissioners office 31.6 (12) 3.4 (1) NGO Officials 7.9 (3) 10.3 (3)

494 National Academy for Planning and Development 100.0 (38) 3.4 (1) (NAPD) BARD 84.2 (32) - BIM 5.3 (2) - n 38 29

Table-27: Information on Annual Development Plan: Eradication of hunger and extreme poverty of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q606_1) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of projects in eradication of hunger and poverty none 60.0 (24) 75.0 (30) 1-2 12.5 (5) 15 (6) 3 or more 27.5 (11) 10 (4) Average (mean) no. of projects 2.68 0.68 Total no. of projects 107 27 n 40 40 Upazila have allocation for the projects in eradication of hunger and poverty Yes 40.0 (16) 25.0 (10) No 60.0 (24) 75.0 (30) n 40 40 Amount of allocation for the projects in eradication of hunger and poverty Average amount of money (taka) allotted per upazila 708023.95 114094.08 n 40 40 Average amount of money (taka) allotted per project 264107.0879 141718.0583 n 16 10 Implementation period of the projects in eradication of hunger and poverty Financial year 2014-2015 35.7 (5) - Financial year 2015-2016 64.3 (9) 100.0 (10) n 14 10 Timely completion of the projects in eradication of hunger and poverty Yes 93.8 (15) 100.0 (10) No 6.3 (1) - n 16 10 Duly distribution of the funds in eradication of hunger and poverty Yes 93.8 (15) - No 6.3 (1) 100.0 (10) n 16 10 Way of selecting projects in eradication of hunger and poverty Through meeting 75.0 (12) 60.0 (6) According to the public opinion 37.5 (6) 50.0 (5) As per the demand of chairman 31.3 (5) 30.0 (3) As per the demand of members 12.5 (2) 60.0 (6) According to the opinion of MP 6.3 (1) - n 16 10

495 Characteristics Project area Control area Any incomplete projects in eradication of hunger and poverty Yes 6.3 (1) 100.0 (10) No 93.8 (15) - n 16 10 Number of benefited Union Parishads from the projects 0 6.3 (1) - 1-3 - 30.0 (3) 4-6 25.0 (4) 20.0 (2) 7-9 50.0 (8) 40.0 (4) 10 or more 18.8 (3) 10.0 (1) n 16 10

Table-28: Information on Annual Development Plan: Universal primary education of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q606_2) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of projects in universal primary education none 47.5 (19) 65.0 (26) 1-2 12.5 (5) 22.5 3 or more 40.0 (16) 12.5 (9) Average (mean) no. of projects 3.55 1.00 (5) Total no. of projects 142 40 n 40 40 Upazila have allocation for the projects in universal primary education Yes 52.5 (21) 35.0 (14) No 47.5 (19) 65.0 (26) n 40 40 Amount of allocation for the projects in universal primary education Average amount of money (taka) allotted per Upazila 1533180.48 327087.48 n 40 40 Average amount of money (taka) allotted per project 766009.9485 328880.9277 n 21 14 Implementation period of the projects in universal primary education Financial year 2014-2015 47.4 (9) - Financial year 2015-2016 52.6 (10) 100.0 (14) n 19 14 Timely completion of the projects in universal primary education Yes 100.0 (21) 100.0 (14) No - - n 21 14

496 Characteristics Project area Control area Duly distribution of the funds in universal primary education Yes 100.0 (21) 100.0 (14) No - - n 21 14 Way of selecting projects in universal primary education Through meeting 76.2 (16) 50.0 (7) According to the public opinion 23.8 (5) 50.0 (7) As per the demand of chairman 33.3 (7) 42.9 (6) As per the demand of members 9.5 (2) 35.7 (5) According to the opinion of MP 9.5 (2) - n 21 14 Any incomplete projects in universal primary education Yes 4.8 (1) - No 95.2 (20) 100.0 (13) n 21 13 Number of benefited Union Parishads from the projects 0 15.0 (3) - 1-3 15.0 (3) 16.7 (2) 4-6 25.0 (5) 8.3 (1) 7-9 30.0 (6 ) 41.7 (5) 10 or more 15.0 (3) 33.3 (4) n 20 12

Table-29: Information on Annual Development Plan: Women empowerment and equalright for men and women of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q606_3) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of projects in women empowerment and equal right for men and women None 55.0 (22) 77.5 (31) 1-2 30.0 (12) 12.5 (5) 3 or more 15.0 (6) 10.0 (4) Average (mean) no. of projects 1.15 0.78 Total no. of projects 46 31 n 40 40 Upazila have allocation for the projects in women empowerment and equal right for men and women Yes 45.0 (18) 20.0 (8) No 55.0 (22) 80.0 (32) n 40 40 Amount of allocation for the projects in women empowerment and equal right for men and women Average amount of money (taka) allotted per union 607714.93 65900.00 n 40 40

497 Characteristics Project area Control area Average amount of money (taka) allotted per project 416906.5939 137958.3333 n 18 8 Implementation period of the projects in women empowerment and equal right for men and women Financial year 2014-2015 37.5 (6) - Financial year 2015-2016 62.5 (10) 100.0 (9) n 16 9 Timely completion of the projects in women empowerment and equal right for men and women Yes 100.0 (17) 100.0 (9) No - - n 17 9 Duly distribution of the funds in women empowerment and equal right for men and women Yes 100.0 (17) 100.0 (14) No - - n 17 14 Way of selecting projects in women empowerment and equal right for men and women Through meeting 70.6 (12) 55.6 (5) According to the public opinion 41.2 (7) 55.6 (5) As per the demand of chairman 29.4 (5) 22.2 (2) As per the demand of members 5.9 (1) 55.6 (5) According to the opinion of MP 11.8 (2) 11.1 (1) n 17 9 Any incomplete projects in women empowerment and equal right for men and women Yes - - No 100.0 (17) 100.0 (8) n 17 Number of benefited Union Parishads from the projects 0 5.9 (1) - 1-3 17.6 (3) 22.2 (2) 4-6 17.6 (3) 11.1 (1) 7-9 41.2 (7) 44.4 (4) 10 or more 17.6 (3) 22.2 (2) n 17 9

