Implementing the Local Governance Barometer in South Sudan

October 2013

RUBKONA COUNTY, UNITY STATE AND RUMBEK CENTRAL COUNTY, LAKES STATE

October 2013

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 2 Acknowledgements ...... 3 Figures and Tables ...... 4 List of Acronyms ...... 4 Executive Summary ...... 5 Introduction and Background ...... 5 Design and Implementation ...... 5 LGB Findings ...... 6 Rubkona County ...... 7 Rumbek Central County ...... 7 Action Areas...... 8 1. Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Context ...... 9 1.2 Project Background ...... 10 2. The Local Governance Barometer ...... 11 2.1 Overview of Good Governance ...... 11 2.2 LGB Background ...... 11 2.3 Methodology ...... 13 2.4 Limitations ...... 14 3. Rubkona County - The Specific Model ...... 16 4. Rubkona County - Results ...... 19 4.1 Overall LGB Score ...... 19 4.2 Effectiveness Criteria ...... 19 4.3 Rule of Law Criteria ...... 21 4.4 Accountability Criteria ...... 23 4.5 Participation and Citizen Engagement Criteria ...... 24 4.6 Equity Criteria ...... 26 5. Rubkona County – Action Areas ...... 28 6. Rumbek Central County – Specific Model ...... 29 7. Rumbek Central County – Results ...... 33 7.1 Overall LGB Score ...... 33 7.2 Effectiveness Criteria ...... 33 7.3 Rule of Law Criteria ...... 35 7.4 Accountability Criteria ...... 37 7.5 Participation and Citizen Engagement Criteria ...... 39 7.5 Equity Criteria ...... 41 7. Rumbek Central County – Action Areas ...... 43 8. Recommendations and Conclusion ...... 44 9. Appendix – Specific Models with Consensus Scores by Focus Groups ...... 45

Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the people of Rubkona County and Rumbek Central County for actively participating in the LGB workshops. This includes the dedicated government leaders, civil society organizations, citizens, and partners that gave their time and energy to making the process successful. Without their active participation, this report would not have been possible. We also gratefully acknowledge the Pact South Sudan peace, monitoring and evaluation, and capacity development teams as well Pact’s devoted staff and partners in Bentiu and Rumbek for leading, supporting, and organizing the LGB workshops, meetings, and logistics.

Figures and Tables Figure 1: Consolidated Scores for Two Counties by Main Criteria………………………………………………………6 Figure 2: Scale of Results.………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………6 Figure 3: South Sudan Map with Unity State and Lakes State highlighted………………………………………..10 Figure 4: Rubkona County – Overall LGB Score …………………………………………………..…………………….19 Figure 5: Rubkona County – Criteria: Effectiveness……………………………………………………….……………..20 Figure 6: Rubkona County – Criteria: Rule of Law……………………………………………………………………….22 Figure 7: Rubkona County – Criteria: Accountability…………………………………………………………….…....23 Figure 8: Rubkona County – Criteria: Participation and Citizen Engagement………………………………….25 Figure 9: Rubkona County – Criteria: Equity……………………….……………………………………………...... 26 Figure 10: Rumbek Central County – Overall LGB Score………………………………………………………………..33 Figure 11: Rumbek Central County – Criteria: Effectiveness ……….…………………………………………..……..34 Figure 12: Rumbek Central County – Criteria: Rule of Law……….………………………………………………..….36 Figure 13: Rumbek Central County – Criteria: Accountability………………………….………………………..…...38 Figure 14: Rumbek Central County – Criteria: Participation and Citizen Engagement…………………...40 Figure 15: Rumbek Central County – Criteria: Equity………..……………………………………………..……….40

Table 1: LGB Criteria and Sub-Criteria……………………………………………………………………………………….…12 Table 2: Rubkona County – The Specific Model………………………………………………………………………….…16 Table 3: Rumbek Central County – The Specific Model……………………………………………………………….…29 Table 4: Rubkona County – Specific Model with Consensus Scores by Focus Groups……………………….44 Table 5: Rumbek Central County – Specific Model with Consensus Scores by Focus Groups…………..…50

List of Acronyms CDF Constituency Development Funds CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement CSO Civil Society Organization DANIDA Denmark’s development cooperation under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark ECB Enabling Conditions Barometer EPS Enhancing Peace and Security in South Sudan program LG Local Government LG1 Rumbek Central Local Government Focus Group 1 LG2 Rumbek Central Local Government Focus Group 2 LGA Local Government Act of 2009 LGB Local Governance Barometer MoLG Ministry of Local Government NGO Non-Governmental Organization RC Rubkona County RCC Rumbek Central County SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SSACC South Sudan Anti-Corruption Commission SSDP South Sudan Development Plan 2011-2013 TL Traditional Leaders

Executive Summary

Introduction and Background Two years since independence, South Sudan continues to work to strengthen their national and local government processes and systems. They are not lacking in challenges: political infighting, tribe and clan conflicts, a high poverty rate, a lack of government physical and operational institutions, and disputes over land and natural resources.

The establishment of good governance is a way to fight against these challenges. To ensure better management of the process of its implementation, it is essential to have a tool to measure the current situation within a given context. The Local Governance Barometer (LGB) is one such tool for measuring the status of governance and was implemented in two separate localities in South Sudan in August 2013: Rubkona County, Unity State and Rumbek Central County, Lakes State. Both were deemed good locations to conduct an assessment of local governance as they are the seat of government for each state, have populations of approximately 100,000, and are the economic base for their states.

Unity State and Lakes State are also locations where the Enhancing Peace and Security in South Sudan (EPS), program is implemented. EPS is an ongoing, three-year program funded by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency aimed at contributing to on-going efforts to address persistent conflict and barriers to establishing peace and security in the major conflict cluster areas located in Jonglei, Upper Nile, Lakes, Warrap and Unity States.

The EPS program has four main project components: people to people peacebuilding, community-led dispute resolution, civic engagement and participation, and civil society strengthening. The third component provided a basis for conducting the assessment and states:

Civic Engagement and Participation: promote accountability in society by developing and implementing strategies to support civil society to access decision-making processes at a local and national level, and to advocate effectively for change.

Design and Implementation The LGB is a holistic governance tool that allows a project team and stakeholders to generate a collective opinion about the state of governance in a certain locality. It is also used to monitor and measure changes over time in the chosen locality. The LGB process collects perception data from concerned citizens, institutions and local authorities at baseline, midline and endline levels which in the long-run forms a knowledge base based on observation from different constituencies.

The LGB was first created in 2005 by a consortium of partners including Impact Alliance, Pact, and SNV in South Africa and has been implemented in more than ten countries. Pact South Sudan implemented the Enabling Conditions Barometer (ECB), similar to the LGB but focused on conflict and markers for peace in the Three Areas (Abyei, South Kordofan, & Blue Nile) in 2010. The LGB translates the major criteria of good governance, including effectiveness and efficiency, transparency and rule of law, accountability, participation and equity into locally relevant and easy to understand indicators. Under these main criteria, sector and local specific criteria are developed through a participatory design

5 process with local stakeholders and are based on locally defined indicators and locally collected and analyzed data.

The adaptation of the tool in South Sudan involved two separate design workshops for key stakeholders from Rubkona County and Rumbek Central County. The workshop for Rumbek was held in Juba from July 24-25, 2013 while the workshop for Rubkona was held in Bentiu from August 1-2, 2013.

During the two day design process, stakeholders in both locations were introduced to the five main criteria (effectiveness, rule of law, accountability, participation and equity) and 25 sub-criteria. Stakeholders for both localities included: local government, CSOs, women, youth, and traditional leaders. They validated the use of these criteria and sub-criteria and then identified 85-88 indicators for these criteria. The final step on the second day was a validation of all indicators by the local stakeholders. The first focus group sessions, which become the baseline for the two surveys, were conducted in August 2013. 52 participants in Rubkona County and 56 in Rumbek Central County participated in the process.

However participatory the LGB is, it is burdened by limitations like any other study and raises concerns such as generalization and representativeness. First and foremost, the selection process is not inclusive in that the principle of randomization of respondents is not applied. Selection of workshop participants is purposively done pegged on access and availability. This compromises representation and external validity as well as ability to generalize to other groups who never attended the workshops. The scoring however standardized depends on one’s perception, interpretation and experience with events that defines the status of each of the areas. This raises questions of reliability which further affects internal validity. This makes it difficult to compare results across and between groups as well as areas.

LGB Findings The LGB assessed the governance situation through the index value of good governance. This value varies between 0 and 100. 0 describes the lack of good governance while 100 describes a very favorable situation in terms of governance. A detailed scoring range for each question was developed by the stakeholders with the most common range being 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100.

Although the assessments conducted in Rubkona County and Rumbek Central County involved different questions, participants and should be interpreted separately, there overall consolidated scores were the same at 38/100. This represents a fairly poor level of governance and is the aggregate of the five main criteria for each county below.

Figure 1: Consolidated Scores for Two Counties by Main Criteria Figure 2 Rubkona Rumbek Scale of Main Criteria County Central County Results LGB 38 38 100 Perfect Effectiveness 35 49 80 Good Rule of Law 42 39 60 Fairly Good Accountability 33 17 40 Fairly Poor Participation 35 38 20 Poor 0 No Equity 45 48 Governance

Rubkona County The score obtained for the criteria effectiveness was 35/100. Some planning documents exist, but these plans were deemed not operational for the most part. There is a lack of sound financial management in the county and there is the perception that local government lacks the means and training to effectively manage finances, service delivery, and regular decision making processes. Citizens satisfaction with public service delivery was the lowest scoring sub-criteria with examples mentioned including a lack of health and agriculture services, clean markets and streets, and operational water points. Participants stated that the government never conducted assessments to determine their level of satisfaction. Leadership and decision-making based on reliable information were also low-scoring sub-criteria in this category.

The second criteria rule of law had a score of 42/100. This reflects the existence of a limited legal framework, with traditional courts playing an important role in local judgments or filling in where conventional courts are absent. Participants reported that there was very little harmony between local customary and conventional law. Participants reported partial awareness of local laws and that laws were sometimes enforced and responsive to citizens’ needs. The level of corruption in the county was perceived as high with bribes being fairly common and without local government systems such as a functional anti-corruption commission to deter, investigate and respond to charges.

The accountability criteria had a score of 33/100, which was the lowest score among the five criteria used to measure the state of governance. We recorded very low score in the control and balance of public power. This kind of mechanism is almost nonexistent in the administration of public power in the county. There is also the lack of mechanisms for citizens to access budget or other basic information about county or state government. There are no County Councils in Unity State, the governance body which in theory most closely the populace and supports civil society-local government engagement.

The fourth criteria participation had a score of 35/100. This is explained by a low level of citizen engagement in the county. Citizens are not involved in the design, implementation, monitoring, or evaluation of local projects, planning processes, or the allocation of county resources. Citizens were perceived to have some ability to exercise freedom of speech, particularly around local elections, although there is no local media including public radio or newspaper. Conflict resolution including clan fighting, cattle raiding, and land disputes also does not involve local associations.

The equity criterion has a score of 45/100. This reflects moderate access of citizens to basic services. Regardless of gender or social class, there is a perception that most residents have access to school or health facilities. It was noted that girls have access to primary schools, but because of location, social norms, and family livelihood issues, they often are not able to attend secondary school. There is also little opportunity for women to gain power; few are employed in local government with less to none in senior positions.

Rumbek Central County The score for the Lakes State county in the criteria effectiveness was 49/100. The existence of policies and county strategic plans, financial management systems, and a fair amount of capacity amongst local government staff and officials explains the moderate score in the realm of public administration. However, there is a lack of checks and balances in terms of monitoring county budgeting, spending, and service delivery. The overall scores for community satisfaction with local government service provision were low and participants perceived that the positive change over the last two years within the county had been moderate.

The criteria rule of law had a score of 39/100. Despite the existence of a legal framework, its efficiency is still low and similar to Rubkona County; there is no functional County Council. Participants felt that there was little citizen awareness of the legal system and there were no mechanisms in place to educate residents about their legal rights. The relevance of the legal system was also scored low. The impact of corruption in the county was evident by the high scores in this sub-criteria with participants stating that bribes to law enforcement were common with citizens having a corresponding high level of tolerance for corruption.

The third criteria, accountability, had a score of 17/100 and represented the lowest criteria and sub- criteria scores for Rumbek Central County. Citizens have some access to information, although local government planning and project documents are not regularly shared with the community and the public radio station is often censored or prevented from reporting on local government. Participants ranked checks and balances at the local level non-existent with no County Council in place to monitor the public authority. Also, the influence of political and tribal/clan affiliation on local government decision making is very high.

The score for the criteria participation was 38/100. In general, county residents feel they are consulted sometimes, but not regularly on the design, implementation and monitoring of government activities. By contrast, it was noted that despite the small number of citizens who participate in activities, their involvement is very strong. Participation in local elections is high, but the perception is that freedom of speech outside of elections is tenuous based on local security issues and strong government leadership. Some CSOs have worked with the county in the last two years, but they want the number of partnerships to increase and for civil society-local government engagement to improve.

The equity criteria received a score of 48/100. There is a moderate level of access for women and minority groups to basic services, power, and livelihoods, but it is not equitable. Specifically, women and vulnerable groups do not have equal access to the ownership of land, access to markets, social services, and education nor are the disabled, extreme poor, elderly and other marginalized groups represented in local government.

Action Areas Following these results, actions areas for improving governance within each county can be developed. It is recommended that Rubkona County and Rumbek Central County focus on the following four well- defined areas: . Civic awareness of local laws, rights, and decision making processes through advocacy initiatives led by local CSO partners and institutions. . Strengthening citizen-county government engagement through the development of public forums and the adoption of feedback mechanisms (hotlines, public information boards) . Supporting anti-corruption initiatives that focus on promoting transparency, strengthening the local anti-corruption commission to be responsive, and reducing impunity. . Strengthening and improving service delivery through targeting of a few specific intervention areas to support the economic and social development of the county.

1. Introduction

1.1 Context In the past two years since it achieved independence, South Sudan has established key institutions of the executive, judiciary and legislative, which are increasingly starting to perform their core functions. Basic legal frameworks for public services and private sector development are being put in place, but implementation performance varies, as capacity for public administration is still being strengthened, particularly at sub-national levels.

Due to the legacy of conflict and neglect, economic and political development and the strengthening of local government, South Sudan has started from a low performance base. In the absence of basic infrastructure and limited delivery capacity, many citizens remain cut off from access to social services. Many health, education and food security indicators remain close to crisis levels. Government capacity to deliver services only begins to form, and has been limited by fiscal austerity following several temporary shutdowns of oil production.

Good governance is key to the achievement of development objectives and targets established by the Government in the South Sudan Development Plan (SSDP) 2011-2013 and other documents. The Local Government Act of 2009, created by the Government of South Sudan’s (GoSS) Local Government Board is the primary document that provides a framework for the establishment and function of local governments. The other, the SSDP, has four pillars that outline the development objectives for the country: good governance, increased prosperity, enhanced quality of life, and safety and security. Good governance also lies at the heart of all pillars. The GoSS states that the objective of the governance pillar is “to build a democratic, transparent, and accountable government, managed by a professional and committed public service, with an effective balance of power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.”

Good governance under the SSDP is comprised of five sector objectives.

. Ensure a strong public administration through the enactment of just and effective laws and the development of responsive and inclusive policies, based on transparent processes and credible information and knowledge; . Enhance the systems, structures and mechanisms of coordination at (and between) all levels of government to promote professional, ethical and efficient service delivery to all the people; . Strengthen and sustain the capacity of oversight institutions to enhance accountable and transparent public administration through effective monitoring, evaluation and verification. . Ensure accountability, transparency and zero tolerance for corruption at all levels of government in the service of the people of South Sudan; . Ensure evidence-based decisions on mobilization, equitable allocation and efficient management of resources; and timely public access to information on the availability and use of resources.

