51 t ar USAID tirY LGSP FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOVERNMENT • COMMUNITY • CITIZENS LOCAL GOVERNANCE SUPPORT PROGRAM

A Gauge for Good Governance

Local Governance Support Program

March 2008 USAID SP 4;4 041. FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOVERNMENT • COMMUNITY • CITIZENS AID LOCAL GOVERNANCE SUPPORT PROGRAM

Local Governance Assessment Tool:

A Gauge for Good Governance

March 2008

ERTI INTERNATIONAL RTI International In collaboration with: International City/County Management Association Computer Assisted Development Incorporated Democracy International

Table of Contents

I. Introduction I

II. Description of the Local Governance Assessment Tool 2

III. Local Governance Performance: Findings on the Five Good Governance Principles 5 Accountability Participation Effectiveness Equity Transparency

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 10

Annex I. LGAT Principles, Indicators and Operational Questions I 3 Annex 2. LGAT Scores - Local Governments by Province I 5 Annex 3. LGAT Scores - Local Governments by Ranking I 6

LGAT Graphics

Graph I. Graphic Representations of LGAT results 5 Graph 2. Composite Local Government Scores 6 Graph 3. Scores for Accountability 7 Graph 4. Scores for Participation 7 Graph 5. Scores for Effectiveness 8 Graph 6. Scores for Equity 9 Graph 7. Scores for Transparency 10

i Local Governance Assessment Tool: A Gauge for Good Governance'

I. Introduction

Improving governance is now widely regarded as an essential part of a comprehensive development strategy. Empirical measurements of governance have become key develop- ment indicators at the national level in the past decade. In the context of decentralized , an effective measurement of governance at the level of local government would not only highlight underperforming local governments but also help identify constraints to good governance within governments.

Good governance is strongly correlated with economic development. Studies show that improving the quality of institutions raises per capita income and promotes growth in the long term. While higher income is also correlated with better governance, the causal relationship is stronger from governance to income. Recent World Bank research2 esti- mates that even modest improvements in governance can lead to significant increases in income.

As is the case in many developing countries, Indonesia needs to improve its governance practices. Past weaknesses have significantly contributed to the problems faced by the country since the onset of the Asian financial crisis.3 Considering the growing recognition of the link between good governance and successful development, it is important to devise a tool that can be used to assess and monitor the practice of good governance by local governments. However, there is no widely accepted tool that is utilized to monitor or evaluate the practice of good governance at local level. Recent efforts at evaluating governance in Indonesia have included an opinion survey on good governance conducted by the University of Gajah Mada and a survey conducted by the World Bank across Indonesia.4

As its inception, the Local Governance Support Program (LGSP) initiated the Local Governance Assessment Tool (LGAT) which applied the tool in some of its initial partner local governments in Indonesia. The purpose of LGAT was to understand how local governments apply common principles of good governance and thereby to assess the strengths and weaknesses of current governance practices at the local level. It is hoped that LGAT can evolve into a practical tool that is widely accepted and used by national and local governments, as well as by individuals and groups who are interested in monitoring the effectiveness of local level governance practices.

This paper was prepared by Luce Bulosan, LGSP Performance Monitoring Adviser (October 2005—May 2007), with contri- butions by Peter Rooney, LGSP Performance Monitoring Adviser,Trias Utomo, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, and Judith Edstrom, LGSP Chief of Party. 2 A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance,World Bank, 2007. 3 Penerapan Tata Kepemerintahan yang Baik (Good Public Governance in Brief), Bappenas, 2006. 4 The Governance and Decentralization Survey,World Bank, 2007.

Local Governance Support Program 1

Local Governance Assessment Tool

This paper presents the experience of LGSP in applying the LGAT in order to illustrate the utility of the tool for establishing benchmarks in good governance, monitoring changes over time, and identifying institutional needs that can help to strengthen capacity development programs.

I. Description of the Local Governance AssessmentTool

Overview of the Questionnaire. The good governance index utilized for the LGSP assessment was adopted from the Global Campaign on Urban Governance initiated by UN—Habitat.5 Five of the original ten principles of good governance were adopted for LGAT. The complete framework was not fully adopted because a more concise tool was needed that was easy to facilitate at the local level.