Table-30: Information on Annual Development Plan: Reduction of infant and maternal mortality of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q606_4) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of projects in reduction of infant and maternal mortality None 72.5 (29) 87.5 (35) 1-2 17.5 (7) 5.0 (2)

498 Characteristics Project area Control area 3 or more 10.0 (4) 7.5 (3) Average (mean) no. of projects 0.65 0.33 Total no. of projects 26 13 n 40 40 Upazila have allocation for the projects in reduction of infant and maternal mortality Yes 27.5 (11) 12.5 (5) No 72.5 (29) 87.5 (35) n 40 40 Amount of allocation for the projects in reduction of infant and maternal mortality Average amount of money (taka) allotted per union 74836.05 41087.90 n 40 40 Average amount of money (taka) allotted per project 129095.8485 147073.9733 n 11 5 Implementation period of the projects in reduction of infant and maternal mortality Financial year 2014-2015 60.0 (6) - Financial year 2015-2016 40.0 (4) 100.0 (5) n 10 5 Timely completion of the projects in reduction of infant and maternal mortality Yes 100.0 (11) 100.0 (7) No - - n 1 7 Duly distribution of the funds in reduction of infant and maternal mortality Yes 100.0 (11) 100.0 (5) No - - n 11 5 Way of selecting projects in reduction of infant and maternal mortality Through meeting 90.9 (10) 80.0 (4) According to the public opinion 27.3 (3) 40.0 (2) As per the demand of chairman 27.3 (3) 20.0 (1) As per the demand of members - 40.0 (2) According to the opinion of MP - - n 11 5 Any incomplete projects in reduction of infant and maternal mortality Yes 9.1 (1) - No 90.9 (10) 100.0 (5) n 11 5 Number of benefited Union Parishads from the projects 0 - - 1-3 50.0 (5) 40.0 (2) 4-6 10.0 (1) 20.0 (1) 7-9 30.0 (3) 20.0 (1) 10 or more 10.0 (1) 20.0 (1) n 10 5

499 Table-31: Information on Annual Development Plan: Development of maternal health of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q606_5) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of projects in development of maternal health None 67.5 (27) 82.5 (33) 1-2 22.5 (9) 15.0 (6) 3 or more 10.0 (4) 2.5 (1) Average (mean) no. of projects 0.70 0.38 Total no. of projects 28 15 n 40 40 Upazila have allocation for the projects in development of maternal health Yes 32.5 (27) 17.5 (7) No 67.5 (13) 82.5 (33) n 40 40 Amount of allocation for the projects in development of maternal health Average amount of money (taka) allotted per union 174811.65 46732.00 n 40 40 Average amount of money (taka) allotted per project 399841.7436 122063.8095 n 13 7 Implementation period of the projects in development of maternal health Financial year 2014-2015 54.5 (6) - Financial year 2015-2016 45.5 (5) 100.0 (7) n 11 7 Timely completion of the projects in development of maternal health Yes 100.0 (13) 100.0 (7) No - - n 13 7 Duly distribution of the funds in development of maternal health Yes 100.0 (13) 100.0 (7) No - - n 13 7 Way of selecting projects in development of maternal health Through meeting 84.6 (11) 71.4 (5) According to the public opinion 30.8 (4) 57.1 (4) As per the demand of chairman 23.1 (3) 14.3 (1) As per the demand of members - 57.1 (4) According to the opinion of MP - - n 13 7 Any incomplete projects in development of maternal health Yes 7.7 (1) - No 92.3 (12) 100.0 (7) n 13 7

500 Characteristics Project area Control area Number of benefited Union Parishads from the projects 0 - - 1-3 38.5 (5) 14.3 (1) 4-6 15.4 (2) 28.6 (2) 7-9 46.2 (6) 42.9 (3) 10 or more - 14.3 (1) n 13 7

Table-32: Information on Annual Development Plan: Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q606_6) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of projects in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases none 85.0 (34) 85.0 (34) 1-2 2.5 (1) 2.5 (1) 3 or more 12.5 (5) 12.5 (5) Average (mean) no. of projects 0.85 1.25 Total no. of projects 34 50 n 40 40 Upazila have allocation for the projects in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Yes 15.0 (6) 15.0 (6) No 85.0 (34) 85.0 (34) n 40 40 Amount of allocation for the projects in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Average amount of money (taka) allotted per union 175381.25 138744.33 n 40 40 Average amount of money (taka) allotted per project 239569.4444 119477.7362 n 6 6 Implementation period of the projects in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Financial year 2014-2015 16.7 (1) - Financial year 2015-2016 83.3 (5) 100.0 (6) n 6 6 Timely completion of the projects in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Yes 100.0 (6) 100.0 (7) No - - n 6 7 Duly distribution of the funds in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Yes 100.0 (6) 100.0 (6) No - - n 6 6