These objectives of good governance in South Sudan has been shaped by the imperatives of the struggle for liberation, the history of war and the vision of justice, equality, and progress. As the basic principle dictated by the Government in the management of state affairs, it is essential to have a tool measuring the level of good governance in a particular location at a given time. The Local Governance Barometer serves as a gauge to reveal the strengths and areas for improvement of government.

1.2 Project Background Under the Enhancing Peace and Security (EPS) Program, Pact South Sudan is supporting peace, conflict mitigation, citizen participation and engagement, and civil society strengthening in five states throughout the country. The program has four main project components: people to people peacebuilding, community-led dispute resolution, civic engagement and participation, and civil society strengthening. Objective 3 of EPS, focused on civic engagement and participation, specifically proposes to:

“promote accountability in society by developing and implementing strategies to support civil society to access decision-making processes at a local and national level, and to advocate effectively for change.”

To assess this objective, Pact in collaboration with stakeholders in Rubkona County and Rumbek Central County implemented the LGB to determine the level of good governance in Unity State and Lakes State. The assessment also provides a baseline and as Pact staff and several local partner organizations have been trained on how to facilitate the LGB, they can lead the expansion of the LGB in other states and the midline and endline assessments in the two counties.

Figure 3: South Sudan with Unity State and Lakes State highlighted.

2. The Local Governance Barometer

2.1 Overview of Good Governance Governance is the way in which a public authority exercises its power to fulfill its role as a service provider, maintaining the rule of law, to protect citizens and to ensure economic and social development of its people rights. However, good governance involves not only the public sector, but civil society and the private sector are also responsible for ensuring that local government is accountable, transparent, participatory, and effective in meeting the needs of citizens and supporting them to improve their lives.

Good governance has specific principal characteristics. It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and has a robust rule of law. Good governance assures that corruption is minimized, that the views of minorities are taken into account, and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making.

Historically, government in Sudan has been perceived to be authoritarian, unjust, non-inclusive, and non-accountable and, therefore, a driver of the conflict between the North and South. The war was fought on the ideals of political inclusion and equitable service delivery.

Good governance in South Sudan reduces the potential for corruption and enables the allocation of public resources to respond to priority needs (security, health, education and food security). Effective and credible governance also facilitates an environment for macroeconomic stability, enabling economic activity to flourish. This promotes income generation opportunities for the South Sudanese population and ultimately enhances social stability, life expectancy, literacy and food security. All the above are paramount for the development of a country emerging from over 50 years of civil war.

2.2 LGB Background The LGB is a tool for measuring the status of participatory governance. It can be defined as an organized set of criteria, sub-criteria and data. The LGB provides quantitative information to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the governance situation. It allows stakeholders to identify the improvements needed to develop an action plan for reinforcements.

The LGB is strong on the "capitalization of knowledge." Its methodology allows it to be flexible to different and complex situations, including those in conflict areas and locations where there is a lack of resources and data. The model essentially consists of indicators and two types of models constitute the LGB: a global model and a specific model. The global model includes five standard criteria and twenty- five sub criteria that are generally recognized as important to monitor and measure the achievement of good governance (See Figure 1). The global model is also sometimes called the core or universal model. The specific model stems from the global model and consists of indicators or questions specific to the local context that are designed and scored by local stakeholders. Consensus on individual indicators by all stakeholders in a plenary session is imperative for the assessment to be seen as valid within the particular locality. Once consensus is reached on each indicator, their values can be aggregated under the appropriate sub-criteria, giving an overall score for each sub-criteria, and those sub-criteria scores can then be aggregated together, giving an overall score for each of the criteria.

The LGB is adaptable to different Effectiveness Rule of Law context and can be adjusted by 1. Clear vision and strategic operational 6. Existence of institutional legal stakeholders to meet their specific plans framework needs. It can also compare the level 2. Good management of financial 7. Effectiveness of institutional legal of good governance between two resources framework periods of time if an assessment 3. Relevant decision-making processes based on reliable information 8. Application of laws has already been completed or 4. Satisfaction towards services 9. Awareness of laws between two different locations if 5. Leadership 10. Responsiveness of laws each location uses the same 11. Citizen's access to justice indicators. In the case of Rubkona 12. Incidence of corruption County and Rumbek Central Participation and Citizen Accountability County, direct comparisons are Engagement difficult to make as slightly 13. Transparency 18. Institutional framework different indicators were used for 14. Checks and balances 19. Citizen engagement each location, but larger trends 15. Recourse 20. Civic engagement between the two counties are 16. Government's responsiveness 17. Integrity noticeable and will be discussed in Equity this report. 21. Legal framework recognizing rights of all citizens 22. Equal opportunity to basic services The LGB models main criteria are: 23. Equal opportunity to power . Effectiveness 24. Equal opportunity to resources . Rule of Law 25. Equal opportunity to livelihoods

. Accountability Table 1: LGB Criteria and Sub-Criteria . Participation . Equity

. Effectiveness: the extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results obtained.

The effectiveness of local government can be assessed by: - The existence of a clear vision and a strategic and operational plan to achieve a vision; - The implementation of an action plan; - The proper management of financial resources; - Decision-making based on reliable and timely information; - The satisfaction of citizens vis-à-vis the quality and accessibility of service delivery; - Leadership

. Rule of Law: the terms of reference of the social contract whereby citizens live together and are governed by the public authority. Rule of law prevails when terms of the social contract are respected by citizens and the authority of the State where such terms are applied either through voluntary cooperation or legal procedures and institutions, and when violations of the terms of the contract are punished.

This component includes: - Whether or not a relevant legal framework exists; - The degree of compliance with laws and conventions; - The effectiveness and application of laws and legal institutions; - Access to justice; - The impact of corruption.

. Accountability: is a required condition for good governance. Not only government institutions but also the private sector and civil society must be accountable to the public and institutional partners. Who is accountable to whom varies depending on whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organization or an institution.

Accountability can be measured through the following sub-criteria: - Transparency: the accessibility and availability of information about the services, planning and use of resources and results obtained; - Checks and balances: the presences of an institution which has control, supervision, and the ability to sanction the public authority; - Recourse: the means for citizens to make complaints or file grievances with local government; - The responsiveness of government; - And integrity.

. Participation: the principle of participation stems from the recognition that people are at the heart of development. They are not only the beneficiaries of development, but they are also local agents of change.

Participation can be seen through: - The existence of an appropriate institutional framework; - The level of citizen engagement; - And citizenship.

. Equity: the quality of being fair or impartial to everyone. In governance, this implies that the public authority should work to make government institutions, policies, and services equitable for all citizens, not favoring one group in society over another.

Depending on the area to be assessed, it is often focused on the inequalities between men and women. Therefore if women's rights are not fully respected, this is an obstacle to achieving good governance.

The criteria Equity can be measured by: - The existence of a charter or a legal framework recognizing the rights of all citizens; - Equal opportunity to basic services; - Equal opportunity to power; - Equal opportunity to resources; - Equal opportunity to livelihoods.

2.3 Methodology Local governance is about how people make decisions to determine how they live and work together in a community or a group of communities. It involves local stakeholders interacting to determine the local development agenda and to manage resources for implementing development priorities. The LGB subscribes to the same notion: that governance works only when it is owned and driven by those whom it is meant to benefit.

The LGB embraces this concept by involving a cross-section of actors: local government, private sector, civil society organizations, and others - in a participatory process to generate a model of good governance through which the local government in question is assessed by the same group of stakeholders. Rather than a top down, expert driven checklist, the LGB process promotes dialogue, shared learning, ownership of the results, and collaboration in addressing shortcomings. In this way,

13 the LGB process simultaneously builds and measures local government capacity while also promoting consensus around alternative interventions.

The implementation of the LGB is a four step process and includes the following phases: understanding the context, designing the specific model, data collection, and data analysis and action planning. These phases as conducted in Unity and Lakes States are described below.

Phase I: Understanding the Context For the two counties, this phase consisted of: . Identifying issues related to governance within each county; . Familiarization with the cultural, political, and social context in South Sudan and specifically in the two states where the assessment was to be implemented. . Identifying expectations of the authorities; . Evaluation of other existing tools and lessons learned from the LGB and ECB in other locations. . Sharing information and more detailed knowledge concerning the LGB/ECB tools to the team and discussing on how these tools can be adapted to fit the requirements.

These activities were carried out through meetings with local staff, stakeholders in the communities, and desk research.

Phase II: Designing the Specific Model After identifying issues and understanding the local context, the next step was to meet with stakeholders to design the specific model. A design workshop was held for Rumbek Central County in Juba from July 24-25 and for Rubkona County, was held in Bentiu August 1-2. Stakeholders representing local government and civil society in each respective county participated in both design workshops. The specific model was validated at the end of each workshop.

Phase III: Data Collection The third phase was done through two day workshops in each state in order to (1) explain the process (steps already made and their results) and its rationale to local stakeholders, (2) to fill out the questionnaire by providing scores and (3) to discuss main issues around the local governance situation in accordance with the measured criteria and sub-criteria.

Phase IV: Data Analysis and Action Planning The main objectives of the last phase are to inform and validate the results of the LGB with stakeholders, analyze the main causes of the results, and develop an action plan in partnership with local partners and stakeholders to improve the situation through the support of local intervention activities.

2.4 Limitations The LGB was burdened by limitations like any other assessment. These include concerns such as generalization and representativeness. The selection process is not inclusive in that the principle of randomization of respondents is not applied. Selection of workshop participants is purposively done based on access and availability. This compromises representation and external validity as well as the ability to generalize to other groups who never attended the workshops. The scoring, however standardized, depends on one’s perception, interpretation and experience with events that defines the status of each of the areas. This raises questions of reliability which further affects internal validity. This makes it difficult to compare results across and between groups as well as areas.

Furthermore, most data gathered is qualitative through focus group and key informative interviews. The team found it difficult to attain some level of quantitative data from the government including the National Bureau of Statistics as it was not available or accessible. We were able to gather quantitative data from some locations, from websites and other reports, but our findings would have been strengthened with more robust quantitative data.

3. Rubkona County - The Specific Model

Table 2: Rubkona County – Specific Model. Core Question: What is the level of Good Governance in Rubkona County?

Core Criteria Criteria Consensu and Sub- Indicator and Sub- s Score Criteria Criteria Averages Criteria 1 Effectiveness 35 Sub-Criteria Vision and Plan: Does the public administration have a clear vision that translates 37.5 1.1 into strategic and operational plans to achieve development? 1 Is there a strategic development plan in Rubkona County? 50 2 To what extent does RC implement its strategic plan? 25 3 Are CSOs and communities involved in the development of the County Strategic Plan? 50 4 Is the RC Strategic Plan accessible for citizens and CSOs? 25 Are there annual plans for Rubkona County for various sectors like health, water and sanitation, 5 50 education, etc.? 6 To what extent is RC realizing its development programs/plans? 25 Sub-Criteria Financial Management: Is there effective and efficient management of public 39 1.2 financial resources? 7 Does RC use standard financial forms of accountability? 100 8 Does the RC use standard financial forms effectively and efficiently? 50 9 Is the county involved in preparing its annual budget to run its development needs? 25 10 Does RC have an independent budget to run the County’s development needs? 25 11 Does RC have the capacity to manage its finances efficiently? 25 Does local government leadership administer finances and local revenue collection efficiently 12 25 and effectively? 13 Does RC have a system of checks and balances in their financial procedures? 25 Sub-Criteria Decision and Info: Is the decision-making based on reliable and updated 45 1.3 information? To what extent does the authority of RC make decisions using reliable and up to date 14 50 information? 15 Is there a comprehensive reporting system in RC? 50 16 Does RC have a reliable and efficient land registry? 50 17 Is decision making based on the Local Government Act of 2009? 25 18 Are there mechanisms by which the local government shares information with its citizens? 50 Sub-Criteria Satisfaction towards services: What is the degree of citizens' satisfaction with the 25 1.4 quality of public service delivery and its accessibility? To what extent are the citizens of RC satisfied with the delivery of services by their local 19 25 government? How often does local government conduct assessments to determine the level of satisfaction 20 0 citizens have with the delivery of public services? Does the RC consult with local stakeholders on the allocation of public goods and services? 21 50 (roads, schools, etc.) 22 Is the Agriculture Department effective in the distribution of resources (e.g. seeds) 25 Sub-Criteria Leadership: Does the public authority have the ability to mobilize citizens for 30 1.5 change? 23 Does the RC authority mobilize their citizens for the county development process? 25 Is there cooperation between the communities, CSOs, and local government on development 24 50 efforts? 25 Does the local government engage youth in government decision making? 15 Criteria 2 Rule of Law: Does rule of law exist? 42 Sub-Criteria Existence of Institutional Legal Framework: Is there an adequate legal framework 50 25 2.1 in RC? (e.g. local orders) 26 Is there an established functional county council? 0 Sub-Criteria Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework: What is the level of effectiveness 50 2.2 of the institutional legal framework? 27 Is the institutional legal framework effective and efficient for RC citizens? 50

28 Are there measures in place to educate citizens about their legal rights? 25 29 Are citizens aware of the legal procedures when seeking justice? 25 Sub-Criteria 2.3 Application of Laws: Are laws and legal conventions enforced? 50 30 Does the RC judiciary enforce laws impartially? (judges, police, prisons) 75 Does RC leadership effectively execute and enforce local laws? (e.g. bar times, shisha smoking, 31 50 etc.) 32 To what extent is their harmony between customary laws and conventional laws? 25 Sub-Criteria 2.4 Awareness of Laws: Are the laws and legal conventions known by the population? 50 25 Does the local government raise awareness through public media (radio talk shows, newspapers) 33 25 about laws and the legal framework? Sub-Criteria 2.5 Responsiveness of Laws: Are laws responsive to citizens' needs? 42 34 Does the law address the needs of the citizens of Rubkona County? 25 35 Does the local government respond quickly to crimes in Rubkona County? 50 36 What is the level of citizen cooperation with local government around issues of security in RC? 50 Sub-Criteria 2.6 Citizens’ Access to Justice: Do citizens have access to justice? 42 37 Do citizens have equal access to justice in Rubkona County? 50 38 Are cases/disputes settled fairly and efficiently in conventional courts? 25 39 Are disputes/cases from customary courts referred to the judiciary? 50 Sub-Criteria 2.7 Incidence of Corruption: What is the degree of corruption? 58 40 What is the level of corruption in Rubkona County? 75 41 Are bribes usually paid by citizens to law enforcement agencies in Rubkona County? 50 42 Are there local government systems/mechanisms to prevent corruption in Rubkona County? 50 Criteria 3 Accountability: What is the degree of accountability of the public service? 33 Transparency: Is information related to public service delivery performance or Sub-Criteria 3.1 non performance, and resources planning and utilization (including bidding 0 25 processes) available and accessible? 43 Are citizens of RC aware of Constituency Development Funds (CDF) and their use? 25 44 Are Payam Administrators recruited openly and transparence in Rubkona County? 25 Is information from the RC around local projects, activities, or service provision (e.g. buildings, 45 50 schools, bore holes, etc. available and accessible)? Are local government project reports, planning documents, and other resources that are used for 46 0 future planning shared with citizens? 47 Is there transparency in tax collection/revenue in Rubkona County? 25 Sub-Criteria Checks and Balances: Is there an institution which has control, supervision, and 25 13 3.2 sanction power on the public authority? Are there open forums for CSOs to engage with county authorities on the county budgeting and 48 25 planning process? Is the County Council effective and efficient in terms of its authority over the public service 49 0 delivery? Does the RC authority audit its expenditures annually with others stakeholders (e.g CSOs, youth 50 0 groups, etc.)? Recourse: Do the public service, private sector, civil society, and citizens have Sub-Criteria 3.3 means for making complaints and for communicating them to the control 50 institutions? Does the private sectors, civil society and citizens have means for launching complaints to 51 50 county authorities? Are there mechanisms in place for Rubkona County government, regarding compensation of 52 50 displaced people by oil companies operating in the county? Sub-Criteria Government's Responsiveness: What is the level of RC local government's 38 3.4 responsiveness? Is the local government responsive to requests (i.e. letters and phones calls) from the 53 community regarding projects, developmental issues, and other activities in their respective 25 Payam's? 54 Does Rubkona County compensate citizens displaced by oil companies? 50 Sub-Criteria 3.5 Integrity: What is the level of integrity at the local level? 40 55 Is there an implemented action plan to fight corruption in Rubkona County? 50 56 Does local government react effectively to police or military crimes committed in the county? 25 57 Is unity state anti-corrupt commission office empowered to execute their power? 25