The five core aspects of governance adopted in LGAT are: effectiveness, equity, participation, accountability, and transparency. These five principles are supported by 20 specific indicators which are operationalized into 70 questions that are verifiable through secondary documents and interviews.6 A categorical answer 'yes' or 'no' is provided to each question. An answer that favored a good governance outcome is assigned a value of one (I) and a zero (0) value is given to an answer that does not reflect a positive governance answer. A Good Local Governance Index is derived from the total percentage score obtained. The questionnaire was pre-tested in one district and resulted in a revision to the framework.

The aim is to develop a self-assessment tool for local governments and a simpler tool is considered more appropriate. For each of the five principles a list of indicators is provided. The selection of indicators was based on: (a) relevance for governance principles; (b) ease and cost of data collection, including availability and time required to obtain data; (c) measurability and universality of use for the general population and diverse populations.

The LGAT Conceptual Framework

5 Principles 70 20 Specific Good Local of Good p Operational Indicators Governance Governance Questions

s The Global Campaign on Urban Governance, UN-HABITAT, 2002. 6 A full list of indicators and survey questions is provided in Annex I.

2 Local Governance Support Program Local Governance Assessment Tool

The Software Application. To facilitate data analysis, LGSP developed a PC-based application to ensure a standard system for data entry and analysis. The system automatically calculates the score for each of the principles and the composite Good Governance Index. The figures below show examples from the LGAT software application package that is available at LGSP's online databank.?

Examples from LGAT Software Application Package

Questionnaire

Responden Responder 1,2.3,4 Dinar Pendalikan

Effectiveness Equity Participation Accountability Tramper. 1- Major Sources of income 2 Predictability of transform 3 - Con or Satisfaction Principle 2.1 Is the amount of fund transfers from n, i•rial government known in advance of the local budgeting process Tab • Yes O No • NA 2.2 If No, How many months were the national tablished) IM month (al 2.3 How information on the amount of fund transfe Information on the amount of fund bansfers was Obta,ned

2.4 Do you know the "baste employed to determine, 0 Yes • No • NA 2.5 If yes, please specify the basic of transfer: a. Population

b. Area • Yes 0 No • NA c, CROP per capita 0 Yes • No • NA

d. Human Development index • Yes 0 No 0 NA

e. Contraction cost Index 0 Yes • No • NA I. Other, Please specify other basic

Toot, ,,, , USA1D LOCAL GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT 1' LGSP Policy and Performance Measurement .....

GOOD GOVERNANCE INDEX

PRINCIPLE I: EFFECTIVENESS

Indicator I: Major sources of income 1.1 Budget predictability 2002 2903 2004 a Total local governance budget (plan)/expected) - in million rupiah 10,120.0 12.000.0 14,000,0 b. Total local government budget (actualx) - in million rupiah 12,500.0 12,000.0 15,000.0 c. Proportion of actuals and expected local government budget 123.5 % 100.0 % 107.1

1.2 Local government total revenue per capita 2002 2003 2004 A. Local government revenue per capita - in million rupiah 12,500.0 12,000.0 l 50,000.0 h. Total population - in thousand rupiah 11)0.0 150.0 200.0 c. Consumer price index 11)0.0 1115,0 109.2 d. Local government revenue per capita at constant price (in Rp_000) 125 0 762 606.0

7 See www.lgdatabank.or.id.

Local Governance Support Program 3 Local Governance Assessment Tool

Data Collection. To implement the tool, LGSP commissioned local research institutions operating within the project's target jurisdictions. Service providers were chosen based on their research experience, particularly in the locality. All researchers participated in an intensive training workshop to ensure a common understanding of the indicators and methodologies utilized to measure the indicators. In each district, an evaluation team was established, composed of a senior social scientist, two field researchers and a data encoder. Data collection took approximately five days and was carried out between April and June 2006 in all districts.

Key informant interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were the main data collection methods. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, key informant interviews were conducted to capture information on the indicators being studied. FGDs were also utilized to support the information gathered through the in-depth interviews.

To triangulate primary data collected through interviews and FGDs, secondary data was also necessary to verify the information provided in the interviews. The secondary data included local regulations, published reports, written guidelines, minutes of meetings and local news reports. Within an institution, more than one person may have provided answers for one set of indicators in the questionnaire.