501 Characteristics Project area Control area Way of selecting projects in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Through meeting 66.7 (4) 50.0 (3) According to the public opinion 50.0 (3) 100.0 (6) As per the demand of chairman 50.0 (3) 33.3 (2) As per the demand of members 16.7 (1) 83.3 (5) According to the opinion of MP - - n 6 6 Any incomplete projects in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Yes - - No 100.0 (6) 100.0 (6) n 6 6 Number of benefited Union Parishads from the projects 0 - - 1-3 16.7 (1) - 4-6 16.7 (1) - 7-9 50.0 (3) 83.3 (5) 10 or more 16.7 (1) 16.7 (1) n 6 6

Table-33: Information on Annual Development Plan: Sustainable development of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q606_7) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of projects in sustainable development None 87.5 (35) 100.0 (40) 1-2 5.0 (2) - 3 or more 7.5 (3) - Average (mean) no. of projects 1.28 0.00 Total no. of projects 51 0 n 40 40 Upazila have allocation for the projects in sustainable development Yes 12.5 (5) - No 87.5 (35) 100.0 (40) n 40 40 Amount of allocation for the projects in sustainable development Average amount of money (taka) allotted per union 165536.25 6554.25 n 40 40 Average amount of money (taka) allotted per project 198620.8943 - n 5 0 Implementation period of the projects in sustainable development Financial year 2014-2015 - - Financial year 2015-2016 100.0 (1) - n 1 -

502 Characteristics Project area Control area Timely completion of the projects in sustainable development Yes 100.0 (5) - No - - n 5 - Duly distribution of the funds in sustainable development Yes 100.0 (5) - No - - n 5 - Way of selecting projects in sustainable development Through meeting 60.0 (3) - According to the public opinion 80.0 (4) - As per the demand of chairman 60.0 (3) - As per the demand of members - - According to the opinion of MP - - n 5 - Any incomplete projects in sustainable development Yes - - No 100.0 (5) - n 5 - Number of benefited Union Parishads from the projects 0 - - 1-3 - - 4-6 - - 7-9 60.0 (3) - 10 or more 40.0 (2) - n 5 -

Table-34: Information on Annual Development Plan: Global partnership for development of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q606_8) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of projects in global partnership for development none 97.5 (39) 100.0 (40) 1-2 - - 3 or more 2.5 (1) - Average (mean) no. of projects 0.45 0.00 Total no. of projects 18 0 n 40 40 Upazila have allocation for the projects in global partnership for development Yes 2.5 (1) - No 97.5 (39) 100.0 (40) n 40

503 Characteristics Project area Control area Amount of allocation for the projects in global partnership for development Average amount of money (taka) allotted per union 6554.25 0.00 n 40 40 Average amount of money (taka) allotted per project 14565.0000 - n 1 0 Implementation period of the projects in global partnership for development Financial year 2014-2015 - - Financial year 2015-2016 100.0 (1) - n 1 - Timely completion of the projects in global partnership for development Yes 100.0 (1) - No - - n 1 - Duly distribution of the funds in global partnership for development Yes 100.0 (1) - No - - n 1 - Way of selecting projects in global partnership for development Through meeting 100.0 (1) - According to the public opinion 100.0 (1) - As per the demand of chairman 100.0 (1) - As per the demand of members - - According to the opinion of MP - - n 1 - Any incomplete projects in global partnership for development Yes - - No 100.0 (1) - n 1 - Number of benefited Union Parishads from the projects 0 - - 1-3 - - 4-6 - - 7-9 - - 10 or more 100.0 (1) - n 1 -

504 Table-35: Annual performance report of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Prepared annual performance report (Q607) Yes 87.5 (35) 50.0 (20) No 12.5 (5) 50.0 (20) n 40 40 Time of preparing annual performance report(Q608) Financial years 2015-2016 22.9 (8) 36.8 (7) Financial years 2014-2015 60.0 21) 42.1 (8) Financial years 2013-2014 11.4 (4) 10.5 (2) Before 3 financial years 5.7 (2) 10.5 (2) 35 19

505 Five year plan Table-36: Information on five year plan of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Prepared any five year plan (Q609) Yes 97.5 (39) 57.5 (23) No 2.5 (1) 42.5 (17) n 40 40 Reasons for not preparing five year plan (Q610) Lack of trained and skilled manpower - 58.8 (10) Lack of resources - 35.3 (6) No instruction from higher authority - 11.8 (2) Lack of sincerity/Lack of initiative - 35.3 (6) Lack of initiative of the local representative 100.0 (1) 11.8 (2) n 1 17 Time of preparing five year plan(Q611) Financial years 2015-2016 2.6 (1) 17.4 (4) Financial years 2014-2015 30.8 (12) 52.2 (12) Financial years 2013-2014 51.3 (20) 26.1 (6) Before 3 financial year 15.4 (6) 4.3 (1) n 39 23 Members of preparing five year plan(Q612) Members of the upazila parishad 58.3 (21) 59.1 (13) UNO 69.4 (25) 77.3 (17) Upazila Engineer/Assistant Engineer 41.7 (15) 36.4 (8) Upazila Agricultural Officer 27.8 (10) 18.2 (4) Education Officer/Secondary Education Officer 13.9 (5) 27.3 (6) Officers of other line departments 61.1 (22) 63.6 (14) n 36 22 Officials have prior experience/ training for preparing five year plan(Q613) Yes 91.9 (37) 78.3 (18) No 5.1 (2) 21.7 (5) n 39 23 Type organization provided training for preparing five year plan(Q614) NLG 100.0 (40) 100.0 (18) ADC (Revenue) office 12.5 (5) 11.1 (2) Divisional Commissioners office 15.0 (6) 11.1 (2) NGO Officials 12.5 (5) - National Academy for Planning and Development (NAPD) 95.0(38) 5.6 (1) BIM 15.0 (6) - UZFP 2.5 (1) - n 35 18 Any guideline for five year plan (Q615) Yes 92.3 (36) 95.7 (22) No 7.7 (3) 4.3 (1) n 39 23