58 To what extent is RC leadership and civil servants influenced by political and/or clan affiliation ? 50 To what extent is the RC judiciary and civil servants influenced by political and/or clan 59 50 affiliation? Participation and Citizen Engagement: Is there effective participation (1) in the socio-economic and political life of the Criteria 4 sector/country/region/municipality/commune? (2) In the planning, 35 implementation, and monitoring process in any of the assessed development sectors? Sub-Criteria Institutional Framework: Is there an effective institutional framework for managing citizen 19 4.1 participation? 60 Does the RC have equal employment opportunities for citizens in public service? 50 61 Do CSOs participate in the development of local laws and policies? 0 62 Are citizens involved in the allocation and distribution of resources? (e.g. CDF) 0 63 Does LG engage youth in government decision making? 25 Sub-Criteria 4.2 Citizen Engagement: What is the level of citizen engagement? 38 64 Are citizens engaged in the constitutional development process in Rubkona County? 25 65 Do citizens participate in local government planning? (or county strategic planning meetings?) 25 Are there local community projects implemented with the participation of local actors/citizens 66 50 in RC? Are citizens able to exercise freedom of speech and assemble around local elections or local 67 50 governance issues? 68 Are citizens engaged in conflict mitigation in RC? (e.g. clan fighting, cattle raiding, land dispute) 25 69 Are citizens engaged in terms of holding the public and private sector accountable? 0 Are citizens involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the public sector performance? 70 0 (departments, projects) Sub-Criteria 4.3 Citizenship: What is the level of citizenship? 50 71 Are citizens empowered to form their own social association and lead activities? 50 72 Are citizens aware of their civil rights and responsibilities as members of the community? 25 Are citizens involved in the management of public facilities (e.g. central water points, public 73 50 toilets)? 74 Does government respect/tolerate citizen views and contributions in the public media? 50 75 Does businesses/private investment in RC contribute to improving the welfare of the county? 50 76 Do citizens participate in local election processes? 75 Criteria 5 Equity: What is the level of equity? 45 Sub-Criteria Legal Framework: Is there a legal framework ensuring the same rights for all 50 5.1 citizens? 77 Is there a county legal framework that is enforced to ensure equal rights for all RC citizens? 50 Sub-Criteria 5.2 Equal Access to Basic Services: Is there equal access to basic services? 38 78 Do girls have equal opportunity to basic services as boys? 50 79 Do citizens have equal access to local government services? (e.g., education, health, water etc.) 25 Sub-Criteria Equal Opportunity to Power: Is there equal opportunity to gain political and social 31 5.3 representation? Is there equal opportunity to power in Rubkona County? (e.g. parliamentary seat, chieftainship, 80 50 Payam administration) 81 Are women employed in the RC local government? 25 82 Are women employed by RC in senior positions? 25 Are vulnerable groups represented in the RC? (disabled, extreme poor, marginalized 83 25 communities, elderly) Sub-Criteria 5.4 Equal Access to Resources: Is there equal access to resources? 38 84 Do citizens have equal access to social services? (e.g. education, hospitals, etc) 25 85 Are all Payams represented in consultation and resource allocation in Rubkona County? 50 Sub-Criteria 5.5 Equal Opportunity to Livelihoods: Is there equal opportunity to livelihoods? 67 Do citizens have equal access to agricultural extension services? (eg, tools distribution, seeds 86 50 distribution, application of manures, etc.) Do citizens of Rubkona have equal access and opportunity to livelihood? (e.g. business and 87 75 agriculture) 88 Do women and vulnerable groups have equal access to ownership of land? 75

4. Rubkona County - Results

4.1 Overall LGB Score The value of the LGB for Rubkona County was 38/100. This value is below average, which describes a governance situation lacking robust policies, institutions, and civil society-local government engagement. All scores in the five areas are below average and fall within the scoring range of fairly poor.

Rubkona County - Local Governance Barometer

Equity

Participation and Citizen Engagement

Accountability

Rule of Law

Effectiveness

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 4: Rubkona County – Overall LGB Scores 4.2 Effectiveness Criteria The score obtained by the criteria effectiveness is 35/100. This low score is mainly due to the lack of planning documents and the minimal use of any existence documents. There is a lack of sound financial management in the county and there is the perception that local government lacks the means and training to effectively manage finances, service delivery, and regular decision making processes. Citizen’s satisfaction with public service delivery was the lowest scoring sub-criteria with examples mentioned including a lack of health and agriculture services, clean markets and streets, and operational water points. Participants stated that the government never conducted assessments to determine their level of satisfaction. Leadership and decision-making based on reliable information were also low-scoring sub-criteria in this category.

Rubkona County - Criteria: Effectiveness

Leadership Satisfaction towards services Decision and Info Financial Mgmt Vision and plan Effectiveness

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 5: Rubkona County – Effectiveness Score s Planning The main reason planning documents and reliable information are not used in decision making is that the documents don’t exist (or exist only at the national level), they are largely outdated, there location is generally unknown, and there is a lack of resources and capacity to manage information. For local government leadership, despite the fact that some officials have received training on information management, its application requires a lot of effort and support. “There is no implementation of a strategic plan for the local government of Rubkona County. There must be close supervision and follow up from every community member for plans to be successful but due to the absence of planning, monitoring, and follow up, strategic plans are not implemented” said a youth member.

A CSO leader stated “strategic plans are not accessible by every person in the government offices because government does not want to be monitored during the implementation process. Government mostly treats the plan as a sensitive document only for officials and the senior authority.” A local traditional leader added, “If we the chiefs do not have access to the strategic plan, who are the citizens now getting access to it? There is no access.” over the radio concerning awareness Financial Management In terms of financial management, the county budgeting, financial planning, and tax revenue processes lack transparency. Many citizens mentioned their frustration with having no knowledge or access to county-level spending or revenue collection. “Finances are not administered effectively and efficiently. There are some common forms for accounting, but there is no standard form which monitors the collection of local taxes,” said a local woman. According to a local government official, “Accounting forms are being used, although some forms are missing, but the people using the forms are not trained properly. Some accountants are not even aware of the forms.”

Another government leader stated “there is no transparency in tax collection. Those in the market and business owners can be taxed multiple times by different government officials, which takes money out of their pocket and raises prices.”

Citizens cited specifically and were frustrated that although the oil tax revenue provision (or the amount that was supposed to be returned to Unity State and the county) had been increased from 3% to 5% of the total revenue value, they had not seen any of that revenue invested for infrastructure, institution, or service delivery improvements in the county or state. A local government official put it bluntly, “Only the devil knows where the taxes collected form Unity’s oil revenue have gone, and I say devil because God was never consulted on this matter.”

Decision Making and Information “There are no clear checks and balances in the county. Some officials are corrupt and they are not brought to book or even dismissed from their positions. There is no auditing chamber which carries out the role of auditing officials and following up on the regulations of finance,” said a local CSO woman.

There are also few assessments of county initiatives. “It has always been the citizens approaching the local government with their needs and not the local government assessing the needs of the community except during elections,” observed a youth leader. Another, “rarely are assessments done to determine the satisfaction level of citizens. And when a survey might be done, there is no follow up on the assessment. There have only been assessments performed to determine the needs of the local community,” stated a local government official.

Traditional leaders are consulted or informed about the allocation of resources, but not other citizens. “When the government comes up with programs and activities that they have decided on they do come to ask where it should be placed (like schools or water points) and the community decides led by the chiefs where it is to be located,” said a female CSO leader.

Rubkona County authorities do not regularly engage youth in regards to local government decision making. There is no representation from youth involved in local government processes, they are rarely called upon outside of elections, and when they are engaged, it is often around security issues. “The local government does not cooperate with youth enough the way they do with the chiefs and traditional leaders. Local government often relates with youth when dealing with the issue of cattle raids and other social disruptions because the youth are often known to be the ones responsible for raids,” said a traditional leader. A government official stated “it is very difficult to involve youth because decision making is often only efficient through chiefs, who do not analyze information or engage youth but only plan.” Specific to disarmament interventions led in the county, a traditional leader added “there is no involvement of CSOs and youth during disarmament but at the point of the exercise; not when the decision is being planned.”

Satisfaction toward Services There is some satisfaction realized in the county around service delivery, although the provision of goods and services in overall lacking in the county. “The government is just two years old and yet has been able to realize a few achievements including: some boreholes, PHCCU, and providing security. The problem is a lack of adequate capacity to ensure sustainability and to build off any progress. This is a challenge because generations of South Sudanese have been engaged in fighting for freedom and missed out on opportunities for education,” said a local government official.

4.3 Rule of Law Criteria Rule of law had a score of 42/100. This reflects the existence of a limited legal framework, with traditional courts playing an important role in local judgments or filling in where conventional courts are absent. Participants reported that there was very little harmony between local customary and conventional law. Participants reported partial awareness of local laws and that laws were sometimes enforced and responsive to citizens’ needs. The level of corruption in the county was perceived as high with bribes being fairly common and without local government systems such as a functional anti- corruption commission to deter, investigate and respond to charges.

Rubkona County - Criteria: Rule of Law

Incidence of Corruption Citizens’ Access to Justice Responsiveness of Laws Awareness of Laws Application of Laws Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework Existence of Institutional Legal Framework Rule of Law 0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 6: Rubkona County – Rule of Law Scores Corruption: Despite the existence and operability of a legal framework and partial access to justice, the prevalence of corruption in Rubkona County is high. It was shared that residents often prefer to ignore the situation, even if they are the victims. A female CSO leader felt that “there is a system to fight corruption but weak mechanisms are employed by the government. If there was a good system, development would thrive in Rubkona County.” A youth stated “institutions are there but are toothless with no power even if cases of corruption are detected but cannot be brought to the book.”

Awareness and Application of Laws A lack of awareness of laws is related to the fact that there are few campaigns by the government to educate the public about laws and the legal system. “We have never heard an announcement over the radio concerning awareness regarding laws. Local government has never disseminated any kind of laws to citizens. The media is not allowed to do that” stated a traditional leader.

Although perhaps few formal channels exist, participants did state that there were venues for citizens to learn about their legal rights, including from traditional courts, radio, and local forums specific to youth, women, and others. “There is some awareness of legal procedures as there exists local county courts, a public attorney’s office, a commissioner for legal rights and there is a school teaching legal rights in the county” said a CSO leader.

Responsiveness of Laws “Government need is different than community needs. Because government is seeing their interest first. The officers are on and off. Attempts to address the actual needs of people by some executive officers can be interrupted. The objectives of some executives also do not match with citizen’s views on development. As a line manager, if you try to work to solve the needs of the people, you might be taken wrongly by citizens or other local government officials. Most local government personnel don’t understand the long term effects of their actions on society,” said a local government official.

There is regular cooperation between the citizens and local government. “Citizens do cooperate and report cases to the local government authority, and follow up measures are taken,” said one youth. Another cited that cooperation was infrequent; “the community will cooperate with government when they have a problem with raids, but government has no knowledge when others are raided,” stated a CSO leader.

“There are great challenges for government in responding to crime. For example, cattle raiders often have guns and can shoot law enforcement, thus the police and army have to take precautions. When a man kills someone, the victim does not always get justice; they may end up losing the case. This is why most people prefer to take the law into their own hands; the conventional court system is not helpful enough in reaching murder compensation,” stated a local government official.

Access to Justice Participants widely felt there was access to justice, but that this was mostly due to the dual nature of access to both traditional and conventional courts. Hard cases like murder were regularly referred to conventional courts; theft and other soft crimes could be handled by a traditional court. These systems can work together, possessing a certain degree of harmony, but irregularities and favoritism were also perceived as rampant in the systems.

“Some cases get referred from the traditional courts to the judiciary but there are a lot of hurdles which may discourage the person seeking true justice. These include: court referral fees, transport expenses, proper identification, and attorney fees. Local chiefs also refer cases to the conventional courts and get compensated for this. They also can’t oversee serious criminal cases,” said a CSO leader.

4.4 Accountability Criteria The accountability criteria had a score of 33/100, which was the lowest score among the five criteria used to measure the state of governance. Rubkona County recorded very low scores in the control and balance of public power. This kind of mechanism is almost nonexistent in the administration of public power in the county. There is also the lack of mechanisms for citizens to access budget or other basic information about county or state government. There are no County Councils in Unity State; the governance body which in theory is most closely tied to the populace and supports civil society-local government engagement.

Rubkona County - Criteria: Accountability

Integrity Government's Responsiveness Recourse Checks and Balances Transparency Accountability

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 7: Rubkona County – Accountability Scores Transparency There is little communication or transparency around county budgeting, taxation, planning, and recruitment. “No local government project reports, planning documents, or other resources that are used for future planning are shared with the community” stated a woman CSO leader. Others commented that there was little transparency surrounding the recruitment of local government positions, particularly payam administrators and the allocation of Constituency Development Funds

(CDF). “Members of Parliament have come and said they have money for small development projects, but they don’t tell us it’s allocated for the community under CDF,” said a traditional leader.

“The government implements some projects, but they are not accessible for citizens. Citizens are consulted when international organizations are present, but we otherwise don’t know when or where projects are to be implemented” stated a traditional leader.

Checks and Balances As the County Council was dissolved in 2010, there is no functional body to hear citizen’s input and resolve issues with local government. However, one local government official noted that “launching my complaint to the commissioner is free” while another official stated “no one is prevented from reaching the EO or Commissioner. You know that right but citizens don’t use it.”

“There are annual financial audits, but stakeholders such as traditional leaders, CSOs, and women are not involved during the exercise. The local government doesn’t do auditing, and if they do, it’s done from their offices,” said a traditional leader.

Government’s Responsiveness Access remains limited to non-existent for citizens wanting to communicate with local government officials. “There are few forums between the citizens, CSOs and local government officials. Citizens and CSOs are at time engaged in planning and budgeting but that is all. They are not always informed of the sequential stages of approval of the budget and implementation. Planning and budgeting activities are often made possible with the support of development agencies; local government cannot initiate these processes alone,” said a local civil servant.

Integrity The counties credibility is shaky as a result of corruption issues, nepotism, and a lack of engagement with local stakeholders. There is no established action plan to fight corruption in the county or state. “We have never heard of an action plan developed to fight corruption. If it existed, corrupt people could have been taken to trial, but with no plan, not one single person I know of has been arrested for corruption,” said a traditional leader.

“There is a anti-corruption office here in Bentiu, but the staff are not empowered to carry out their duties. State government has dissolved the office, but the chairperson of the commission is still getting a salary,” said a CSO leader.

On political and clan influence, a traditional leader states, “This happens to a very large extent because politicians are the ones who influence much of the communities regarding politics. For example, when one person is appointed as a minister, he/she will bring along people with the closest blood relationship to work with him/her in the ministry. This has also contributed to sub-clan fighting in the community.”