Data Analysis and Reporting. Local research partners submitted a detailed report within two weeks of the fieldwork. The report includes a narrative on the findings that details all supporting documents used to substantiate the governance score for each of the indicators. LGSP's database is updated by uploading the completed LGAT applications submitted by the researchers. The good governance results are shown in a table and also graphically as a table, a dashboard, a bar chart and a radar chart. Users are able to copy and paste the graphs.

4 Local Governance Support Program Local Governance Assessment Tool

Graph I: Graphic Representations of LGAT results

Score Principles Score Calculated (%) al Low 'IA c Low o LOA Effectiveress 1.02 3.00 64 .Medium Menium Medium Equity 2.54 4.00 63 • Fligh Equity • High • High Participation 0.63 3.00 63 Effectiveress 64% 63% Participation 21% Accountability 2.09 4.00 52 Transparency 1.37 3.00 46

Total 8.54 17.00 50 e Low at Low e I ow Criteria Medium medium Medium Low 0-50 Red • High • High • High Medium 51 - 65 Yellow Accountability 52% Transparency 46% Total 50% High 66 - 100 Green

Good Governance Index - Kab. Enrekang

100

1-110 80

Medium 60

40

Low 20

Effectlyeress Primly Participation Accountability Transparency Total

LGAT Reliability. The LGAT was subjected to a reliability test called Cronbach's alpha,8 resulting in a reliability score of 0.82. In most social science research situations, a reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher is considered acceptable.

III. Local Governance Performance: Findings on the Five Good Governance Principles

Graph 2 below provides the findings for 25 local governments in the Good Governance Index, reflecting a composite of the five good governance principles selected for LGAT. The ratings were highest in the area of accountability, followed by participation, effectiveness, equity and transparency. While ratings in the weakest local governments tend to be uniformly low, with and Sibolga the weakest performers in nearly every category, there is a wide variation between some of the scores within a single local government. For example, Kota Malang is among the top five performers in two areas, yet has the lowest score of all 25 local governments for accountability. Only one, Semarang, is among the top five performers for more than two of the five aspects, and eight governments are in the top five for two aspects.

8 Cronbach's alpha test was applied by the International Development Group at RTI International, North Carjlina.

Local Governance Support Program 5

Local Governance Assessment Tool

Graph 2: Composite Local Government Scores*

Good Governance Index No Kabupaten/Kota Score Good Governance Index 1 Kota Semarang 81 2 Kota Sukabumi 74 100 3 Kab. Malang 73 4 Kab. Cianjur 73 Migh 5 Kab.3epara 72 80 6 Kab. Lebak 71 7 Kab. Gowa 71 Medium 8 Kab. Kudus 70 60-- 9 Kab. leneponto 70 10 Kota Bandung 70 11 Kab. Karanganyar 65 40 12 Kab. Bandung 63

13 Kab. 60 Low 14 Kota Malang 60 20 15 Kota Mojokerto 59 16 Kota Batu 58 17 Kab. Kediri 57 I I I 1 r-- I I I I I I = „I• de,. — IL L 18 Kota Palopo 56 i a -Z 11' Rr , a 1, e, , I" ,5 ="'' I t.ff I 1 I I 19 Kab. Klaten 55 .. - -ci .-. _.: .... .7" -.:7 ,gf „, ..,,, - ff r .5 .E. ... e I! ..., E. 20 Kab. Soppeng 54 ... 1 1 ,2, _4' .; 4 , . -E ... / Ar ' ir Jg i n,' .,? ,., ,e; ..-1 ai . Y. • - .. 21 Kab. Simalungun 53 ac' .1 X. 4e .2' 22 Kab. Enrekang 50 Y ...- 23 Kota Pangkajene Kepulauan 41 ... 24 Kota Sibolga 35 25 Kota Binjai 32

* LGSP partner jurisdictions are called kabupaten, meaning district, or kota, meaning city.

Despite the wide variations in overall scores between the highest and lowest districts and in scores across the five aspects in any single district, it is noteworthy that the average scores for accountability, participation, effectiveness and equity are all within a few points of one another, ranging from 61 to 65 per cent. Transparency is the outlier, with an average score of 51 per cent (see Annex 2 for details). That this area of governance is relatively weak supports LGSP's emphasis on transparency, particularly in planning and budgeting processes, whilst at the same time working to strengthen other core aspects of governance.