506 Table-37: Five year plan by revenue and development account sector of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q616) Characteristics Project area Control area Mean amount (by revenue sector) Revenue Financial years 2011-2012 3557664.77 3222903.00 Financial years 2012-2013 5033455.23 3468858.39 Financial years 2013-2014 6748788.18 4082134.83 Financial years 2014-2015 7852801.13 4407537.91 Financial years 2015-2016 9819558.08 4339461.17 Receipts Financial years 2011-2012 107975.41 0.00 Financial years 2012-2013 706521.05 0.00 Financial years 2013-2014 996832.31 0.00 Financial years 2014-2015 1173400.72 0.00 Financial years 2015-2016 2577471.23 0.00 Grant Financial years 2011-2012 18765.79 0.00 Financial years 2012-2013 446163.85 0.00 Financial years 2013-2014 610925.33 0.00 Financial years 2014-2015 556520.92 0.00 Financial years 2015-2016 635182.97 0.00 Revenue surplus/deficit Financial years 2011-2012 1258266.00 1315912.13 Financial years 2012-2013 1650238.87 1416047.87 Financial years 2013-2014 1629770.21 1484522.65 Financial years 2014-2015 2151123.59 1673854.39 Financial years 2015-2016 2354840.59 1965241.96 Mean amount (by development account sector) Development grant Financial years 2011-2012 4119857.03 2240130.43 Financial years 2012-2013 4341366.31 2717043.48 Financial years 2013-2014 7193455.67 35595130.43 Financial years 2014-2015 11660502.87 4017467.00 Financial years 2015-2016 8685782.51 4714978.26 Other grants/revenue surplus Financial years 2011-2012 1061583.72 472756.43 Financial years 2012-2013 2522863.21 692238.70 Financial years 2013-2014 2606092.69 700825.26 Financial years 2014-2015 4461806.31 1058671.22 Financial years 2015-2016 4812103.38 1181947.17

507 Table-38: Five year plan by MDG sector of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics (Q617) Project area Control area Mean amount (by MDG sector) Eradication of hunger and poverty Financial years 2011-2012 464465.08 3305598.39 Financial years 2012-2013 529778.13 4379391.52 Financial years 2013-2014 623613.38 5689956.52 Financial years 2014-2015 1871575.64 4447782.61 Financial years 2015-2016 364246.08 4768000.00 Universal education Financial years 2011-2012 519674.10 7865069.57 Financial years 2012-2013 601559.10 8269881.91 Financial years 2013-2014 854634.23 10032716.70 Financial years 2014-2015 717512.28 9164034.09 Financial years 2015-2016 601219.67 9714036.26 Women empowerment and equal right for men & women Financial years 2011-2012 355298.64 253493.91 Financial years 2012-2013 133517.95 333233.04 Financial years 2013-2014 167913.77 322478.26 Financial years 2014-2015 278559.95 365826.09 Financial years 2015-2016 234430.74 423347.83 Reduction of infant and maternal mortality Financial years 2011-2012 5169230.77 59370.26 Financial years 2012-2013 4641025.64 82608.70 Financial years 2013-2014 5010256.41 110652.17 Financial years 2014-2015 66666.67 138260.87 Financial years 2015-2016 120640.21 186956.52 Improvement of maternal health Financial years 2011-2012 892310.26 191677.39 Financial years 2012-2013 1002564.10 203913.04 Financial years 2013-2014 1281923.08 242130.43 Financial years 2014-2015 258981.03 274304.35 Financial years 2015-2016 142266.67 338565.22 Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Financial years 2011-2012 133085.31 2125898.83 Financial years 2012-2013 175416.67 239130.43 Financial years 2013-2014 209978.72 270869.57 Financial years 2014-2015 246950.97 313043.48 Financial years 2015-2016 281610.23 369565.22 Sustainable development Financial years 2011-2012 62841.46 0.00 Financial years 2012-2013 209524.36 34782.61

508 Characteristics (Q617) Project area Control area Financial years 2013-2014 115876.18 74782.61 Financial years 2014-2015 135412.51 110869.57 Financial years 2015-2016 173569.15 150000.00 Global partnership for development Financial years 2011-2012 32061.97 0.00 Financial years 2012-2013 67227.44 0.00 Financial years 2013-2014 95201.79 0.00 Financial years 2014-2015 734385.74 0.00 Financial years 2015-2016 73005.05 0.00 n 39 23

Table-39: Development plan of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Prepared any development plan (Q618) Yes 56.4 (22) 34.8 (8) No 43.6 (17) 65.2 (15) n 39 23 Type of development plan(Q619) Sweeper/Seavenger/Cleaner 13.6 (3) 12.5 (1) Distribution of sanitary latrine to poor household free of 36.4 (8) - cost To distressed women Sewing machine 9.1 (2) 12.5 (1) Provided hearing aid and white stick to physically 4.5 (1) 37.5 (3) challeneged individuals Wheel chair for the disabled 9.1 (2) 50.0 (4) Allowance to the eunuchs - 12.5 (1) Special support to fishermen 4.5 (1) - Social safety network for marginalized people 36.4 (8) 25.0 (2) Training on driving 4.5 (1) - Training on Beauty Parlor business 4.5 (1) - Distribution of tube-well 13.6 (3) - n 22 8