4.5 Participation and Citizen Engagement Criteria The criteria participation had a score of 35/100. This is explained by a low level of citizen engagement in the county. Citizens are not involved in the design, implementation, monitoring, or evaluation of local projects, planning processes, or the allocation of county resources. Citizens were perceived to have some ability to exercise freedom of speech, particularly around local elections, although there is no local media including public radio or newspaper. Conflict resolution including clan fighting, cattle raiding, and land disputes also does not involve local associations.

Rubkona County - Criteria: Participation and Citizen Engagement

Civicness

Citizen Engagement

Institutional Framework

Participation and Citizen Engagement

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 8: Rubkona County – Participation and Citizen Engagement Scores

Institutional Framework There is also not an effective institutional framework for managing citizen participation. Several citizens cited that employment opportunities exist in public service, but according to a youth member, “there are two ways of employment here: you support the party or have family relationships. Employment is not based on qualification.”

“CSOs are not given the room to participate in the development of laws and policies. At no time are CSOs invited to support the development of laws, orders or policies regarding local government in Rubkona County” said one traditional leader. He continued “I have never seen local government involving youth during decision making meetings. They generally don’t want them around listening or getting the agenda for decision making meetings.

On the allocation of resources, “Sometimes when there are projects like CDF, the government does come to the people to ask for location or positioning of the structure through citizens who were not involved during the design of the project” said a local CSO leader.

Citizen Engagement Citizen engagement in Rubkona County is low. Although the rate of participation in the election process is high, regular engagement with local government officials and processes is weak. “Some stakeholders are participating during projects. We traditional leaders are involved only when they are planning to drill boreholes in the village or bomas,” said a traditional leader. A CSO leader stated “Chiefs are called to represent citizens, but this is not direct representation. They represent the citizens, but often don’t go back to citizens and report.”

“I work for the citizens. They are not much involved; only the people who are holding positions in government settings are involved in government participation. Local authorities only call the chiefs when there is a political need,” said a local government official.

Civicness There were mixed feelings in Rubkona about the level at which citizens were empowered to form their own associations and engage in the community. “Although local associations are there, government has a lot of oversight. When you want to form associations, you are not operating in a free atmosphere. Freedom is given but limited. The government is concerned that you will have other political

25 intentions,” said a local government official. A traditional leader stated “Citizens are empowered and could be opponents to public servants corruption of public resources, but this has not occurred yet.”

“The government has little respect and tolerance for citizens taking to the public media. Sometimes those in the media groups have been beaten, arrested or jailed,” said a CSO leader. According to a traditional leader, “If you talk about issues concerning politics and rights that may educate citizens about their rights, you will have problems.” “The government does not tolerate citizens speaking out against those public issues that directly relate to them,” said a female CSO leader.

Stakeholders commented that although businesses and private investment provided jobs or services in the county, they often didn’t contribute to improving the welfare of the county. “The oil companies and business community pay company registration and monthly taxes, but they don’t invest in improving the structure or appearance of the community,” said a CSO leader. A youth countered that "some services are provided by the private sector like contractor’s roads and schools in collaboration with the government,” while a traditional leader stated “we have never seen tangible contributions. Only international organizations are improving the welfare of the community by drilling boreholes constructing community health centers, and community multipurpose centers.

4.6 Equity Criteria The equity criterion has a score of 45/100. This reflects moderate access of citizens to basic services. Regardless of gender or social class, there is a perception that most residents have access to school or health facilities. It was noted that girls have access to primary schools, but because of location, social norms, and family livelihood issues, they often are not able to attend secondary school. There is also little opportunity for women to gain power; few are employed in local government with less to none in senior government positions.

Rubkona County - Criteria: Equity

Equal Opportunity to Livelihoods Equal Access to Resources Equal Opportunity to Power Equal Access to Basic Services Legal Framework Equity

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 9: Rubkona County – Equity Scores

Equal Access to Services and Resources Access to services for county residents is greatest for those living in Bentiu, for males, and non- vulnerable populations. According to youth leader, “there is access to services in Bentiu, but in other payams, it is less. Services are just in the urban setting. In rural areas, services are not available and people are suffering.” A CSO member agreed, “Most citizens have basic access in Bentiu to basic services such as health, education, and clean water, but these services are not available in the payams. There are no schools or teachers in many of the villages or payams; children in the villages have no access to education.”

Specifically related to education opportunities for girls, “They don’t have the same opportunities. Families will not pay for the same opportunities as boys as girls are property and will be married off. There is no secondary school for girls in Rubkona County,” said a female CSO leader. A traditional leader added, “There are some opportunities for girls although some parents look at a girl child as wealth, and also to provide help at the home. Some parents don’t allow their girls to go to school. They want them to be married with a lot of cows. The opportunity for girls going to school is minimized.”

Perceptions on vulnerable group’s representation in local government were mixed. “Vulnerable groups and the disabled are represented in Rubkona County government. They are valued like the rest of the community groups and will be hired if they are capable,” said a traditional leader. “Payams don’t have anything and don’t know how they’re represented. Representation is not about money alone; it is about resources like health, jobs, and education and that representatives like chiefs and payam administrators are brought forward and included in discussions,” said a CSO leader.

Equal Opportunity to Power Women, disabled populations, and other vulnerable groups don’t have equal access to power or senior government positions as a result of unequal education opportunities. “Women’s employment in local government is affected by their education background. When you look or go around to the government offices, the few women who are educated know only Arabic,” said a CSO leader. A female government leader agreed, “As head mistress for a girls school, I have been one of the few to lead such a school and I know that a lack of education for girls had limited future opportunities.” A local government official added, “There are no female commissioners for any of the counties. We don’t have women in any senior positions, although some women have been appointed as MP.”

Equal Opportunity to Livelihoods There was general consensus that all citizens had equal access to making a living, although many felt there was not equal access to owning land. “If you have the capital to start a business, nobody can prevent you from putting up your business and the same applies to agriculture as long as you have land,” said a youth leader. “Citizens have the same opportunity accessing market and other business activities. No one is being denied that place unless you are not doing business. Women are selling commodities too,” said a traditional leader.

“Not all women have equal access to land ownership. Only a few individuals know their land rights,” said a CSO member. “The majority of citizens are not aware of their land rights This is because of the negligence of the local government that does not disseminate information about the rights of citizens, like that which is included under the Local Government Act of 2009. There is no formal education. The local government should educate people about how to launch complaints and how to follow up with public services offered by the government,” said a traditional leader.

5. Rubkona County – Action Areas

Following the analysis of results and their various causes, activities should be taken to improve the situation. These should be discussed and agreed upon in a participatory manner. Recommendations are included below. They should be discussed and consensus should be reached with all relevant stakeholders in both Rubkona County. These activities can be grouped into four areas including:

Strengthen citizen-county government engagement through the development of public forums and the adoption of feedback mechanisms to inform the population of the government strategic planning and budgeting process activities. For this, the following activities are proposed: - Establishment of a systematic relationship between civil society and local government officials; - Support for an active County Council that can respond to citizen inquiries and feedback; - Setting up a public notice board that shares strategic plans, minutes of regular meetings, county budget and revenue information, and contact information for appropriate government officials; - Adoption of written and call-in feedback mechanisms (comments box, hotline number) that allows residents to share comments, suggestions, and complaints with local government; - Organization of small cultural events at community sessions to encourage people to attend the meetings; - Support the development of a monitoring system to ensure participatory monitoring for each project initiated in the county; - Establishment of a communal radio station.

Strengthen and improve service delivery within the county to increase their benefits and to ensure economic development and social development of the county. - Capacity building of officials within the county before taking office through thematic trainings on management, negotiation, leadership, budgeting…; - Improved communication to local citizens on service delivery availability, responsible parties, and engagement options; - Support for a service or system responsive for service delivery claims; - Support for a functional County Council;

Increase civic awareness of citizens’ role as a partner in the development of the county. - Awareness of local laws, rights, and decision making processes; - Establishment of a training center for citizens and CSOs; - Development of a citizen action plan to improve the governance situation; - Strengthen citizens' involvement in the design, implementation and monitoring of projects in the county; - Encourage citizens to take part in different tasks and responsibilities in the county.

Support anti-corruption initiatives that focus on promoting transparency, strengthening the local anti-corruption commission to be responsive, and reducing impunity. - Work with local government and civil society to build the capacity and utility of the anti- corruption commission; - Support a public notice board that provides information on all county project, including financial, objectives, and contractor details; - Development of a citizen action plan to improve transparency; - Create a state-level civil society corruption reporting mechanism; - Build support and involvement with international transparency organizations; - Build media and CSO capacity for investigative journalism.

6. Rumbek Central County – Specific Model

There are many governance issues of governance within the urban county of Rumbek Central. As an urban community, their vision revolves around the promotion of the local economy, public institutions for the state, and service delivery. It was therefore essential that the specific model took into consideration these issues.

Core criteria and sub-criteria listed in the specific model were validated by stakeholders and all indicators were developed by them over a two day period. The model integrates both objective data with exact sources within the county and perceptions on various aspects of governance. There are differences in the context, but the model is similar to Rubkona County; both counties are urban and their major challenges are focused on the development of their urban areas.

Table 2: Specific Model, Core Question: What is the level of Good Governance in Rumbek Central County? Core Criteri Criteria a and Consens and Sub- Indicator Sub- us Score criteria Criteri Averages a Criteri Effectiveness 49 a 1 Sub- Vision and Plan: Does the public administration have a clear vision that translates Criteri 65 into strategic and operational plans to achieve development? a 1.1 1 Is there an existing strategic plan for Rumbek Central County? 100 Are there annual plans for Rumbek Central County for various sectors like health, water and 2 100 sanitation, education, roads and bridges etc.? Is there access to the county’s strategic development plans by the citizens in Rumbek Central 3 25 County? 4 Are CSOs in RCC involved in the development of the County strategic plans? 50 5 To what extent is RCC realizing its development programs/plans? 50 Sub- Financial Mgmt: Is there effective and efficient management of public financial Criteri 46 resources? a 1.2 6 Does the county prepare its annual budget to run its development needs? 100 7 Does RCC have an independent budget to run the County’s development needs? 100 8 Does RCC have the capacity to manage its finances efficiently? 50 9 Is financial training available for county finance officers? 50 10 Does RCC have an effective and efficient taxation unit? 0 11 Does RCC have established and effective checks and balances in management of its finances? 25 12 Is there an established and effective audit system in place? 0 Sub- Decision and Info: Is the decision-making based on reliable and updated Criteri 50 information? a 1.3 13 Is there an existing database for the County? 100 Is the RCC community informed about aspects of the county legal framework like Local 14 50 Government Act, County plan etc.? 15 Is decision making based on the Local Government Act 2009? 25 16 Does the RCC have a reliable and efficient urban land registry? 25 Is the community consulted before land give aways (i.e. for government, investment or 17 50 demolition)? Sub- Satisfaction towards services: What is the degree of citizens' satisfaction with the Criteri 35 quality of public service delivery and its accessibility? a 1.4 18 What is the degree of community satisfaction with delivery of services within RCC? 25 19 What percentage of RCC community members are satisfied with the land registry system? 25

Are there any feedback mechanisms established for citizens to share input with local 20 50 government concerning services delivery? 21 What is the level of citizens’ satisfaction with RCC plans and resource allocation? 25 22 What is the level of satisfaction of CSOs in their involvement in RCC planning and budgeting? 50 Sub- Leadership: Does the public authority have the ability to mobilize citizens for Criteri 50 change? a 1.5 Is RCC leadership capable of mobilizing and planning for the progress of developmental 23 75 activities for its citizens? What percentage of positive change has occurred within the RCC local government in the last 2 24 50 years? Does local government leadership administer finances and local revenue collection efficiently 25 25 and effectively? 26 Does the local government engage youth in government decision making? 50 Does the RCC consult with local stakeholders on the allocation of public goods and services? 27 50 (roads, schools, etc.) Criteri Rule of Law: Does rule of law exist? 39 a 2 Sub- Existence of Institutional Legal Framework: Is there an adequate legal framework Criteri 50 38 in RC? e.g. local orders a 2.1 29 Are there written laws? 75 30 Is there an established functional county council? 0 Sub- Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework: What is the level of effectiveness Criteri 25 13 of the institutional legal framework? a 2.2 32 Are there mechanisms in place to educate people about their legal rights? 0 33 Are people aware of the legal procedures when seeking justice? 25 Sub- Criteri Application of Laws: Are laws and legal conventions enforced? 42 a 2.3 34 How efficient is law enforcement? 25 35 To what extent is there harmony between conventional laws and customary laws? 25 36 Is RCC leadership effectively execute and enforce local laws? (e.g. bar times, rubbish laws, etc) 75 Sub- Criteri Awareness of Laws: Are the laws and legal conventions known by the population? 25 38 a 2.4 38 Do citizens find the laws and legal system relevant? 50 Does the local government raise awareness through public media (radio talk shows, 39 25 newspapers) about laws and the legal framework? Sub- Criteri Responsiveness of Laws: Are laws responsive to citizens' needs? 38 a 2.5 40 Are cases settled under the conventional system? 50 41 What is the level of citizen cooperation with local government around issues of security in RCC? 25 Sub- Criteri Citizens’ Access to Justice: Do citizens have access to justice? 25 42 a 2.6 43 Are cases/disputes settled fairly and efficiently in conventional courts? 50 44 Are disputes/cases from customary courts referred to the judiciary? 50 Sub- Criteri Incidence of Corruption: What is the degree of corruption? 65 a 2.7 45 What is the level of corruption in Rumbek Central County? 75 46 Are bribes and payments by citizens to law enforcement common in RCC? 75 47 What is the level of tolerance citizens have in regards to corruption? 75 48 Does local government actually work to combat corruption? 50 49 Are there local government systems/mechanisms to prevent corruption? 50 Criteri Accountability: What is the degree of accountability of the public service? 25 17 a 3 50 What is the degree of accountability of the public service?