Findings related to each of the five governance aspects are described below.

Accountability. The principle of accountability denotes the obligation on the part of public officials to report on the use of public resources and to be held accountable for failing to meet stated objectives. This aspect obtained the highest score on average. However, good accountability is weakened by poor transparency. In some districts the score for accountability remains low. For example, in Kota Binjai of North , accountability scores only 43 per cent. This low score is due to the absence of a code of conduct for civil servants, a lack of transparency in the publication of tender documents, and a misperception among government employees about the meaning of confidentiality of financial documents for public review. Local government officials are reluctant to disclose public financial documents, including the district's annual budget. They perceive, erroneously, that only specific institutions, such as government auditors, have the right to examine such financial documents.

6 Local Governance Support Program

Local Governance Assessment Tool

Graph 3: Scores for Accountability

Accountability Indicator No Kabu paten Kota Accountability Indicator 1 Kota Bandung 89 2 Kab. Cianjur 88 100 3 Kab. Kudus 86 4 Kab. Lebak 84 5 Kab. Sukabumi 77 High 80 — 6 Kab. Malang 76 7 Kab. Semarang 75 Medium, 8 Kab. lepara 73 60- 9 Kab. 3eneponto 67 10 Kab. Karanganyar 67 11 Kab.Soppeng 66 40- 12 Kab. Kediri 66 13 Kab. Bandung 65 14 Kab. Simalungun 65 20 - 15 Kota Palopo 63 16 Kota Batu 62 17 Kab. Gowa 58 1— ti i t -rimirt -rt F 18 Kota Mojokerto 56 if , j .1I F I' 13 ffs I 1 ga g 19 Kab. Enrekang 52 I J rI-5 i'..' 4 n, ,, A2 d7 df I 7 20 Kota Sibolga 52 . 9 7 -117 1. LT :i . :."' . ., I ACr o - ‘, AL , 1 Je al ex AC „xi 21 Kab. Klaten 49 .1C .1C Jr. .r -V 22 Kab. Pangkajene Kepulauan 45 -IC 23 Kota Tebing Tinggi 45 s4.47 24 Kota Binjai 43 25 Kota Malang 41

Participation. Meaningful public participation is at the heart of development processes. Citizens are not only the beneficiaries, but are also the agents of change for development. For participation to be operational at the grassroots level, it should be supported by appropriate regulations and government structures that enable the beneficiaries to be involved in the design and implementation of public programs and projects. This will increase community ownership and eventually lead to better outcomes. The score for participation is the second highest after accountability (64.1 per cent). However, some districts score very poorly, including Sibolga and Binjai in and Enrekang and Pangkajene in South Sulawesi, all of which score below 30 per cent.

Graph 4: Scores for Participation

Participation Indicator 1 Kota Batu 92 2 Kab. 3eneponto 91 100 3 Kab. Lebak 90 4 Kab. Semarang 89 5 Kab. Gowa 89 High 80 6 Kab. Sukabumi 84 7 Kab. Karanganyar 83 Medium 8 Kab. Jepara 83 60 — 9 Kota Bandung 76 10 Kota Mojokerto 72 11 Kab.Soppeng 72 40 — 12 Kab. Kediri 72 13 Kab. Klaten 67 Low 14 Kab. Kudus 67 20 — 15 Kab. Malang 65 16 Kota Malang 63 17 Kota Tebing Tinggi 59 It ---rtr,t13t Flirt 18 Kab. Soppeng 56 -S. ." 19 Kab. Kediri 52 'y xi -7 i e.' '.' S" -r , ..e. 6' . , H L.. If ,... , • ' go a ...: f ,All z,- 20 Kota Palopo 41 j j 1 i ., .f i 1 f .'' 1 ff f.,, l ii .'.'' 1 21 Kab. Simalungun 38 -e .4 IC — i 22 Kab. Pangkajene Kepulauan 28 23 Kab. Enrekang 21 24 Kota Binjai 18 25 Kota Sibolga 6

Local Governance Support Program„ 7 Local Governance Assessment Tool

Effectiveness. Effectiveness refers to processes and institutions that produce results to meet needs while making the best use of resources. This principle is represented by several indicators: major sources of income, predictability of transfers to local government budget, consumer satisfaction survey, and the existence of a vision and mission statement. The effectiveness aspect obtains the third highest score (63.9 per cent). The highest scoring local government is Kabupaten Malang with a score of 91 per cent. Binjai and Karanganyar districts obtain the lowest scores in effectiveness. In Karanganyar, for example, the local government often fails to develop a budget plan that reasonably matches the actual budget expenses. Many districts score low on another efficiency indicator, that of conducting a consumer satisfaction survey. Key informants report that this kind of consumer survey is regarded as not essential and a waste of scarce resources.