509 Effectiveness of performance grant system and specific areas of good governance Table-40: Effectiveness of performance grant system and specific areas of good governance by area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Performance grant system is an effective mechanism(Q701) Yes 87.5 (35) - No 2.5 (1) - Difficult to assess 2.5 (1) - Don’t know 7.5 (3) - N 40 - The 3 most important and specific areas of good governance(Q702) Education/Ensured universal primary education 30.0 (12) - Peoples participation 27.5 (11) - Woman empowerment 27.5 (11) - Transparency and accountability are ensured 22.5 (9) - Sustainable development 20.0 (8) - Corruption control 17.5 (7) - Five year plan is prepared 15.0 (6) - Monitoring system is improved 12.5 (5) - Speed of work/capacity building 10.0 (4) - Women development project 10.0 (4) - Regular standing committee meeting 5.0 (2) - Budget is prepared properly following proper procedure 5.0 (2) - Government rules and policies are maintained 5.0 (2) - Physical infrastructure development 5.0 (2) - Open budget meeting 5.0 (2) - Public welfare activities 5.0 (2) - Created positive competitive environment 2.5 (1) - Improvement of law and order 2.5 (1) - n 40 -

Table-41: Contribution of performance grant in planning, budget and good governance by area (#)(Q703) Characteristics Project area Control area Make additional funds available Fully agree 79.5 (31) - Partially Agree 12.8 (5) - Disagree 7.7 (3) - n 39 - Create a sense of competition Fully agree 87.5 (35) - Partially Agree 12.5 (5) - n 40 -

510 Characteristics Project area Control area Improve good governance as a whole Fully agree 77.5 (31) - Partially Agree 22.5 (9) - n 40 - Create stimuli and positive obligations to prepare five year and annual plan Fully agree 67.5 (27) - Partially Agree 30.0 (12) - Disagree 2.5 (1) - n 40 - Pay attention to citizen’s charter and its implementation Fully agree 70.0 (28) - Partially Agree 27.5 (11) - Disagree 2.5 (1) - n 40 - Maintain multi-sector (MDG) focused plans Fully agree 62.5 (25) - Partially Agree 35.0 (14) - Disagree 2.5 (1) - n 40 - Undertaking co-financed projects Fully agree 62.5 (25) - Partially Agree 27.5 (11) - Disagree 7.5 (3) - Strongly disagree 2.5 (1) - n 40 - Maintain gender balance in expenditure and women empowerment Fully agree 85.0 (34) - Partially Agree 15.0 (6) - n 40 - Achieve inclusive local governance Fully agree 72.5 (29) - Partially Agree 27.5 (11) - n 40 - Prepare budget following the established rules and regulations Fully agree 75.0 (30) - Partially Agree 25.0 (10) - n 40 - Hold special budget session as per rule Fully agree 77.5 (31) - Partially Agree 22.5 (9) - n 40 -

511 Characteristics Project area Control area Level of contribution of performance grant in planning, budget and good governance (using score) Good 20.0 (8) - Excellent 80.0 (32) - n 40 -

Table-42: Contribution of performance grant in economic management by area (#)(Q704) Characteristics Project area Control area Establish a better financial reporting system Fully agree 65.0 (26) - Partially Agree 25.0 (10) - Disagree 7.5 (3) - Strongly disagree 2.5 (1) - n 40 - Pay attention to bank reconciliation Fully agree 65.0 (26) - Partially Agree 25.0 (10) - Disagree 10.0 (4) - n 40 - Arrange external audit Fully agree 70.0 (28) - Partially Agree 27.5 (11) - Disagree 2.5 (1) - n 40 - Follow the procurement rules and keep the procurement related documents Fully agree 70.0 (28) - Partially Agree 27.5 (11) - Disagree 2.5(1) - n 40 - Hold open budget meetings to share information Fully agree 77.5 (31) - Partially Agree 22.5 (9) - n 40 - Share the draft budget document with different stakeholders (journalists, CSOs etc.) Fully agree 65.0 (26) - Partially Agree 27.5 (11) - Disagree 7.5 (3) - n 40 Enhance local tax collection efforts Fully agree 65.0 (26) - Partially Agree 25.0 (10) - Disagree 7.5 (3) - Strongly disagree 2.5 (1) - n 40 -

512 Characteristics Project area Control area Increase own source revenue generation Fully agree 62.5 (25) - Partially Agree 30.0 (12) - Disagree 5.0 (2) - Strongly disagree 2.5 (1) - n 40 - Level of contribution of performance grant in economic management (using score) Average 2.5 (1) - Good 25.0 (10) - Excellent 72.5 (29) - n 40 -

Table-43a: Adequacy of allocated money under PBG, Major challenges faced in meeting PBG by area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Adequacy of the allocated money under PBG system to create an incentive structure(Q705) Yes 57.5 (23) - No 25.0 (10) - Difficult to assess 12.5 (5) - Don’t know 5.0 (2) - n 40 - Major challenges faced in meeting the requirements for PBG (Q706) Lack of manpower 57.5 (23) - Lack of training and skill 27.5 (11) - Lack of commitment of the elected representatives 7.5 (3) - Political obstacle 2.5(1) - Motivational problem 2.5 (1) - Insufficient allocation 2.5 (1) - n 40 -

Table-43b: Suggestions to improve PBG system by area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Suggestions to improve the PBG system(Q707) Training of public representatives 7.5 (3) - Training of Officers 12.5 (5) - Further training to be provided 35.0 (14) - Field/area of development to be increased 2.5 (1) - Allocation to be increased 35.0 (14)) - Project directors should be more sincere 10.0 (4) - There should be separate unit for project implementation 7.5 (3) - Along with performance remoteness should also be 2.5 (1) considered for allocation -