Sub- Transparency: Is information related to public service delivery performance or Criteri non performance, and resources planning and utilization (including bidding 50 15 a 3.1 processes) available and accessible? Do citizens access information from the RCC around local projects, activities, or service 52 50 provision? (e.g. buildings, schools, bore holes, etc. Are local government project reports, planning documents, and other resources that are used for 53 0 future planning shared with citizens? 54 Are Payam Administrators recruited openly and transparently in RCC? 0 55 Does the media in RCC report on issues of local government accountability? 0 56 Is there transparency in tax collection/revenue in RCC? 25 Sub- Checks and Balances: Is there an institution which has control, supervision, and Criteri 13 sanction power on the public authority? a 3.2 Are there open forums for CSOs to engage with county authorities on the county budgeting and 57 25 planning process? 58 Is the County Council effective and efficient in terms of its authority over the public authority? 0 Sub- Recourse: Do the public service, private sector, civil society, and citizens have Criteri means for making complaints and for communicating them to the control 25 a 3.3 institutions? Do the public, private sector, civil society and citizens have means for launching complaints to 59 25 county authorities? Sub- Government's Responsiveness: What is the level of RC local government's Criteri 25 responsiveness? a 3.4 60 Does the RCC have a participatory budget system? 25 Is the local government responsive to requests (i.e. letters and phones calls) from the 61 25 community regarding projects, developmental issues, and other activities? Sub- Criteri Integrity: What is the level of integrity at the local level? 6 a 3.5 62 Is there an action plan to fight corruption in RCC? 0 63 Does local government react effectively to police or military crimes committed in the county? 25 To what extent is the RCC leadership and civil servants influenced by political and/or tribal/clan 64 0 affiliation? To what extent is the RCC judiciary and civil servants influenced by political and/or tribal/clan 65 0 affiliation? Participation and Citizen Engagement: Is there effective participation (1) in the socio- Criteri economic and political life of the sector/country/region/municipality/commune? (2) In the 44 a 4 planning, implementation, and monitoring process in any of the assessed development sectors? Sub- Criteri Institutional Framework: Is there an effective institutional framework for managing citizen participation? a 4.1 66 Are citizens consulted regarding the allocation and distribution of resources? (e.g. CDF) 50 67 Are CSOs involved in the development of local laws and policies? 0 68 To what extent do citizens participate in county strategic planning meetings? 25 Sub- Criteri Citizen Engagement: What is the level of citizen engagement? 31 a 4.2 69 Are citizens able to exercise freedom of speech around local elections or local governance issues? 50 70 Do citizens participate in local government planning? (or county strategic planning meetings?) 25 Are citizens engaged in the monitoring and evaluation of public sector performance? (departments, 71 0 projects) Are there local community projects implemented with the participation of local actors/citizens in 72 50 RCC? Sub- Criteri Civicness: What is the level of citizens' civicness? 56 a 4.3 73 Are citizens aware of their civil rights and responsibilities as members of the community? 50 74 Are citizens involved in the management of public facilities (e.g. central water points, public toilets)? 50 75 Do citizens participate in the local election process? 75 76 Do businesses/private investment in RCC contribute to improving the welfare of the county? 50

Criteri Equity: What is the level of equity? 48 a 5 Sub- Criteri Legal Framework: Is there a legal framework ensuring the same rights for all citizens ? 50 a 5.1 77 Is there a county legal framework that is enforced to ensure equal rights for all citizens? 50 Sub- Criteri Equal Access to Basic Services: Is there equal access to basic services? 75 a 5.2 78 Do people have equal access to local government services? 75 Sub- Equal Opportunity to Power: Is there equal opportunity to gain political and social Criteri 25 representation? a 5.3 79 Are women employed in the RCC local government? 50 80 Are women employed by RCC in senior positions? 0 Are vulnerable groups represented in the RCC? (disabled, extreme poor, marginalized communities, 81 25 elderly) Sub- Criteri Equal Access to Resources: Is there equal access to resources? 50 a 5.4 82 Do citizens have equal access to social resources? (education, hospitals, etc) 50 83 Do girls have equal opportunities to seek education? 50 Sub- Criteri Equal Opportunity to Livelihoods: Is there equal opportunity to livelihoods? 38 a 5.5 84 Do women and vulnerable groups have equal access to markets? 50 85 Do women and vulnerable groups have equal access to ownership of land? 25

7. Rumbek Central County – Results

7.1 Overall LGB Score The value of the LGB for Rumbek Central County was 38/100. This value is below average and describes a governance situation lacking robust policies, institutions, and civil society-local government engagement. All scores in the five areas are below average.

Rubmek Central County - Local Governance Barometer

Equity

Participation and Citizen Engagement

Accountability

Rule of Law

Effectiveness

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 10: Rumbek Central County – Overall LGB Score

7.2 Effectiveness Criteria The score for effectiveness was 49/100. The existence of policies and county strategic plans, financial management systems, and a fair amount of capacity amongst local government staff and officials explains the moderate score in this realm of public administration. However, there is a lack of checks and balances in terms of monitoring county budgeting, spending, and service delivery. The overall scores for community satisfaction with local government service provision were low and participants perceived that the positive change over the last two years within the county had been moderate.

Rumbek Central County - Criteria: Effectiveness

Leadership Satisfaction towards services Decision and Info Financial Mgmt Vision and plan Effectiveness

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 12: Rumbek Central County – Effectiveness Scores

Vision and Plan Rumbek Central posted high scores for vision and plan and moderate scores regarding leadership, decision making and information, and financial management. Technical and managerial capacity in the county is relatively high with the infrastructure to support governance, although there are capacity issues. Citizen confidence in the ability of county leadership to plan and implement for development progress is also high while they reported that there had been moderate positive change within local government in the last two years. “There are some structures that have been put up such as traditional authority offices and community hall meetings,” said a youth member. In contrast, a female CSO leader stated “there has been little development in the county. For water, there are few hand pumps, there is the poor state of health centers, and there is no development of roads and schools.” Another stated, “there is no proper development. Our counties have never been stable; we are living in security anarchy. You also can’t plan when government officials are only in there positions for 3-6 months. When they are appointed to a position, other communities will complain that the individual does not represent their position and they will soon be replaced.”

Although strategic plans exist and there is an annual budgeting process, citizens do have regular access to planning documents, financial information or budgets, or a county database. There is not an established and effective audit system in place. “No audit system is place. We cannot recruit independent auditors. Our auditors are under the Ministry of Finance. Local government has not been investigated since the formation of this government” said a local government official.

Decision Making and Information There is also limited engagement of CSOs and citizens on the development process. “Citizens are only mobilized during elections, crisis or other national events like post referendum or disarming youth” said a youth leader. A traditional leader stated “There is consultation but there are a lot of complaints and it is done randomly. The county lacks resources to use in the mobilization of the community.”

Decision making is not based on the Local Government Act of 2009. According to various local government officials, “decisions are based on the influence of big people,” “commissioners don’t refer to the document; their decisions are made according to their wishes,” and “the development fund is not taken seriously in accordance with the Act.”

Information is not available and thus limits citizens ability to provide feedback, impeding local government decision making that incorporates community views. “The county authority has not enlightened the population about the LGA 2009. There is no forum to inform the common people about

34 the laws of the county which are never even promulgated. The people who come to know these laws and generally what the county is doing are the intellectuals. There are no clear guidelines on how the leadership of the county formulates laws and implements them. Executives work without control from anyone else. The fact that most people in the county and grassroots level are illiterate undermines their full participation in development activities and at the same time tempts the executive to not involve and inform them in all plans and development undertakings” said a local government official.

For example, there is also not a reliable and efficient land registry system, leading to complications for citizens and officials alike on the sale and acquisition of land. “There are frequent disputes whereby two people wrangle over a piece of land with both having title. Some others claim more than multiple plots of land with no registration to support it” said a woman leader. A local government official added “demarcation is done in Rumbek town with the names and information of thousands of houses, but residents don’t pay land taxes.”

Satisfaction Towards Services Citizen satisfaction regarding county plans, resource allocation, and local government engagement was low. Stakeholders stated that they were only engaged occasionally on the allocation of public goods and services. “Citizens are only mobilized during elections, crisis, or other national events like post referendum activities or disarming youths,” said a traditional leader.

“There have been positive changes. A hospital recently constructed will be open soon. A post office has also been constructed and staff is being trained. Some secondary schools and a nursery school have also been recently constructed,” stated a female CSO leader.

Financial Management The county government does prepare their own annual budget to run their development needs. They generally have the capacity to run their finances efficiently. “Rumbek presented a very detailed financial report during a recent 2013 commissioner’s forum facilitated by the UNDP. Some officials have been trained on budget preparation” said a local government official. Another official responded, “there is little training for financial officers. The county receives finance staff from the Ministry of Finance and they are to be trained before they start. Tax collectors have not been regularly trained. Some financial officers have been trained and others have been appointed.”

“There is poor budget independence to run county affairs, there is no local revenue and the little they have is shared with national and local government,” stated a traditional leader.

Taxation does regularly occur in Rumbek Central, but the process is not straightforward. “I am one of the tax collectors. Before, taxation was not under local government, but it has been streamlined and is efficient and effective. Many departments collect taxes, but citizens don’t always know which taxes are being collected by which department. Security personnel are often involved in tax collection and money is remitted to the bank,” said a female government official.

7.3 Rule of Law Criteria The criteria rule of law had a score of 39/100. Despite the existence of a legal framework, its efficiency is still low and similar to Rubkona County, there is no functional County Council. Participants felt that there was little citizen awareness of the legal system and there were no mechanisms in place to educate residents about their legal rights. The relevance of the legal system also scored low. The impact of corruption in the county was evident by the high scores in this sub-criteria with participants stating that

35 bribes to law enforcement were common with citizens having a corresponding high level of tolerance for corruption.

Rumbek Central County - Criteria: Rule of Law

Figure 12: Rumbek Central County – Rule of Law Scores

Institutional Legal Framework The ineffectiveness of the legal framework is in part related to a strong traditional court system and the prevalence of corruption. There are not mechanisms in place to educate people about their legal rights and citizens are generally not aware of the legal procedures when seeking justice. “Citizens have little awareness of legal proceedings. They do know about traditional laws, and as a place where they can resolve issues and seek justice” said a CSO leader.

“There are a lot of violations due to a lack of knowledge about laws like early marriage, which has become rampant in the Lakes, especially Rumbek County,” said a local youth. The youth continued, “There is little awareness of laws because government doesn’t like to talk about sensitive issues including rights, fundamental freedom of speech, and assembly over radio or newspapers and any discussions they would have on laws, acts or policies.” “Awareness has been created by NGOs but not the local government,” said a female leader.

Responsiveness of Laws “People are arrested arbitrarily without the issuance of warrants for arrest. The police have been transformed from a state of being rebels to implementers of law and order. Culprits who murder people are still at large and the police regularly ask for bribes from the public” said a CSO leader.

Others did counter. “Citizens cooperation with local government on security issues is fairly high. Citizens regularly cooperate with law enforcement to hand over their guns in response to disarmament laws. There has also been cooperation when government asks for culprits to be handed over to the government” said a female leader. According to a CSO leader, responsiveness has recently improved, “When there is a burning issue now days, the commissioner will discuss with the Executive Directors and they will in turn invite chiefs and other community leaders and people to come and discuss, give their opinions and decide on a way forward.”

Application of Laws Stakeholders commented throughout the assessment about the strong enforcement of laws in Rumbek Central. “Local government takes a strong position because Rumbek is an insecure city with regular

36 fighting occurring outside of the city and even inside. It used to be worse. Local government has not banned alcohol, shisha, and unnecessary gatherings. A lot of crime has been reduced compared to previous times because if they find culprits that commit crimes, they arrest them and they face the law,” said a youth leader. “There continue to mass arrest. When one person commits a crime like murder, sometimes the police will arrest a large group or the village,” said a CSO leader.

Corruption Corruption was significantly high for the county and although a sensitive topic, there was general consensus that it was commonplace. “Some people like corruption, but not all those who are in leadership are corrupt. Some people don’t keep accurate records and this is a contributing factor that leads people to corruption. Others for example, can be driven into corruption based on their social situation. Some men have ten wives, but the government gives them a salary that can sustain only one family. High bride price also can drive one toward corruption. Once in office, jobs are often offered to relatives and not by merit” said a CSO leader. A woman CSO leader stated “To tell the truth, some officers have relatives with high positions while those not related to big officers are always in lower positions doing the donkey’s work.”

“Local government is taking steps to combat corruption with the use of Accounting Form 15. Accountability measures have been introduced and advocate for competent accountants to be employed to collect taxes, said a female CSO leader. A local government official stated “there are committees formed to combat corruption, there is Form 15, as well as the introduction of a banking system to show taxes collected. However, others pointed to evidence that corruption is not taken seriously. “Rumbek has no intention to combat corruption because corruption cases are never reported,” said a youth leader.

“People say that there is a high rate of corruption, but I think it is inexperience of how to use funds. People have come out of the forest, out of the fighting and don’t differentiate between public and private funds. Public funds are to be used for taking orders from the government committees and the community,” said a CSO leader.

7.4 Accountability Criteria Accountability had a score of 17/100 and represented the lowest criteria and sub-criteria scores for Rumbek Central County. Citizens have some access to information, although local government planning and project documents are not regularly shared with the community and the public radio station is often censored or prevented from reporting on local government. Participants ranked checks and balances at the local level non-existent with no County Council in place to monitor the public authority. Also, the influence of political and tribal/clan affiliation on local government decision making is very high.

Rumbek Central County - Criteria: Accountability

Integrity Government's Responsiveness Recourse Checks and Balances Transparency Accountability

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 13: Rumbek Central County – Accountability Scores Checks and Balances Issues around transparency, checks and balances, and integrity were the main driver for low scores under the criteria accountability. This is the result of a lack of mechanisms including open forums for citizens to engage county authorities, an ineffective anti-corruption commission, no action plan to fight corruption, and a perception that local government recruitment is not open and transparent.

“There is no action plan to fight corruption. Citizen’s expectations are not seen as relevant under the current system,” said a traditional leader. “There are limited means for civil society and citizens to launch complaints to county authorities. Complaints cannot generally be given in public, but only in close discussions,” said a female leader.

Integrity This was the lowest scoring sub-criteria for Rumbek Central with the existence of an action plan to fight corruption rated as non-existent and with two indicators indicating that government leadership and the judiciary were highly influenced by political and tribal/clan affiliation. “The influence is large because if you are appointed to a political position currently, you have to bring your relatives into positions, even if you would prefer to keep that as an open position,” said a local government official. Another stated “all civil servants are involved in tribal politics and each feels a responsibility to his/her affiliations,” said a youth leader.

“The big problem right now is giving the assignment to the right person. People will always work with attention to their own interest, and this should be guarded against. We need to have the right people in office. If you ask me to build this house and I am not a builder, the house will collapse. This would not be a good allocation of personnel,” said a CSO leader. A traditional leader explained, “public resources are not for you or I alone, but for the public benefit. If you are in the government and have a public car, that car will be someday be taken over by someone else. If 10,000 SSP is meant for construction of a school, it needs to go to that school and should not be squandered.”

Government’s Responsiveness “There is no participatory budget process; only Ministry of Finance personnel are allowed to participate during the development of the budget,” said a CSO leader. Another commented that “Payam Administrators also participate, but not local citizens including traditional leaders.”

Local government was also generally found to not be responsive to requests from the community regarding projects, development issues, or community concerns. “If a citizen is not directly involved with a project, they won’t respond to your inquiries,” said a female CSO leader. A youth stated “there

38 have been some requests by citizens for how to use CDF funds and government has approved, but otherwise government doesn’t answer questions from the community, particularly youth.”

Transparency “Information is only partially available. For example, bidding contracts are awarded to close relatives or member of an inner circle; they are not based on previous performance of the company or other requirements,” said a CSO leader. Added a female leader, “there is no bidding system. Contracts are advertised only for formality when preferred contractors have already been pre-selected.”

“The community has been informed only when the time comes to point out the location where services will take place. Otherwise, citizens are not informed to help choose their priority service needs. Chiefs have also sometimes blocked the community from accessing information, said a female government leader. A traditional leader added “Citizens are rarely informed when the government is looking to fix boreholes, construct schools or hospitals. Information about funds allocated to the projects are also not regularly shared.”

On the involvement of CSOs in the development of county tax collection, “currently, a team is comprised of county and state local government officials tasked to oversee the collection of revenue to minimize corruption incidences and the misuse of public funds,” said a local government official. Despite a structure, others had concerns about transparency. “We don’t expect any good results from the new tax collection system. The county government has never published their findings on local tax revenue,” said a CSO leader.

Public media is often stifled regarding comments or reports. There is a local public radio station, but when they report on local government matters (as they have done in the past), they often face resistance. “Media here has never been able to report on issues regarding local government accountability. They are being shut down by local authorities if they report on issues concerning the management of public utilities and funds,” said a youth leader.

7.5 Participation and Citizen Engagement Criteria The score for the criteria participation was 38/100. In general, county residents feel they are consulted sometimes, but not regularly on the design, implementation and monitoring of government activities. By contrast, it was noted that despite the small number of citizens who participate in activities, their involvement is very strong. Participation in local elections is high, but the perception is that freedom of speech outside of elections is tenuous based on local security issues and strong government leadership. Some CSOs have worked with the county in the last two years, but they want the number of partnerships to increase and for civil society-local government engagement to improve.

Rumbek Central County Criteria: Participation and Citizen Engagement

Civicness

Citizen Engagement

Institutional Framework

Participation and Citizen Engagement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 14: Rumbek Central County – Participation and Citizen Engagement Scores Institutional Framework A lack of citizen engagement by the county and alternatively a lack of participation or interest by citizens in local government proceedings drives many of the low scores in other criteria. “There is little consultation, or it is around dealings with land plots and the construction of schools or investors given land by the government,” said a youth leader.