Graph 5: Scores for Effectiveness

Effectiveness Indicator No Kabupaten/K012 Effectiveness Indicator 1 Kab. Malang 91 2 Kota Sukabumi 83 100 3 Kab, Semarang 83 4 Kota Tebing Tinggi 77 5 Kota Malang 74 High 80'" 6 Kab.1epara 72 7 Kab. Bandung 68 Medium 8 Kota Palopo 67 60 7 9 Kab. Kudus 67 10 KW leneponto 67 11 Kab. Soppeng 67 40 12 Kota Batu 67 13 Kota Bandung 65 Low 14 Kab. Enrekang 64 20 15 Kota Sibolga 63 16 Kab. Cianjur 61 17 Kab. Gowa 57 18 Kab. Simalungun 57 ,fr r r af • ki 19 Kab. Lebak 57 1 g," F - `e ed - • •R r 20 Kab. Kediri 56 aC k ya- Y ? • 'L ,4 -"" 21 Kab. Pangkajene Kepulauan 56 Y_ .1" 22 Kota Mojokerto 53 23 Kab. Kiaten 51 24 Kab. Karanganyar 34 25 Kota Binjai 31

Equity. The equity principle refers to gender inequality and income inequality. In this study the equity principle is represented by several indicators: a citizens' charter that expressess the right to basic services; women in key positions in local government; the local framework for gender equality; pro-poor policies; and incentives for informal business. The study found that the average score for equity is 60 per cent. Binjai and Sibolga of North Sumatra achieve the lowest score of 32 per cent. In these two cities, citizens' rights to basic services, such as health and education, have not been properly addressed. Although the central government financially supports several major interventions in the area of health and education, the local capacity to support these important programs, especially for the poor segment of community, is still limited.

With regard to the perspective of gender in development, such as the representation of women in key positions in local government structures, the study shows that in low performing districts the proportion of women in key government positions is currently at 21 per cent. The respondents interviewed stated that the main problem was a lack of qualified women, thereby limiting their involvement in local government decision-making.

8 Local Governance Support Program

Local Governance Assessment Tool

In this case efforts to increase opportunities for women to access quality education will contribute to a greater representation of women in local governments.

Graph 6: Scores for Equity

Equ Indicator No Kabupaten/Kota Score Equity Indicator Kab. Semarang 86 2 Kota Malang 80 100 3 Kab. Malang 80 4 Kab. lepara 79 5 Kab. Karanganyar 72 H60 6 Kota Tebing Tinggi 68 7 Kab. Jeneponto 66 Medium 8 Kab. Gowa 66 60 9 Kab. Lebak 65 10 Kab. Kiaten 65 11 Kota Bandung 65 40 12 Kab. Kudus 64 13 Kab. Kediri 64 Low 14 Kab. Cianjur 63 20 15 Kota Sukabumi 63 16 Kab. Enrekang 63 J 17 Kota Mojokerto 60 r- 02 18 Kab. Bandung 59 r ff ff e ,o 1 9 _I ".1 . , 19 Kab. Slmalungun 56 jr _f ,Az .1 er 20 Kab. Soppeng 53 A" jf " s • 41 A° .._ 21 Kab. Pangkajene Kepulauan 47 _11 22 Kota Palopo 45 " 23 Kota Batu 37 24 Kota Sibolga 32 25 Kota Binjai 32

Transparency. Transparency scores the lowest of the five governance aspects in the jurisdictions studied. In most cases, transparency is low because local governments do not have mechanisms to accommodate citizens' complaints and there is widespread resistance among local officials to divulge information to citizens. In addition, the fact that the disclosure of income and assets of local council members is not standard practice is compounded by the shortage of civil society organizations that specifically monitor the practice of disclosing the income of local political elites. The poor practice in transparency not only makes it difficult for citizens to lodge official complaints but also increases the risk of corruption. In the table below, Kabupaten Gowa is the most transparent with a score of 89 per cent while Kabupaten Sibolga is the least transparent with a score of 17 per cent.