513 There should be a facilitator at upazila level 7.5 (3) - Public representatives should have clear idea about SGD, 7.5 (3) MDG, Vision 2021, Vision 2041 - Close supervision and intensive monitoring to be 17.5 (7) - increased UP chairman should be informed policies of upazila fund 7.5 (3) - management so that PBG conditions are fulfilled n 40 -

Right to Information (RTI) ACT Table-44: Development plan of the Upazila Parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Officers appointed to provide information (Q801) Yes 87.5 (35) 62.5 (25) No 12.5 (5) 37.5 (15) n 40 40 Reasons for not appointing officers(Q802) Did not know, whether it was necessary to appoint 40.0 (2) 64.3 (9) Did not think necessary 60.0 (3) 21.4 (3) Was not instructed from local government division 20.0 (1) 14.3 (2) n 5 14 Any steps taken to implement right to information act (Q803) Yes 85.0 (34) 60.0 (24) No 15.0 (6) 40.0 (16) n 40 40 Type of steps taken(Q804) Appointed /designated officials for providing information 94.1 (32) 91.7 (22) Information about of the officers were sent to information 45.8 (11) 52.9 (18) commission within 15 days of his /her appointment Applicants receive information duly 35.3 (12) 45.8 (11) If any information cannot be provided applicants are 37.5 (9) 11.8 (4) informed within 10 days Through all officers - 4.2 (1) n 34 24 Number of applications received asking for information in last one year(Q805) None 64.9 (24) 76.3 (29) 1-3 13.5 (5) 13.2 (5) 4-6 5.4 (2) 2.6 (1) 7-9 8.1 (3) 2.6 (1) 10 or more 8.1 (3) 5.3 (2)

514 Characteristics Project area Control area Mean 16.8 12.1 Median 4.0 3.0 n 37 39 Number of applicants provided with the information applied for(Q806) 1-3 38.5 (5) 55.6 (5) 4-6 15.4 (2) 11.1 (1) 7-9 23.1 (3) 11.1 (1) 10 or more 23.1 (3) 22.2 (2) Mean 14.6 12.4 Median 5.0 3.0 n 13 9 Number of applicants informed within 10 days if not able to provide information(Q807) 1-3 - 66.7 (2) 4-6 - 33.3 (1) 10 or more 100.0 (1) - Mean 25.0 3.3 Median 25.0 3.0 n 1 3 Anybody complained for not getting desired information timely(Q808) Yes 7.5 (3) 7.5 (3) No 92.5 (37) 92.5 (37) n 40 40 Number of persons complained(Q809) 0 33.3 (1) 100.0 (2) 1 33.3 (1) - 3 33.3 (1) - n 3 2 Implemented annual report of RTI(Q810) Yes 32.5 (13) 32.5 (13) No 67.5 (27) 67.5 (27) n 40 40 Upazila Parishad has its own website(Q811) Yes 95.0 (38) 100.0 (40) No 5.0 (2) - n 40 40

515 Upazila Parishad Meetings Table-45: Meeting in Upazila Parishad by area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Mean number of meetings in financial year 2013-2016(Q901) General meetings Mean Median Mean Median Financial years 2013-2014 12.0 12.00 6.3 7.0 Financial years 2014-2015 12.0 12.00 6.4 7.0 Financial years 2015-2016 12.0 12.00 6.4 7.0 Coordination meetings Financial years 2013-2014 12.0 12.00 5.0 7.0 Financial years 2014-2015 12.0 12.00 4.9 7.0 Financial years 2015-2016 12.0 12.00 4.7 6.50 Emergency meetings Financial years 2013-2014 12.0 12.0 2.0 0.0 Financial years 2014-2015 12.0 12.0 2.1 1.00 Financial years 2015-2016 12.0 12.0 2.4 1.00 n 40 40 Were the meeting minutes of Upazila Parishad prepared(Q902) Yes 100.00 (40) 87.5 (35) No - 12.5 (5) n 40 40 Reasons for meeting minutes was not prepared (Q903) Did not know the matter of preparing the - #3 working paper Did not know how to prepare the working - #4 paper n 0 5 Meeting's agenda was prepared (Q904) Yes 100.0 (40) 85.0 (34) No - 15.0 (6) n 40 40 Reasons for meeting’s agenda was not prepared (Q905) Did not know the matter of preparing the - #3 working paper Did not know how to prepare the working - #4 paper n 0 6 Convener of Upazila parishad meeting (Q906) Chairman 32.5 (13) 20.0 (8) UNO 67.5 (27) 80.0 (32) n 40 40 Participants in Upazila Parishad Meetinga(Q907) Officers of 17 line departments 74.4 (29) 76.3 (29) Upazila Chairman and Upazila Vice 59.0 (23) 76.3 (29)