“When CDF money is received for the county from the national government, consultations are usually done. Similarly, when a school, health center or any other public facility is built in the county, the community through the chiefs and other stakeholders are engaged, said a female CSO leader. A local government leader, however, countered, “Executives and MPS often do not inform the people about the CDF money; they decide what they will do with the funding in small groups.”

Citizen Engagement “There are some open forums that allow citizens to express themselves on local public sector issues, but “CSOs are not involved during the county budgeting and planning process and allowed to share their voices,” said a local traditional leader. “The primary means citizens are engaged with local government is through the chiefs. Chiefs can work with local stakeholders on tax collection, road repairs, fees, and solving clan issues, although there influence is also limited,” said a CSO leader.

Like Rubkona, there is also no County Council in Rumbek. It was established previously but dissolved in 2010. “The County Council is not functional because there is no budget. There should be five people in that office and there is no one,” said a traditional leader. There is therefore limited means for civil society to launch complaints to county authorities.

Civicness “There is little awareness regarding civil rights. The majority of civilians are unaware of their legal rights as guaranteed under the constitution or the Local Government Act of 2009. They understand government offices as places that might request something or give them resources like seeds, but many don’t know about their rights to information, representation, or specific services,” said a traditional leader. A CSO leader added, “Educated citizens and those that work with government more regularly in Bentiu know their civil rights, but not those living outside of the city or those lacking education.”

Citizens are involved occasionally in the management of public facilities. “Citizens do manage boreholes, but not the public toilets. They have little involvement concerning public facilities. They lack the hands and capacity to manage these resources effectively,” said a female CSO leader.

“There is a lot of participation especially during chieftainship elections and general electoral processes, but they are not involved in other political processes or in associations,” said a youth leader. “People do participate fully in the local election process because this is the period when politicians are sweet to the citizens,” said a female CSO leader.

“I think citizens are involved and the executive does mobilize people for change. For example, citizens set up peace committees, and they go around and try to mobilize other citizens to promote peace. They go to cattle camps, talk to elders, and hold meetings. These peace committees are an example in all areas,” said a CSO leader.

7.5 Equity Criteria The equity criteria received a score of 48/100. There is a moderate level of access for women and minority groups to basic services, power, and livelihoods, but it is not equitable. Specifically, women and vulnerable groups do not have equal access to the ownership of land, access to markets, social services, education nor are the disabled, extreme poor, elderly and other marginalized groups represented in local government.

Rumbek Central County - Criteria: Equity

Equal Opportunity to Livelihoods Equal Access to Resources Equal Opportunity to Power Equal Access to Basic Services Legal Framework Equity

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 15: Rumbek Central County – Equity Scores

Legal Framework Although there is a perception by many that citizens have equal rights and equal access to government services, the assessment found this was not the case. “There is a partial legal framework but it is not being accessed by citizens. Government also doesn’t execute any laws that ensure citizens equal rights in the county,” said a traditional leader. A CSO leader added, “There is partial equality, but people’s rights are still violated. Vulnerable populations have in principle a lot of the same legal rights, but these are not enforced, or they have limited support to access services or their interest in a job, land, or other opportunities.”

Equal Access to Basic Services Access to government services is largely dependent on location. “Some payams have no government services. In case of any problem, rescue comes from relatives. Few people enjoy government services in the bomas. We have some children studying under trees while others have their children studying in neighboring counties” stated a female government leader. “Some citizens do have equal accessibility to services such as boreholes, schools, construction and stopping thieves from raiding cattle, but it depends on your locality,” stated a youth leader.

“Some people refuse to take their children to school. The fact they refuse this basic right is not anyone’s problem. Citizens have access to basic services such as hospitals and education,” said a government official. “Dinka culture does not accept girls to go to school like boys. Girls are always left at home to work and poor people as well have no access to school due to the cost of fees or health service because there are no medicines in the health centers,” said a female government leader.

Equal Opportunity to Power “There are only a few women employed within local government offices. They are mostly in cleaning positions or a few managerial positions. The traditional customary laws impacted women’s development a lot regarding going to schools; some are less educated and therefore have less opportunity,” said a youth leader. “There are no women in senior position except those already in the assembly or national ministerial positions,” stated a female CSO leader.

Equal Opportunity to Livelihoods “There is equal access in some markets. No one is denied access to markets as long as they have products to sell or money available,” said a female CSO leader.

“Women have no ownership rights. When a house is built, it will be registered in the child’s name. Traditionally, women are not allowed to own land with the perception that a girl will eventually go away and ownership of the land would change when they marry someone. I have inherited land from my mother, but never from my father or my husband,” said a female CSO leader. “No man registers his estates in his wife’s name. Women can now buy their own land using their own money, but a husband can still advocate for the land to be registered under their children’s name so that it is easy for them to maneuver and find ways to grab the land,” said a traditional leader.

7. Rumbek Central County – Action Areas

The objective is to consolidate the gains and improve deficiencies in the LGB process. Following the analysis of the results and their various causes, activities should be taken to improve the situation in a participatory manner and are presented below. These activities can be grouped into four areas including:

Improve the monitoring and control of projects to measure achievement performed, improve accountability, and limit abuses that can occur during the conduct of the project. - Improvement of the monitoring system to ensure participatory monitoring for each project initiated in the county; - Capacity building of responsible monitoring and evaluation staff so that they are able to know the level of achievement of each existing project and can propose shifts versus actuals if necessary;

8. Recommendations and Conclusion Following implementation of the LGB in Rubkona County and Rumbek Central County, the results from this process have shown that the LGB provides a relevant framework for analysis and supporting the strengthening of local government in particular localities within South Sudan. Among the five main criteria monitored, remarkable scoring variations of good or poor governance have been recorded for accountability, participation and citizen engagement, and equity. The LGB process: design meetings, data collection and discussion, and analysis have given the citizens of these counties an opportunity to discuss and interrogate deeply all aspects that they felt are necessary for the improvement of conditions that facilitate effective governance, peace, stability and development in their respective counties. The LGB is therefore not only an assessment tool but also a tool to improve and support the ongoing strengthening of local government by all stakeholders, not just government officials. Although the tool has been developed under the EPS program specifically, the results are usable by all stakeholders and can be the basis for activities led by other actors who would like to support good governance, citizen participation, and citizen-state engagement.

In terms of process, the LGB itself is already a governance and citizen engagement strengthening activity in the sense that the commonly adopted criteria and ways of evaluating the transformation of governance conditions (often a source of differences and conflicts) are discussed openly between groups from different perspectives. All findings from the various phases of the LGB have provided abundant information, knowledge and lessons to stakeholders to allow them to make better decisions in supporting the improvement of local government. The discussion and feedback sessions during workshops provided opportunities to raise awareness, exchange, mobilize and advocate for more commitments for peace.

In conclusion, the LGB is a useful tool for communities if participants involved in the process are representative of key stakeholders from the area, and if suitable opportunities and mechanisms are in place to let them discuss openly and identify solutions. The continuation and consolidation of the LGB tool for the EPS program in Unity State, Lakes State and other regions is strongly recommended. The assumption made by Pact is that in the future this tool might be institutionalized (at the level of the Ministry of Local Government) as a tool for monitoring and evaluating government performance and responsiveness as well as citizen engagement, which could become the basis of a more coordinated multi-actor intervention, generating better synergies, coherence and avoiding duplicative assessment processes.

9. Appendix – Specific Models with Consensus Scores by Focus Groups

Table 4: Rubkona County – Specific Model with Consensus Scores by Focus Group C Consensus Score by o Crit Group n eri s and Core e Sub Criteri n - a and s Indicator Scoring Range Crit Sub- W u eri Criteri CS o Yo T s LG a a O m uth L S Ave en c rag o es r e Criteria 1 Effectiveness 35 Vision and Plan: Does the public administration have Sub- 37. Criteria a clear vision that translates into strategic and 5 1.1 operational plans to achieve development? 0=no plan, 50=partial plan, 100= 5 1 Is there a strategic development plan in Rubkona County? 50 50 50 30 50 detailed plan 0 0= not at all, 25= little implementation, 50= some 2 2 To what extent does RC implement its strategic plan? 25 25 25 25 75 implementation, 75= a lot, 100= 5 full implementation Are CSOs and communities involved in the development of the 0=no involvement, 50=some 5 3 involvement, 100=full 50 50 75 0 25 County Strategic Plan? involvement 0 0= not accessible, 25= poor accessibility, 50=some 2 4 Is the RC Strategic Plan accessible for citizens and CSOs? 25 25 25 15 25 accessibility, 75= high 5 accessibility, 100= full accessibility Are there annual plans for Rubkona County for various sectors 0=no plans, 50=partial plans, 5 5 50 50 50 50 50 like health, water and sanitation, education, etc.? 100= detailed plans 0 0=no development, 25=poor To what extent is RC realizing its development development, 50=some 2 6 development, 75=very good 25 25 25 25 50 programs/plans? development, 100=full 5 development Sub- Financial Management: Is there effective and efficient Criteria 39 1.2 management of public financial resources? 1 10 7 Does RC use standard financial forms of accountability? 0= no, 100= yes 100 25 75 0 0 0 0 Does the RC use standard financial forms effectively and 0= no, 25= a little, 50= some, 75= 10 5 8 a lot, 100= full effectiveness and 25 0 40 50 efficiently? efficiency 0 0 0=no, 25=little involvement, Is the county involved in preparing its annual budget to run its 50=some involvement, 75=a lot of 2 9 50 50 25 25 75 development needs? involvement, 100= very strong 5 involvement 0=no, 25= little independence, Does RC have an independent budget to run the County’s 50=some independence, 75=a lot 2 10 25 25 50 25 75 development needs? of independence, 100=full 5 independence 0= no capacity, 25= little capacity, 2 11 Does RC have the capacity to manage its finances efficiently? 50=some capacity, 75= some 50 50 25 25 75 capacity, 100=full capacity 5 Does local government leadership administer finances and 0= no, 25= a little, 50= some, 75= 2 12 a lot, 100= full effectiveness and 25 25 25 50 50 local revenue collection efficiently and effectively? efficiency 5 0= no, 25= few checks and Does RC have a system of checks and balances in their balances, 50= some checks and 2 13 balances, 75= a lot of checks and 50 25 25 25 75 financial procedures? balances, 100= very strong checks 5 and balances Sub- Decision and Info: Is the decision-making based on Criteria 45 1.3 reliable and updated information?

To what extent does the authority of RC make decisions using 0= never, 25= rarely, 50= 5 14 sometimes, 75= most of the time, 50 50 25 25 50 reliable and up to date information? 100= all the time 0 0= no, 50=partially 5 15 Is there a comprehensive reporting system in RC? comprehensive, 100= fully 50 50 50 50 50 comprehensive 0 0=no, 25=poor reliability, 50=some reliability, 75=high 5 16 Does RC have a reliable and efficient land registry? 50 75 75 25 50 reliability, 100=very high 0 reliability 0= never, 25= rarely, 50= 2 17 Is decision making based on the Local Government Act 2009? sometimes, 75= most of the time, 25 25 50 50 50 100= all the time 5 Are there mechanisms by which the local government shares 0=no, 50=some mechanisms, 75 5 18 50 50 75 50 50 information with its citizens? 100 = a lot of mechanisms 0 Sub- Satisfaction towards services: What is the degree of Criteria citizens' satisfaction with the quality of public service 25 1.4 delivery and its accessibility? 0= no satisfaction, 25= little To what extent are the citizens of RC satisfied with the delivery satisfaction, 50= some 2 19 satisfaction, 75= a lot of 25 25 25 25 25 of services by their local government? satisfaction, 100= complete 5 satisfaction How often does local government conduct assessments to 0= never, 25= rarely, 50= 20 determine the level of satisfaction citizens have with the sometimes, 75= most of the time, 50 25 0 0 50 0 delivery of public services? 100= all the time Does the RC consult with local stakeholders on the allocation 0= never, 25= rarely, 50= 5 21 sometimes, 75= most of the time, 50 50 50 25 25 of public goods and services? (roads, schools, etc.) 100= all the time 0 Is the Agriculture Department effective in the distribution of 0=not effective, 25=poor, 2 22 50=some, 75=high effectiveness, 25 25 75 25 25 resources (e.g. seeds) 100=complete effectiveness 5 Sub- Leadership: Does the public authority have the ability Criteria 30 1.5 to mobilize citizens for change? 0= no, 25= little mobilization, 50= Does the RC authority mobilize their citizens for the county some mobilization, 75= a lot of 2 23 25 25 25 0 50 development process? mobilization, 100= full 5 mobilization Is there cooperation between the communities, CSOs, and 0= no, 25= little cooperation, 50= 5 24 some cooperation, 75= a lot of 50 50 50 50 25 local government on development efforts? cooperation, 100= full cooperation 0 0= no, 25= little engagement, 50= Does the local government engage youth in government some engagement, 75= a lot of 1 25 25 25 0 0 25 decision making? engagement, 100= very strong 5 engagement Criteria

2 Rule of Law: Does rule of law exist? 42 Sub- Existence of Institutional Legal Framework: Is there 0=no framework, 50=existing 5 Criteria but insufficient, 100=existing 25 50 50 25 50 25 2.1 an adequate legal framework in RC? e.g. local orders and sufficient 0 0=not established,25=established but dissolved, 50=established but 26 Is there an established functional county council? not functional, 100=established 25 25 25 0 25 0 and functional Sub- Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework: What Criteria is the level of effectiveness of the institutional legal 50 2.2 framework? Is the institutional legal framework effective and efficient for 0=not effective, 25=poor, 5 27 50=some, 75=high effectiveness, 50 50 50 50 50 RC citizens? 100=complete effectiveness 0 0=no mechanisms, 25=poor Are there measures in place to educate citizens about their mechanisms, 50= some 2 28 mechanisms, 75= good 25 25 25 25 25 legal rights? mechanisms, 100= very good 5 mechanisms 0=no awareness, 25=little Are citizens aware of the legal procedures when seeking awareness, 50=some awareness, 2 29 50 50 25 25 25 justice? 75=good awareness, 100=full 5 awareness Sub- Application of Laws: Are laws and legal conventions Criteria 50 2.3 enforced? 0=no impartiality 20=little Does the RC judiciary enforce laws impartially? (judges, impartiality, 50=some 7 30 20 20 50 75 75 police, prisons) impartiality, 75=a lot of 5 impartiality, 100= full impartiality Does RC leadership effectively execute and enforce local laws? 0=not at all, 25= rarely, 5 31 50=sometimes, 75= most of the 50 50 75 25 50 (e.g. bar times, shisha smoking, etc.) time, 100= all the time 0 To what extent is their harmony between customary laws and 0=no harmony, 25=little harmony, 2 32 50=some harmony, 75=a lot 50 25 25 50 25 conventional laws? harmony, 100=complete harmony 5