Local Governance Support Program 9 Local Governance Assessment Tool

Graph 7: Scores for Transparency

1:Z3 Score Transparency Indicator 1 Kab. Gowa 89 2 Kab. Cianjur 78 100 3 Kab. Semarang 69 4 Kab. Karanganyar 66 5 Kab. Kudus 65 Mlgh 80 6 Kota Palopo 64 7 Kota Sukabumi 64 Medium 8 Kab. leneponto 62 60 9 Kota Mojokerto 57 10 Kab. Lebak 57 11 Kab. Malang 53 40 12 Kota Tebing Tinggi 52 13 Kab. Bandung 50 Low 14 Kota Bandung 49 20 15 Kab. lepara 48 16 Kab. Simalungun 46 17 Kab. Enrekang 46 18 Kota Malang 43 ., -,9 ,s' ar .° i,T, , g' z' .§- ..- if f ,!-.7 l' 2; 1 ." .1' . g' a y 1 47 ,ff- _f_. .. ,-,' .7 , .• .4' „,"7 al Ar —T 4' 19 Kab. Klaten 42 .,- ..-, E r -,- - sr .s, .....: 7.. i 1"7" il g.ff e , ,,,, -.I ji --, 4, .• _42 e -.2 ''' '7 -,1 1r .." .' # If 5_- - z,5' .4.- ,.1 sf'.. - 20 Kab. Kediri 42 -u- m ,- .;,- ..- „., - 7 -, r if -- 27 i7 ...,- ,1 .lc -1, -' -. .s, a' ..- 21 Kota Batu 40 rtr _v. 22 Kota Binjai 30 23 Kab. Soppeng 27 24 Kab. Pang kajene Kepulauan 24 25 Kota Sibolga 17

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

Reflecting on LGSP's experience on applying the LGAT to 27 districts in Indonesia (including ), this section presents issues to address and recommendations to consider if the tool is to be adopted and applied to a wider scale in Indonesia.

Inapplicable indicators. We found that some indicators were too rigid to be generally applicable, resulting in a high number of 'no' responses even when in reality there could be acceptable substitute initiatives not yet formalized in policy. This was especially true for the consumer satisfaction survey, an indicator for effectiveness, and citizens' charter, an indicator for equity.

Recommendation: When developing the questionnaire and training those implementing the survey, a number of acceptable positive responses should be identified rather than just one.

Inaccurate data. Although the instrument uses a series of yes-and-no questions, mixed research methods were used to collect information in order to substantiate a yes or no statement. Some of our researchers found it difficult to obtain data from local governments, especially data related to the budget. Discrepancies in data from one local department to another were also evident.

Recommendation: Data or information must be cross-checked and verified from different sources in order to determine accuracy and resolve conflicting information.

Inconsistent interpretation of results. We provided the research partners with a range for what constitutes a low, medium and high level of governance. However, a comparison of the final reports showed that interpretation of findings varied from one researcher to

10 Local Governance Support Program Local Governance Assessment Tool

another. What constitutes evidence for a high rating for one researcher can be a medium rating for another.

Recommendation: A synthesis workshop should be conducted among researchers and key stakeholders prior to the finalization of ratings to allow for sharing and deepening of analysis as well as reaching a consensus on the scoring process. This will also minimize, if not eliminate, researcher bias. If the tool is used as a self-assessment, a multidisciplinary team should validate the self-ratings.

Information overload. LGSP received about 50 pages of narrative report for each of the 27 districts assessed, and this was only for five good governance principles. Deliberately using a close-ended questionnaire helped to minimize the time for data analysis but still an ample amount of time was needed to review the narrative reports to make sure that the categorical answers were justified.

Recommendation: Time frame, financial, and human resources as well as usefulness for policy- making need to be considered in deciding the appropriate number of principles and corresponding indicators so as not to be overwhelmed with data.