516 Characteristics Project area Control area Chairman UNO 43.6 (17) 60.5 (23) UP Chairman 38.5 (15) 39.5 (15) Civil society 15.4 (6) 7.9 (3) Parliament member (MP) 12.8 (5) 2.6 (1) Reserved woman member 7.7 (3) - Paurashava Mayor 5.1 (2) 5.3 (2) Members of different standing committees - 2.6 (1) n 39 38 Number of days prior to the meeting’s notice was provided (Q908) 0-6 2.6 (1) 5.0 (2) 7 84.6 (33) 87.5 (35) 8-10 12.8 (5) 7.5 (3) Mean 7.46 6.93 Median 7.00 7.00 n 39 40 Is there opportunity for equal voice for all the participants of the meeting (Q909) Yes 100.0 (40) 82.5 (33) No - 17.5 (7) Member of Parliament (MP) attend the meeting (Q910) Regular 7.5 (3) 2.5 (1) Irregular 85.0 (34) 72.5 (29) No 7.5 (3) 25.0 (10) Any training provided to the member of Upazila Parishad on how to conduct the meeting (Q911) Yes 90.0 (36) 67.5 (27) No 10.0 (4) 32.5 (13) n 40 40

Table-46: Information on Meeting held in last financial year (2015-2016) in Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q912) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of women attended None 2.5 (1) 30.0 (12) 1 40.0 (16) 22.5 (9) 2 12.5 (5) 12.5 (5) 3 7.5 (3) 17.5 (7) 4 20.0 (8) 10.0 (4) 5 17.5 (7) 7.5 (3) n 40 40 Position of women in the Upazila Parishad Upazila Vice-Chairman/Upazila Woman Vice Chairman 33.3 (34) 36.6 (26) Members of upazila parishad 8.8 (9) 1.4 (1)

517 Characteristics Project area Control area Woman and Child Affairs Officer 14.7 (15) 18.3 (13) Reserved Woman Member 24.5 (25) 26.8 (19) Youth Development Officer 2.0 (2) - Ex UP member/Current UP member 2.9 (3) 4.2 (3) PIO of Rural Development - 1.4 (1) Education Officer 7.8 (8) 5.6 (4) Woman and child development officer 1.0 (1) 1.4 (1) Fishery Officer/Agricultural Officer 2.9 (3) 4.2 (3) Ansar and VDP Officer 1.0 (1) - Upazila Nirbahi Officer 1.0 (1) - n 102 71 Number of attended meeting during last one year Mean 10.9 10.6 Median 12.0 12.0 n 102 71 Given spontaneous opinion in the meeting Yes 100.0(102) 71.8 (51) No - 28.2 (20) n 102 71 Number of issues raised in the last meeting Mean 3.2 0.9 Median 2.0 0.0 n 98 71 Number of discussed issues Mean 3.2 1.6 Median 2.0 2.0 n 82 35 Number of included issues in meeting agenda Mean 3.0 1.6 Median 2.0 2.0 n 55 35 Meeting regulations distributed to you after the meeting Yes 100.0 (40) 70.0 (28) No - 30.0 (12) n 40 40 Number of days to receive the copy of meeting resolutions 1-3 22.5 (9) 21.4 (6) 4-6 - 3.6 (1) 7-9 37.5 (15) 35.7 (10) 10 or more 40.0 (16) 39.3 (11) n 40 28

518 Gender Balance Table-47: Gender balance in the Upazila Parishad by area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Percentage of budgetary allocation for women and children in fiscal year 2014-16(Q1001) Mean Median Mean Median Financial years 2014-2015 3.1038 3.0000 1.5958 1.4600 Financial years 2015-2016 3.7025 3.0000 2.0278 2.1450 n 40 40 Election held to reserved seat for women for upazila parishad(Q1002) Yes 95.0 (38) 92.5 (37) No 5.0 (2) 7.5 (3) n 40 40 Reasons for no election to reserved seat for women for UZ Parishad(Q1003) Election of Reserved Woman Member was postponed as the election date with that 50.0 (1) 100.0 (2) Paurashava election Complexity of cases 50.0 (1) - n 2 2 Upazila Woman Development Forum registered at district level(Q1004) Yes 87.5 (35) 52.5 (21) No 12.5 (5) 47.5 (19) n 40 40 Number of Woman Development Forums registered at district level (Q1005) 1-2 65.4 (17) 100.0 (18) 3 or more 34.6 (9) - Mean 4.5 1.1 Median 1.0 1.0 n 26 18

Table-48: Training of women vice chairman of Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q1006) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of training female vice chairmen received 1 -2 63.9 (78) 76.5 (52) 3 or more 36.1 (44) 23.5 (16) n 122 68 Focus of female vice chair’s training Standing Committee 17.3 (21) 32.4 (22) Financial and office Management 18.0 (22) 14.7 (10) Upazila Manual of Local Government Department 17.2 (21) 23.5 (16) Gender related 3.3 (4) 1.5 (1)

519 Characteristics Project area Control area Child marriage 3.3 (4) 2.9 (2) Budget and planning 18.9 (23) 11.8 (8) Women Development Forum Activities 15.6 (19) 13.2 (9) SDG 1.6 (2) - Dowry 2.5 (3) - Sexual harassment/Woman oppression 1.6 (2) - Health Education 0.8 (2) - n 122 77 Number of days of training Mean 3.66 4.15 Median 3.00 3.00 n 122 68 Venues of training NILG 65.6 (80) 58.8 (40) BIM 17.2 (21) 25.0 (17) NAPD 1.6 (2) - DC office 5.7 (7) 2.9 (2) NGO 6.6 (8) 11.8 (8) Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and 2.5 (3) Cooperatives - Dhaka Project Office 0.8 (1) 1.5 (1) n 122 77 Resource persons Trainers NILG 26.2 (32) 30.9 (21) Officers of DC Office/District Level Officers 3.3 (4) 1.5 (1) DDLG/Secretary, Local Govermnet Division 28.7 (35) 8.8 (6) UZGP official/Program Officer of Head Office 2.5 (3) 5.3 (2) DF - 1.5 (1) No information 39.3 (48) 52.9 (68) n 122 38