0=not at all, 25=poor Sub- Awareness of Laws: Are the laws and legal knowledge, 50=some 5 Criteria knowledge, 75=a lot of 50 50 50 50 50 25 2.4 conventions known by the population? knowledge, 100=completely 0 known Does the local government raise awareness through public 0=not at all, 50=some awareness, 2 33 media (radio talk shows, newspapers) about laws and the legal 50 50 50 0 0 100= a lot of awareness 5 framework? Sub- Responsiveness of Laws: Are laws responsive to Criteria 42 2.5 citizens' needs? Does the law address the needs of the citizens of Rubkona 0= no, 25= few needs, 50= some 2 34 needs, 75= a lot of needs, 100= all 25 25 0 75 50 County? needs 5 Does the local government respond quickly to crimes in 0=no, 25= litle response, 50= 5 35 sometimes quickly, 75= often 50 50 75 75 50 Rubkona County? quickly, 100= very quickly 0 What is the level of citizen cooperation with local government 0=none, 25=few, 50=some, 75=a 5 36 25 50 75 50 25 around issues of security in RC? lot, 100=full 0 Sub- Citizens’ Access to Justice: Do citizens have access to Criteria 42 2.6 justice? 0=none, 25=few, 50=average, 5 37 Do citizens have equal access to justice in Rubkona County? 75=most of the citizens, 100=all 25 50 50 25 25 citizens 0 Are cases/disputes settled fairly and efficiently in conventional 0=none, 25=rarely, 2 38 50=sometimes, 75=most of the 25 50 50 25 75 courts? time, 100=all of the time 5 Are disputes/cases from customary courts referred to the 0=not at all, 25=rarely, 5 39 50=sometimes, 75=most of the 50 50 50 25 50 judiciary? time, 100=all of the time 0 Sub- Incidence of Corruption: What is the degree of Criteria 58 2.7 corruption? 0=never, 25=very little, 7 40 What is the level of corruption in Rubkona County? 50=sometimes, 75=most of the 50 75 75 75 75 time, 100=all the time 5 Are bribes usually paid by citizens to law enforcement 0=never, 25=very little, 5 41 50=sometimes, 75=most of the 75 50 50 50 50 agencies in Rubkona County? time, 100=all the time 0 Are there local government systems/mechanisms to prevent 0=yes, 50=weak 5 42 systems/mechanisms, 100 = no 50 50 50 50 50 corruption in Rubkona County? systems/mechanisms 0 Criteria Accountability: What is the degree of accountability 33 3 of the public service? Transparency: Is information related to public Sub- service delivery performance or non performance, 0=no, 50=partially available, Criteria 100=fully available 0 0 50 25 0 0 25 3.1 and resources planning and utilization (including bidding processes) available and accessible? 0= citizens not aware, 25% = little Are citizens of RC aware of Constituency Development Funds awareness, 50% = some 2 43 awareness, 75% = a lot of 25 25 25 25 25 (CDF) and their use? awareness, 100% = complete 5 awareness Are Payam Administrators recruited openly and transparence 0=never, 25=very little, 2 44 50=sometimes, 75=most of the 25 25 0 0 50 in Rubkona County? time, 100=all the time 5 Is information from the RC around local projects, activities, or 0=no, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 5 45 service provision (e.g. buildings, schools, bore holes, etc) 75=a lot of the time, 100=all the 25 50 50 50 50 0 available and accessible)? time Are local government project reports, planning documents, 0=not at all, 25=rarely, 46 and other resources that are used for future planning shared 50=sometimes, 75=a lot of the 0 25 25 0 25 0 with citizens? time, 100=all the time 0=no transparency, 25=little Is there transparency in tax collection/revenue in Rubkona transparency, 50=some 2 47 transparency, 75=a lot of 25 25 25 25 50 County? transparency, 100=full 5 transparency 0= no institution, 25= little Sub- Checks and Balances: Is there an institution which existence 50= existence =75 2 Criteria has control, supervision, and sanction power on the much existing 100= fully 25 50 75 25 25 13 3.2 5 public authority? existing 0=no, 25=very limited forum, Are there open forums for CSOs to engage with county 50=yes, but difficult to access, 2 48 25 0 0 25 25 authorities on the county budgeting and planning process? 75=yes and mostly accessible, 5 100=fully accessible Is the County Council effective and efficient in terms of its 0=no, 25=poor, 50=fair, 75, very 49 0 25 0 0 25 0 authority over the public service delivery? good, 100=excellent, 0= no auditing, 25=auditing, but Does the RC authority audit its expenditures annually with no stakeholder involvement, 50= 50 auditing with some stakeholder 0 25 0 0 25 0 others stakeholders (e.g CSOs, youth groups, etc)? involvement, 75= auditing with a lot of stakeholder involvement,

100 = auditing with full participation

Recourse: Do the public service, private sector, civil Sub- society, and citizens have means for making Criteria 50 3.3 complaints and for communicating them to the control institutions? Does the private sectors, civil society and citizens have means 0= no access, 25=little access 50= 5 51 accessible 75= much accessible 75 50 50 25 25 for launching complaints to county authorities? 100= Fully accessible 0 Are there mechanisms in place for Rubkona County 0= no, 50= some mechanisms, 5 52 government, regarding compensation of displaced people by 50 50 50 20 50 100= yes 0 oil companies operating in the county? Sub- Government's Responsiveness: What is the level of Criteria 38 3.4 RC local government's responsiveness? Is the local government responsive to requests (i.e. letters and 0=no responsiveness, 25=little phones calls) from the community regarding projects, responsiveness, 50=some 2 53 responsiveness, 75=a lot of 25 25 25 50 25 developmental issues, and other activities in their respective responsiveness, 100= full 5 Payam's? responsiveness Does Rubkona County compensate citizens displaced by oil 0=no compensation, 50= some 5 54 compensation, 100= full 50 50 50 50 50 companies? compensation 0 Sub- Integrity: What is the level of integrity at the local Criteria 40 3.5 level? 0= no action plan, 50= action plan Is there an implemented action plan to fight corruption in developed, but not implemented, 5 55 0 50 0 75 50 Rubkona County? 100= action plan developed and 0 implemented Does local government react effectively to police or military 0= no reactions, 25=little 2 56 reactions 50= somehow 75 much 50 25 50 25 50 crimes committed in the county? reactions 100= fully react 5 0= no empowerment 25 = little Is unity state anti-corrupt commission office empowered to empowerment, 50= some 2 57 empowerment, 75 = a lot of 25 0 25 10 25 execute their power? empowerment, 100 = full 5 empowerment 0=very large extent, 25=large To what extent is RC leadership and civil servants influenced extent, 50= some extent, 5 58 50 50 0 25 0 by political and/or clan affiliation? 75=relatively not influenced, 0 100=not influenced 0=very large extent, 25=large To what extent is the RC judiciary and civil servants influenced extent, 50= some extent, 5 59 25 50 50 50 25 by political and/or clan affiliation? 75=relatively not influenced, 0 100=not influenced Participation and Citizen Engagement: Is there effective participation (1) in the socio-economic and Criteria political life of the 35 4 sector/country/region/municipality/commune? (2) In the planning, implementation, and monitoring process in any of the assessed development sectors? Sub- Criteria Institutional Framework: Is there an effective institutional framework for managing citizen participation? 19 4.1 Does the RC have equal employment opportunities for 0= no, 50= some equal 5 60 50 50 50 25 50 citizens in public service? opportunities, 100= yes 0 Do CSOs participate in the development of local laws and 0= participation, 50= some 61 participation, 100= full 50 50 0 0 0 0 policies? participation Are citizens involved in the allocation and distribution of 0=no, 50=some consultation, 62 0 50 0 50 0 0 resources? (e.g. CDF) 100=full consultation 0=no, 25= little engagement, 2 63 Does LG engage youth in government decision making? 50=some engagement, 75= a lot of 25 25 0 25 25 engagement, 100=full engagement 5 Sub- Citizen Engagement: What is the level of citizen Criteria 38 4.2 engagement? 0= no engagement, 25= a little Are citizens engaged in the constitutional development engagement, 50= some 2 64 engagement, 75 = a lot of 50 25 0 50 0 process in Rubkona County? engagement, 100= full 5 engagement 0= no participation 25= a little Do citizens participate in local government planning? (or participation, 50= some 2 65 participation, 75 = a lot of 25 50 0 0 25 county strategic planning meetings?) participation, 100= full 5 participation Are there local community projects implemented with the 0=none, 25=few, 50=some, 75=a 5 66 25 50 50 25 50 participation of local actors/citizens in RC? lot, 100=all 0

Are citizens able to exercise freedom of speech and assemble 0=no ability, 25=little ability, 5 67 50=some ability, 75=a lot of 50 25 50 50 50 around local elections or local governance issues? ability, 100=full ability 0 0= no engagement 25= a little Are citizens engaged in conflict mitigation in RC? (Eg clan engagement, 50= some 2 68 engagement, 75 = a lot of 25 25 75 50 75 fighting, cattle raiding, land dispute) engagement, 100= high 5 engagement 0= no awareness, 25= a little Are citizens engaged in terms of holding the public and private awareness, 50= some awareness, 69 25 25 0 0 0 0 sector accountable? 75 = a lot of awareness 100= full awareness 0= no awareness, 25= a little Are citizens involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the awareness, 50= some awareness, 70 0 25 0 0 25 0 public sector performance? (departments, projects) 75 = a lot of awareness 100= full awareness Sub- Criteria Civicness: What is the level of citizens' civicness? 50 4.3 0=no, 25= little empowerment, Are citizens empowered to form their own social association 50= some empowerment, 75= a lot 5 71 25 50 75 75 50 and lead activities? of empowerment, 100= full 0 empowerment 0=no awareness, 25=little Are citizens aware of their civil rights and responsibilities as awareness, 50=some awareness, 2 72 25 25 50 50 25 members of the community? 75=a lot of awareness, 100=full 5 awareness 0=no, 25=little involvement, Are citizens involved in the management of public facilities 50=some involvement, 75=a lot of 5 73 75 50 50 75 50 (e.g central water points, public toilets)? involvement, 100=full 0 involvement Does government respect/tolerate citizen views and 0= does not respect/tolerance, 50 5 74 = some respect/tolerance, 100 = 0 50 50 25 50 contributions in the public media? full respect/tolerance 0 Does businesses/private investment in RC contribute to 0=no, 50=some contribution, 5 75 50 50 50 50 50 improving the welfare of the county? 100=a lot of contribution 0 0=no, 25= little participation, 50=some participation, 75= a lot 10 7 76 Do citizens participate in local election processes? 75 90 75 75 of participation, 100= full 0 5 participation Criteria 5 Equity: What is the level of equity? 45 Sub- Legal Framework: Is there a legal framework Criteria 50 5.1 ensuring the same rights for all citizens? 0= no, 25= legal framework, but Is there a county legal framework that is enforced to ensure not enforced, 50= partial 5 77 enforcement, 75= good 50 50 25 50 50 equal rights for all RC citizens? enforcement, 100= full 0 enforcement Sub- Equal Access to Basic Services: Is there equal access Criteria 38 5.2 to basic services? 0=no, 50=some opportunities, 5 78 Do girls have equal opportunity to basic services as boys? 50 50 25 50 50 yes=100 0 Do citizens have equal access to local government services? 0=no, 25=few citizens, 50=some 2 79 citizens, 75=most citizens, 100=all 50 75 50 25 75 (e.g., education, health, water etc.) citizens 5 Sub- Equal Opportunity to Power: Is there equal Criteria opportunity to gain political and social 31 5.3 representation? Is there equal opportunity to power in Rubkona County? (e.g 0=no, 25= little opportunity, 5 80 50=some opportunity, 75= a lot of 50 75 50 75 50 parliamentary seat, chieftainship, Payam administration) opportunity, 100= full opportunity 0 0=no, 50=some women, 100=an 2 81 Are women employed in the RC local government? equitable number of women and 50 50 25 50 50 men 5 0=no, 50=some women, 100=an 2 82 Are women employed by RC in senior positions? equitable number of women and 0 50 25 25 50 men 5 0=no, 25=little representation Are vulnerable groups represented in the RC? (disabled, 50=some representation, 75=a lot 2 83 25 25 25 20 25 extreme poor, marginalized communities, elderly) of representation, 100=equal 5 representation Sub- Equal Access to Resources: Is there equal access to Criteria 38 5.4 resources? 0=no, 25=equal access to a few Do citizens have equal access to social services? (e.g. services, 50= equal access to some 2 84 services, 75=equal access to most 25 75 50 75 75 education, hospitals, etc.) services, 100=equal access to all 5 services Are all Payams represented in consultation and resource 0= no, 50 = partial representation, 5 85 0 50 50 50 50 allocation in Rubkona County? 100 = yes 0 Sub-

Criteria Equal Opportunity to Livelihoods: Is there equal 67

5.5 opportunity to livelihoods? Do citizens have equal access to agricultural extension 0=no, 50=some equal access to ag 5 86 services? (e.g., tools distribution, seeds distribution, services, 100=full equal access to 50 50 50 50 50 0 application of manures, etc.) ag services 0=no, 25= little equal access, 50= Do citizens of Rubkona have equal access and opportunity to some equal access, 75= mostly 7 87 75 50 25 75 25 livelihood? (e.g. business and agriculture) equal access, 100= full equal 5 access 0=no, 25= little equal access, 50= Do women and vulnerable groups have equal access to some equal access, 75= mostly 7 88 75 50 90 25 75 ownership of land? equal access, 100= full equal 5 access

Table 5: Rumbek Central County – Specific Model with Consensus Scores by Focus Group Crit Co eria Core ns and Criteri en Wo Yo Sub a and LG CS su Question Scoring Range LG1 me ut TL crit Sub- 2 O s n h eria Criteri Sc Ave a or rag e es 2 4 2 Criteria 1 Effectiveness 70 59 51 49 6 3 4 Vision and Plan: Does the public Sub- administration have a clear vision that Criteria 1.1 translates into strategic and operational 65 plans to achieve development? Is there an existing strategic plan for Rumbek 0=no plan, 50=partial plan, 100= 10 1 100 100 50 50 50 0 Central County? detailed plan 0 Are there annual plans for Rumbek Central County 0=no plans, 50=partial plans, 10 2 for various sectors like health, water and sanitation, 100= detailed plans 100 100 50 50 50 50 education, roads and bridges etc.? 0 Is there access to the county’s strategic development 0=no access, 25=poor access, 3 50=some access, 75=very good 0 75 25 0 25 0 25 plans by the citizens in Rumbek Central County? access, 100=complete access Are CSOs in RCC involved in the development of the 0=no involvement, 50=some 4 involvement, 100=full 50 100 0 50 50 0 50 County strategic plans? involvement 0=no development, 25=poor To what extent is RCC realizing its development development, 50=some 5 development, 75=very good 75 75 25 25 75 25 50 programs/plans? development, 100=full development Financial Management: Is there effective and Sub-

Criteria 1.2 efficient management of public financial 46 resources? Does the county prepare its annual budget to run its 0=no, 25=very little preparation, 10 6 50=some preparation, 75=a lot of 100 100 75 75 25 50 development needs? preparation 100=full preparation 0 0=no, 25=poor independence, Does RCC have an independent budget to run the 50=some independence, 75=a lot 10 100 50 75 100 10 25 7 County’s development needs? of independence, 100=full independence 0 Does RCC have the capacity to manage its finances 0= no capacity, 50=some capacity, 100 50 50 50 50 0 8 efficiently? 100=full capacity 50 Is financial training available for county finance 0=no, 50= yes but partially 9 effective, 100= yes and highly 100 50 50 50 25 0 50 officers? effective Does RCC have an effective and efficient taxation 0=no, 50= partially effective and 10 10 efficient, 100= highly effective and 0 0 0 100 50 0 unit? efficient 0 0=no, 25= established but not Does RCC have established and effective checks and effective, 50= established but 11 partially effective, 75= established 100 50 0 75 50 25 25 balances in management of its finances? and mostly effective, 100= established and fully effective 0=no, 25= established but not Is there an established and effective audit system in effective, 50= established but 12 partially effective, 75= established 100 0 0 25 25 25 0 place? and mostly effective, 100= established and fully effective Sub- Decision and Info: Is the decision-making

Criteria 1.3 based on reliable and updated information? 50 10 13 Is there an existing database for the County? 0=no, 100=yes 100 100 0 0 75 0 0 0=no community members Is the RCC community informed about aspects of the informed, 25=few community members, 50=some community 14 county legal framework like the LGB, county plan members informed, 75=many 75 50 0 25 25 25 50 etc.? community members, 100=all community members informed Is decision making based on the Local Government 0=none of the time, 25=rarely, 15 50=sometimes, 75=many times, 100 50 0 25 50 25 25 Act 2009? 100=all the time Does the RCC have a reliable and efficient urban 0=no, 25=poor reliability, 16 50=some reliability, 75=high 75 25 25 75 25 75 25 land registry? reliability, 100=complete