Inapplicable in extreme situations. The tool was applied in both districts in Nias which were affected by the 2004 tsunami and 2005 earthquake. Data analysis showed that the tool can only be applicable under normal conditions. Nias had extremely low scores in good governance which was probably influenced by the combined effects of the two disasters.

Recommendation: LGAT should not be applied in situations where external factors are likely to skew the results, such as in disaster or conflict areas.

Cost of data collection. The evaluation was fully funded by LGSP, including training for the researchers. The cost for each district was about Rp 50,000,000.

Recommendation: Local governments can use their own staff to collect data or they can also be encouraged to allocate some funds to contract local independent researchers who have had experience in using the LGAT. It is important that measures are put in place to ensure the integrity of the results.

Lack of interest by local governments. Following similar assessments in other countries, research partners conducted exit workshops to present and validate the findings with key local stakeholders. However, due to a need to ensure data consistency between local governments there was a lack a time to conduct these workshops immediately after the assessments. Moreover, there was a clear resistance from some local government partners to review or participate in a wider forum to present and discuss the results given the perceived risk that a negative assessment would reflect poorly upon them. At the time of the assessments local governments were not required to assess their governance performance, a situation that is likely to change in 2008.

Local Governance Support Program 11 Local Governance Assessment To&

Recommendation: Actively disseminating the results of the study is highly desirable and should form part of the action plan. It is important to identify reform-minded local government officials and CSO representatives who can be champions and advocates for good governance. Buy-in from local government is higher when they hear of the usefulness of the tool from among their peers.

Finding champions at the national level who can carry the work forward, as has subsequently occurred, can substitute for the shortage of advocates within local governments. Following the presentation of the results to national and regional partners, LGSP received a request by the Secretariat for Good Governance of the National Planning and Development Agency (Bappenas) and the Ministry of Home Affairs' Directorate for Capacity Building and Evaluation, for further collaboration to use LGAT as a basis for developing a nationwide system for monitoring and evaluating good local governance. In April 2008 the Good Governance Index, developed by the Bappenas-led team with LGSP assistance, will be piloted in four districts including two LGSP partner districts. Following the piloting and further revisions Bappenas plans to implement this self-assessment tool across all local governments by the end of 2008.

12 Local Governance Support Program Local Governance Assessment Tool

Annex I. LGAT Principles, Indicators and Operational Questions

Principles Indicators Operational Questions

I . Major sources of What is the difference in the planned and actual local government budget? income What is the total local government revenue per capita ?

2. Predictability of transfer Is the amount of fund transfers from national government known in advance? How to local government many months in advance? budget I. Effectiveness How is the information on amount of transfer known?

Does the local government official understand and know the basis for calculating the block grant?

3. Consumer satisfaction Has the local government conducted consumer satisfaction surveys? How often? survey

4. Existence of Does the local government have a clear commitment in articulating its vision and vision/mission statement mission for development?

Did the development of vision and mission take into account general conditions of the local government's priorities, and the overall national development plan?

5. Citizen's charter: right Is there a published statement that acknowledges citizens' right to basic services? to basic services What public services are included?

How is this policy socialized or communicated to citizens?

6. Women in key positions What is the proportion of women councilors? in local government What is the proportion of women candidates in the last local elections?

What is the proportion of elected women councilors to total women candidates?

What is the proportion of women holding key positions to total number of women 2. Equity employees?

7. Legal framework for Is there a local policy that enshrines equal rights for women in labor, education, gender equality training and professional development?

Are local advocacy groups effective in changing social attitudes on gender?

Are data and reports on service delivery performance and expenditure disaggregated by gender?

8. Pro-poor policies What are the local initiatives in the health and education sectors that are considered pro-poor?

9. Incentives for informal Are there allocated spaces for microenterprises (e.g., allocated space for business street vendors)?

What are the incentives are given by the local government to informal sector?

Were there confrontations between local authorities or police and the informal street vendors?

Local Governance Support Program 13 Local Governance Assessment Tool

Principles Indicators Operational Questions

10.Voter turn-out and What is the percentage of voter turn-out disaggregated by gender? participation by gender

11.Public forum Besides formal process such as the Musrenbang, what are other mechanisms for citizens to express their views?

12.Citizens' capacity to Besides Musrenbang, is there any other established mechanism for citizens to 3. Participation engage in decision-making participate in planning and decision-making processes?