Table-49: Training of executive committee of women development forum of Upazila Parishad by type of area (#)(Q1008) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of female received training 1 60.0 (30) 43.2 (19) 2 22.0 (11) 22.7 (10) 3 10.0 (5) 15.9 (7) 4 8.0 (4) 11.4 (5) 5 - 6.8 (3) n 50 44 Subject of training Woman emplowerment/Woman Development Forum 50.0 (25) 13.6 (6) Sexual harrassment/Woman oppression 12.0 (6) 25.0 (11)

520 Child marriage 10.0 (5) 15.9 (7) Dowry 10.0 (5) 15.9 (7) Leating to laws and regulattions 10.0 (5) 4.5 (2) Training on sewing machine 2.0 (1) 4.5 (2) Gender related 2.0 (1) 4.5 (2) Strengthening of Committee Activities 2.0 (1) 6.8 (3) Eve-teasing 2.0 (1) 6.8 (3) Primary health care service - 2.3 (1) n 50 44 Number of days of training Mean 3.20 3.16 Median 3.00 3.00 n 50 44 Venues of training DC Office 59.2 (29) 72.7 (32) NILG 26.5 (13) 11.4 (5) Upazila Parishad 10.2 (5) 15.9 (7) NAPD 4.1 (2) - n 49 44 Resource persons DDLG 55.6 (15) 76.9 (10) Woman Affairs Officer, Dhaka 11.1 (3) 15.4 (2) District Woman Affairs Officer 33.3 (9) 7.7 (1) n 27 13

Table-50: Meeting of executive body of Woman Development forums of Upazila Parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Number of monthly meeting of executive body of Woman Development Forums (2015- 2016)(Q1009) Mean 8.74 4.92 Median 6.00 6.00 n 38 36 Laws related to UZP members of WDFs know about(Q1010) Upazila Parisad Act 2009 91.4 (32) 81.5 (22) Upazila Parisad Act 2011 amendment 62.9 (22) 59.3 (16) Upazila Parisad Manual 91.4 (32) 85.2 (23) Upazila Parisad budget Act 2010 74.3 (26) 59.3 (16) Upazila Parisad Revenue utilization rule 2014 48.6 (17) 55.6 (15) n 35 27 Members of WFDs participate in UZP budget preparation(Q1011) Yes 87.5 (35) 65.0 (26) No 12.5 (5) 35.0 (14) n 40 40

521 Characteristics Project area Control area Reasons for not participating in UZP budget preparation(Q1012) Not aware 100.0 (3) 45.5 (5) Lack of efficiency - 45.5 (5) They are not called - 18.2 (2) n 3 11 Number of development projects proposed by the members of WDF(Q1013) Mean 4.74 2.03 Median 3.00 1.00 n 39 39 Number of development projects implemented by the members of WDF(Q1014) Mean 2.34 1.26 Median 2.00 1.00 n 38 39

Table-51: Awareness raising program of Women Development Forum of Upazila Parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Members of WDFs participate in awareness raising program on women and children(Q1015) Yes 97.5 (39) 77.5 (31) No 2.5 (1) 22.5 (9) n 40 40 Types of awareness raising program on women and children(Q1016) Child marriage prevention 64.7 (22) 68.0 (17) Eve-teasing and Sexual harassment prevention 29.4 (10) 28.0 (7) Courtyard meeting 23.5 (8) 24.0 (6) Arbitration of case on woman oppression 2.9 (1) 24.0 (6) Dowry prevention 17.6 (6) 36.0 (9) Addiction prevention 2.9 (1) 12.0 (3) Woman and child oppression prevention 26.5 (9) 24.0 (6) Social Awareness raising program on woman development 11.8 (4) 12.0 (3) Observation of different days and rally’s such as: Begum Rokeya day; Woman day; Rally on stopping child labour; 26.5 (9) 16.0 (4) Human r Mothers gathering at Marichakandi DT Complex 5.9 (2) 4.0 (1) Distribution of school bags 2.9 (1) 4.0 (1) Training - 4.0 (1) Improvement of woman education 2.9 (1) 8.0 (2) n 34 25

522 Table-52: Fields of impact and problem faced by Women Development Forum of Upazila Parishad by type of area (#) Characteristics Project area Control area Fields on women development in locality where WFDs have impacts(Q1017) Early marriage 100.0 (39) 97.1 (33) Sexual harassment 84.6 (33) 85.3 (29) Domestic violence to women and children 79.5 (31) 82.4 (28) Eve Teasing 76.9 (30) 88.2 (30) Dowry 71.8 (28) 94.1 (32) Anti-drug 30.8 (12) 55.9 (19) Equitable wage for women 20.5 (8) 41.2 (14) Women trafficking 10.3 (4) 14.7 (5) addiction prevention - 2.9 (1) Observation of different days 2.6 (1) - Training on self-employment - 2.9 (1) Resolving family quarrel 2.6 (1) - n 39 34 Problem faced by women development forum(Q1018) Lack of logistics 51.7 (15) 52.2 (12) Resistance from community 34.5 (10) 26.1 (6) Family resistance 27.6 (8) 21.7 (5) Superstitions 27.6 (8) 21.7 (5) Social customs 24.1 (7) 4.3 (1) Resistance from local elites 20.7 (6) 30.4 (7) Financial/budget 10.3 (3) - Problem of lack of Administration personnel 6.9 (2) - Rituals 3.4 (1) 4.3 (1) Women obstructs 3.4 (1) 4.3 (1) Faced no problem - 8.7 (2) n 29 23

523