Is the community consulted before land give aways 0=no, 50=sometimes, 100=yes 100 100 50 100 75 50 17 (i.e. for government, investment or demolition)? 50 Satisfaction towards services: What is the Sub- degree of citizens' satisfaction with the Criteria 35 1.4 quality of public service delivery and its accessibility? 0=no satisfaction, 25=little What is the degree of community satisfaction with satisfaction, 50=some, 75=a lot of 50 75 25 25 50 25 18 delivery of services within RCC? satisfaction, 100=extreme 25 satisfaction What percentage of RCC community members are 0=no satisfaction, 25=poor, 19 50=average, 75=a lot of 75 25 0 75 25 25 25 satisfied with the land registry system? satisfaction, 100= full satisfaction Are there any feedback mechanisms established for 0=no, 50=some mechanisms, 100 20 citizens to share input with local government = a lot of mechanisms 100 50 0 0 50 0 50 concerning services delivery? 0=no satisfaction, 25=little What is the level of citizens’ satisfaction with RCC satisfaction, 50=some satisfaction, 75 75 25 25 25 0 21 plans and resource allocation? 75=a lot of satisfaction, 100= full 25 satisfaction 0=no satisfaction, 25=little What is the level of satisfaction of CSOs in their satisfaction, 50=some satisfaction, 50 75 0 0 25 0 22 involvement in RCC planning and budgeting? 75=a lot of satisfaction, 100= full 50 satisfaction Sub- Leadership: Does the public authority have

Criteria 1.5 the ability to mobilize citizens for change? 50 Is RCC leadership capable of mobilizing and 0=no, 25=little mobilization, 50=some mobilization, 75=a lot of 23 planning for the progress of developmental activities mobilization, 100=full 100 75 25 75 25 50 75 for its citizens? mobilization What percentage of positive change has occurred 0=no change 25=little change, 24 50=some change, 75=a lot of 75 75 25 50 50 50 50 within the RCC local government in the last 2 years? change, 100= full change Does local government leadership administer 0=not at all, 25=poorly, 50=fair, 25 finances and local revenue collection efficiently and 75=very good, 100=excellent 0 50 25 50 50 50 25 effectively? 0= no, 25= little engagement, 50= Does the local government engage youth in some engagement, 75= a lot of 50 75 0 25 25 25 26 government decision making? engagement, 100= very strong 50 engagement 0=no consultation, 25=little Does the RCC consult with local stakeholders on the consultation, 50=some 27 allocation of public goods and services? (roads, consultation, 75=a lot of 100 75 50 50 50 25 50 schools, etc.) consultation 100= full consultation Criteria 2 Rule of Law: Does rule of law exist? 60 45 43 45 51 45 39 Existence of Institutional Legal Framework: 0=no framework, 50=existing but Sub- insufficient, 100=existing and Criteria 2.1 Is there an adequate legal framework in RC? 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 38 e.g local orders sufficient 0=no written laws, 25=few written laws, 50=some written laws, 29 Are there written laws? 75=many written laws, 100=all 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 laws are written 0=not established, 50=established 30 Is there an established functional county council? but not functional, 100 50 50 0 50 50 0 100=established and functional Sub- Effectiveness of Institutional Legal 0=not effective, 25=poor, Criteria Framework: What is the level of effectiveness 50=some, 75=high effectiveness, 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 13 2.2 of the institutional legal framework? 100=complete effectiveness 0=no mechanisms, 20=poor Are there mechanisms in place to educate people mechanisms, 40=fairly poor 32 mechanisms, 60=fairly good 50 40 20 0 20 0 0 about their legal rights? mechanisms, 80=good mechanisms, 100=perfect 0=no awareness, 25=little Are people aware of the legal procedures when awareness, 50=some awareness, 50 50 50 0 25 25 33 seeking justice? 75=good awareness, 100=full 25 awareness Sub- Criteria Application of Laws: Are laws and legal conventions enforced? 42 2.3 0=no efficiency 25=poor efficiency, 50=some efficiency, 34 How efficient is law enforcement? 75=a lot of efficiency, 100=highly 50 25 50 50 25 25 25 efficient To what extent is there harmony between 0=no harmony, 25=little harmony, 35 50=some harmony, 75=a lot 25 25 50 75 25 25 25 conventional laws and customary laws? harmony, 100=complete harmony Is RCC leadership effectively execute and enforce 0=not at all, 25= rarely, 36 50=sometimes, 75= most of the 75 50 50 75 75 25 75 local laws? (e.g. bar times, rubbish laws, etc.) time, 100= all the time 0=not at all, 25=poor knowledge, Sub- Awareness of Laws: Are the laws and legal 50=some knowledge, 75=a lot of Criteria knowledge, 100=completely 75 25 25 25 25 25 25 38 2.4 conventions known by the population? known

0=no citizens, 25=few citizens, 38 Do citizens find the laws and legal system relevant? 50=some citizens, 75=many 50 50 25 50 25 25 50 citizens 100=all citizens Does the local government raise awareness through 0= not at all, 25= little awareness, 50= some awareness, 75= a lot of 39 public media (radio talk shows, newspapers) about awareness, 100= very high 25 25 25 0 25 25 25 laws and the legal framework? awareness Sub- Responsiveness of Laws: Are laws responsive Criteria 38 2.5 to citizens' needs? 0=none, 25=few, 50=some, 75=a 40 Are cases settled under the conventional system? lot, 100=all 50 50 25 75 50 50 50 What is the level of citizen cooperation with local 0=none, 25=few, 50=some, 75=a 75 25 25 75 75 50 41 government around issues of security in RCC? lot, 100=complete cooperation 25 Sub- Citizens’ Access to Justice: Do citizens have 0=none, 25=few, 50=average, Criteria 75=most of the citizens, 100=all 100 25 25 50 75 50 25 42 2.6 access to justice? citizens Are cases/disputes settled fairly and efficiently in 0=none, 25=rarely, 43 50=sometimes, 75=most of the 50 50 50 50 75 50 50 conventional courts? time, 100=all of the time Are disputes/cases from customary courts referred 0=not at all, 25=rarely, 44 50=sometimes, 75=most of the 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 to the judiciary? time, 100=all of the time Sub- Incidence of Corruption: What is the degree Criteria 65 2.7 of corruption? What is the level of corruption in Rumbek Central 0=never, 25=very little, 45 50=sometimes, 75=most of the NA 50 75 50 75 75 75 County? time, 100=all the time 0=not common at all, 25=a little Are bribes and payments by citizens to law common, 50=fairly common, NA 75 75 75 75 75 46 enforcement common in RCC? 75=very common, 100=all the 75 time 0=no tolerance, 25=a little What is the level of tolerance citizens have in regards tolerance, 50=some tolerance, 10 NA 75 75 75 25 47 to corruption? 75=a lot of tolerance, 0 75 100=complete tolerance Does local government actually work to combat 10 10 0=yes, 50=sometimes, 100=no NA 50 50 50 48 corruption? 0 0 50 Are there local government systems/mechanisms to 0=yes, 50=weak 10 10 NA 50 50 50 49 prevent corruption? systems/mechanisms, 100=no 0 0 50 0=no accountable, 25=a little Accountability: What is the degree of accountability, 50=some, 75=a lot Criteria 3 34 41 19 30 35 15 accountability of the public service? of accountability 100=complete 25 17 accountability 0=no accountable, 25=a little What is the degree of accountability of the public accountability, 50=some, 75=a lot 50 25 25 25 25 0 50 service? of accountability 100=complete accountability Transparency: Is information related to public service delivery performance or non- Sub- 0=no, 50=partially available, Criteria 3.1 performance, and resources planning and 100=fully available 0 50 50 50 50 0 50 15 utilization (including bidding processes) available and accessible? Do citizens access information from the RCC around 0=no, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 52 local projects, activities, or service provision? (e.g. 75=a lot of the time, 100=all the 100 50 50 75 50 25 50 buildings, schools, bore holes, etc.) time Are local government project reports, planning 0=not at all, 25=rarely, 53 documents, and other resources that are used for 50=sometimes, 75=a lot of the 0 25 0 25 0 0 0 future planning shared with citizens? time, 100=all the time Are Payam Administrators recruited openly and 0= never, 25= rarely, 50= 10 54 sometimes, 75= most of the time, 75 0 75 50 0 0 transparently in RCC? 100= all the time 0 Does the media in RCC report on issues of local 0=not at all, 25=rarely, 55 50=sometimes, 75=a lot of the 50 0 25 0 25 0 0 government accountability? time, 100=all the time 0= no transparency, 25= little Is there transparency in tax collection/revenue in transparency, 50= some 56 transparency, 75= a lot of 50 25 25 25 25 0 25 RCC? transparency, 100= full transparency Sub- Checks and Balances: Is there an institution Criteria which has control, supervision, and sanction 13 3.2 power on the public authority? Are there open forums for CSOs to engage with 0=no, 25=very few forums, 50=yes, but difficult to access, 57 county authorities on the county budgeting and 75=yes and mostly accessible, 100 50 0 0 50 0 25 planning process? 100=fully accessible Is the County Council effective and efficient in terms 0=no, 25=poor, 50=fair, 75, very N/A 0 0 0 25 50 58 of its authority over the public authority? good, 100=excellent, 0 Recourse: Do the public service, private Sub- sector, civil society, and citizens have means Criteria 25 3.3 for making complaints and for communicating them to the control

institutions?

Do the public, private sector, civil society and 0=no means, 25=limited means, 59 citizens have means for launching complaints to 50=some means, 75=a lot of 0 50 25 25 50 25 25 county authorities? means, 100= full means Sub- Government's Responsiveness: What is the Criteria level of RC local government's 25 3.4 responsiveness? 0=no, 25=limited participation, 50=some participation, 75=a lot of 60 Does the RCC have a participatory budget system? participation, 100= full 25 75 25 50 25 0 25 participation Is the local government responsive to requests (i.e. 0=no responsiveness, 25=little letters and phones calls) from the community responsiveness, 50=some 61 responsiveness, 75=a lot of 75 50 25 25 25 0 25 regarding projects, developmental issues, and other responsiveness, 100= full activities? responsiveness Sub- Integrity: What is the level of integrity at the Criteria 6 3.5 local level? 0=no, 50=partially developed 62 Is there an action plan to fight corruption in RCC? action plan, 100=detailed action 0 0 0 50 25 0 0 plan 0= no reaction, 25= little reaction, Does local government react effectively to police or 50= sometimes, 75= strong N/A 75 25 75 25 25 63 military crimes committed in the county? reaction, 100= very strong 25 reaction To what extent are the RCC leadership and civil 0= very large extent, 25= large extent, 50= some extent, 75= 64 servants influenced by political and/or tribal/clan relatively not influenced, 100= not 25 50 0 25 0 25 0 affiliation? influenced To what extent are the RCC judiciary and civil 0= very large extent, 25= large extent, 50= some extent, 75= 65 servants influenced by political and/or tribal/clan relatively not influenced, 100= not 50 50 0 50 25 25 0 affiliation? influenced

Participation and Citizen Engagement: Is there effective participation (1) in the socio-economic and political life Criteria 4 of the sector/country/region/municipality/commune? (2) In the planning, implementation, and monitoring 44 process in any of the assessed development sectors?

Sub- Criteria Institutional Framework: Is there an effective institutional framework for managing citizen participation? 4.1 Are citizens consulted regarding the allocation and 0=no, 50=some consultation, 50 50 50 100 50 0 66 distribution of resources? (e.g. CDF) 100=full consultation 50 Are CSOs involved in the development of local laws 0=not involved, 50=some 67 involvement, 100=full 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 and policies? involvement To what extent do citizens participate in county 0=none, 25=few, 50=some 68 meetings, 75=most meetings, 0 50 25 0 25 0 25 strategic planning meetings? 100=all meetings Sub- Citizen Engagement: What is the level of Criteria 31 4.2 citizen engagement? Are citizens able to exercise freedom of speech 0=no ability, 25=little ability, 69 50=some ability, 75=a lot of 50 75 25 75 0 0 50 around local elections or local governance issues? ability, 100=full ability 0=no participation, 25=little Do citizens participate in local government participation, 50=some 70 participation, 75=a lot of 25 25 0 0 25 0 25 planning? (or county strategic planning meetings?) participation, 100=full participation 0= no involvement, 25= little Are citizens engaged in the monitoring and involvement, 50= some 71 evaluation of public sector performance? involvement, 75= a lot of 0 25 0 25 0 0 0 (departments, projects) involvement, 100= very high involvement Are there local community projects implemented 0=none, 25=few, 50=some, 75=a 72 with the participation of local actors/citizens in lot, 100=all 25 50 75 50 25 25 50 RCC? Sub- Civicness: What is the level of citizens' Criteria 56 4.3 civicness? 0=no awareness, 25=little Are citizens aware of their civil rights and awareness, 50=some awareness, 25 50 50 25 25 25 73 responsibilities as members of the community? 75=a lot of awareness, 100=full 50 awareness 0=no, 25=little involvement, Are citizens involved in the management of public 50=some involvement, 75=a lot of 50 50 50 75 25 25 74 facilities (e.g central water points, public toilets)? involvement, 100=full 50 involvement 0=no, 25=little participation 50=some participation, 75=a lot of 75 Do citizens participate in the local election process? participation, 100=full 100 75 75 100 75 75 75 participation

Does businesses/private investment in RCC 0=no, 50=some contribution, 50 50 50 50 25 50 76 contribute to improving the welfare of the county? 100=a lot of contribution 50 Criteria 5 Equity: What is the level of equity? 63 58 36 38 44 53 48 Sub- Legal Framework: Is there a legal framework

Criteria 5.1 ensuring the same rights for all citizens ? 50 Is there a county legal framework that is enforced to 0=no, 50=partial enforcement, 50 50 50 50 25 50 77 ensure equal rights for all citizens? 100=full enforcement 50 Sub- Equal Access to Basic Services: Is there equal Criteria 75 5.2 access to basic services? Do people have equal access to local government 0=no, 25=few people, 50=some 78 people, 75=most people, 100=all 75 75 25 25 25 50 75 services? people Sub- Equal Opportunity to Power: Is there equal Criteria opportunity to gain political and social 25 5.3 representation? 0=no, 50=some women, 100=an 79 Are women employed in the RCC local government? equitable number of women and 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 men 0=no, 50=some women, 100=an 80 Are women employed by RCC in senior positions? equitable number of women and 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 men Are vulnerable groups represented in the RCC? 0=no, 25=little representation 50=some representation, 75=a lot 81 (disabled, extreme poor, marginalized communities, of representation, 100=equal 50 50 25 25 50 25 25 elderly) representation Sub- Equal Access to Resources: Is there equal Criteria 50 5.4 access to resources? 0=no, 25=equal access to a few Do citizens have equal access to social resources? services, 50= equal access to some 10 82 services, 75=equal access to most 100 75 25 25 75 50 (education, hospitals, etc) services, 100=equal access to all 0 services 0=no, 50=some opportunities, 83 Do girls have equal opportunities to seek education? yes=100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Sub- Equal Opportunity to Livelihoods: Is there Criteria 38 5.5 equal opportunity to livelihoods? 0=no, 25=equal access in few Do women and vulnerable groups have equal access markets, 50=equal access in some 10 84 markets, 75=equal access in most 75 50 25 50 75 50 to markets? markets, 100=equal access in all 0 markets

0=no, 25=equal access in few Do women and vulnerable groups have equal access places, 50=equal access in some 85 places, 75=equal access in most 50 50 25 25 75 25 25 to ownership of land? places, 100=equal access in all places