Are community leaders and CSOs involved in the development of strategic plans?

13.Citizens' awareness of What are the major political issues that citizens are aware of in their locality? important local political issues Are NGOs active in monitoring governance issues in the local government?

14.Public review of budget Does the local government announce and disclose the budget for public review?

Are tender processes announced and open to the public?

Are the criteria for public procurement clear and known to the public?

4. Accountability 15.Formal publication of Is there formal publication of tender documents and contracts awarded? contracts How is the procurement process socialized to the public?

16.Codes of Is there a published and signed code of conduct that citizens are entitled to from conduct/Integrity Pact their local government officials?

17.Independent audit Has the local government been audited for its previous budget expenditures?

Who conducted the audit? Were the results made public?

18. Mechanism for citizens' Are there mechanisms for citizens to voice their complaint? How are complaints complaints received?

Is there a government official/employee appointed to receive and respond to complaints?

What is the total number of registered complaints? And were these followed-up with actions?

Is there a dedicated agency to receive complaints on corruption at the district 5. Transparency level?

19.Anti-corruption Is this anti-corruption mechanism accessible to citizens? campaign Were there cases of corruption against local council members?

20. Disclosure of income What is the proportion of local council members disclose their assets and incomes and assets prior to taking public office?

Are there civil society watchdogs that independently monitor local officials' income and assets?

Have there been cases where CSOs have filed cases against local officials for not correctly disclosing their income and assets?

14 Local Governance Support Program Local Governance Assessment Tool

ANNEX 2. LGAT Scores: Local Governments by Province

Principles (%) Kab u pate n/Kota Effectiveness Equity Participation Accountability Transparency Total

North Sumatera

Kota Binjai 31 32 18 43 30 32

Kota Sibolga 63 32 6 52 17 35

Kab. Simalungun 57 56 38 65 46 53

Kota Tebing Tinggi 77 68 59 45 52 60

West Java

Kab. Bandung 68 59 72 65 50 63

Kota Bandung 65 65 76 89 49 70

Kab. Cianjur 61 63 72 88 78 73

Kota Sukabumi 83 63 84 77 64 74

Banten

Kab. Lebak 57 65 90 84 57 71

Central Java

Kab. Klaten 51 65 67 49 42 55

Kab. Karanganyar 34 72 83 67 66 65

Kab. Kudus 67 64 67 86 65 70

Kab. Jepara 72 79 100 94 42 78

Kab. Semarang 83 86 89 75 69 81

East Java

Kab. Kediri 56 64 52 66 42 57

Kota Batu 67 37 92 62 40 58

Kota Mojokerto I 53 60 72 56 57 59

Kota Malang 74 80 63 41 43 60

Kab. Malang 91 80 65 76 53 73

South Sulawesi

Kab. Pangkajene 56 47 28 45 24 41 Kepulauan

Kab. Enrekang 64 63 21 52 46 50

Kab. Soppeng 67 53 56 66 27 54

Kota Palopo I 67 45 41 63 64 56

Kab. Jeneponto 67 66 91 67 62 70

Kab. Gowa 57 66 89 58 89 71

Average National 63.9 61.2 64.1 65.2 51.2 61.3

Local Governance Support Program 15 Local Governance Assessment Tool

Annex 3. LGAT Scores: Local Governments by Ranking

Ranking Kabupaten/Kota Good Governance Index High I Kab. Semarang 81 2 Kab. Jepara 78 3 Kota Sukabunni 74 4 Kab. Cianjur 73 5 Kab. Malang 73 6 Kab. Gowa 71 7 Kab. Lebak 71 8 Kota Bandung 70 9 Kab. Jeneponto 70 10 Kab. Kudus 70

Medium 11 Kab. Karanganyar 65

12 Kab. Bandung 63 13 Kota Tebing Tinggi 60 14 Kota Malang 60 15 Kota Mojokerto 59 16 Kota Batu 58 17 Kab. Kediri 57 18 Kota Palopo 56 19 Kab. Klaten 55 20 Kab. Soppeng 54 21 Kab. Simalungun 53

Kab. Enrekang Low 22 50 23 Kab. Pangkajene Kepulauan 41 24 Kota Sibolga 35 25 Kota Binjai 32

16 Local Governance Support Program