• Like
Legislative Strengthening Performance Measurements
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Legislative Strengthening Performance Measurements

  • 670 views
Published

 

Published in Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
670
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. USAID’s Legislative Strengthening Performance Measurements Presented by Keith Schulz USAID Legislative Strengthening Advisor Brussels, Belgium May 21, 2007 [email_address]
  • 2. Overview
    • USAID legislative assistance programs include a system for measuring the progress and results of assistance programs
    • Utilizes pre-determined goals and objectives for the program and measures progress towards those goals and objectives through the use of indicators.
    • Designing effective indicators is key to a good performance monitoring plan; must be tailored to the specific country context
    • We want to measure outcomes not outputs
    • These indicators can serve a larger purpose by measuring the progress of a legislative institution in terms of its own internal reform and modernization process, as well as measuring the overall democratic development of the legislative institution.
  • 3. Illustrative Goals or Objectives
    • More Effective, Independent, and Representative Legislatures
    • More Effective and Democratic Internal Management Systems
    • Increased Legislative Capacity to Influence National Policy and Budget Priorities
    • Increased Citizen Access to Legislative Processes
  • 4. I. More Effective, Independent, and Representative Legislatures
    • Illustrative indicators
    • 1) Survey of the level of confidence among political actors that legislature has the capacity to perform its function; and level of confidence among legislators that legislature acts as an independent body.
    • 2) Survey of the level of confidence among citizens that legislature acts as a check against the executive (in presidential system); and level of confidence among citizens that legislature represents their interests.
    • 3) Index of quality of legislative processes.
    • 4) Number or Percentage of substantial legislative bills emanating from the legislature.
    • 6) Number or Percentage of legislative bills drafted by the executive that are substantially amended by the legislature.
    • 7) Number or Percentage of new laws which, as bills, were a) accompanied a written technical analysis, opinion papers, and/or legislative study; and b) were the subject of a public hearing.
  • 5. II. More Effective and Democratic Internal Management Systems
    • Illustrative Indicators
    • 1) The number of reform regulations and procedures adopted that enable the legislature to operate more efficiently and democratically in comparison with a list of reforms proposed.
    • 2) The number of months each year that MPs and staff receive promised remuneration in timely manner.
    • 3) The number of plenary session convened as scheduled with firm agendas in advance.
    • 4) The number or percentage of laws benefiting during drafting from the use of improved information systems.
  • 6. More Effective and Democratic Internal Management Systems (cont)
    • 5) The percentage of MPs and staff who say they are able to obtain information when they need it.
    • 6) Observance of rules permitting equitable participation by opposition including, but not limited to, the percentage of time given to opposition members in key debates; the percentage of speakers in plenary debates who are from the opposition; whether opposition members are given resources comparable to ruling party members (e.g., resources for meetings with constituents); percentage members from the opposition in key committees; or bills of opposition members are given due consideration.
    • 7) Percentage of legislature’s budget (or dollar amount) devoted to modernization and reform; and/or to research & information.
  • 7. III. Increased Legislative Capacity to Influence National Policy and Budget Priorities
    • Illustrative Indicators
    • 1) Adequacy of legislative review of the budget including, but not limited to, whether the Executive submits budget to Parliament in a timely fashion; the Parliament has sufficient time to consider budget; the appropriate committees review the budget; members have access to budget information and analysis; the Parliament holds hearings on the budget; and the Parliament amends budget.
    • 2) Index of committee capacity: a) committee structure appropriate for issue area (i.e., an education committee considers only educative issues); b) committees have sufficient resources (i.e., professional staff) at their disposal; c) committees have the authority to initiate & amend legislation; d) committees exercise their authority.
    • 3) Index of committee oversight: a) are there oversight hearings? b) do oversight committees have sufficient resources to conduct independent investigations? c) do oversight committees have authority to question executive branch?
  • 8. IV. Increased Citizen Access to Legislative Processes
    • Illustrative Indicators
    • 1) The number of open public hearings in which citizens and citizen groups participate.
    • 2) The average number of meetings legislators hold with NGOs or constituents per week or per month.
    • 3) The percentage of legislators with functioning regional or local constituent offices.
    • 4) The percentage of legislative committee meetings open to the public and media.
    • 5) Scorecard of citizen access including, but not limited to, a) do citizens have access to records of committee and plenary meetings; b) can citizens obtain voting records of MPs; c) do citizens attend meetings of the parliament; d) are plenary and committee meetings open to the press.
    • 6) Index measuring whether the content of public participation in committee processes is factored into legislation and budget decisions.
  • 9. Individual Parliament’s Development of Performance Indicators
    • Palestinian Legislative Council
    • 1. Legislative Review
    • Percentage of Executive-initiated draft laws passed by the Council that was amended in a technically and legally sound fashion by the Council.
    • 2. Legislative Outreach
    • Number of legislative initiatives to elicit public comment on critical draft legislation through formal outreach mechanisms (primarily hearings and workshops)
    • 3. Budget Hearings
    • Number of Legislative Council-initiated formal hearings held to discuss the annual government budget or government revenues and expenditures.
    • 4. Oversight Initiative
    • Number of committee-based proceedings (investigations, reports, hearings) held on specific non-legislative Executive Branch performance or actions.
    • 5. Response to Constituents
    • Number of “town meetings” organized by the Council.
  • 10. 12 3 - 4 5 11 9
    • Number of Bills for which budgetary impact analysis is drafted by PBO.
    21 2 4 6 9 12 8
    • Number of Parliamentary Committees that request information from the Parliamentary Research Service
    28 10 9 4 5 13 11
    • Number of Parliamentary Committees that request information from the PBO.
    IR-9.1.3 LEVEL 12 8 2 2 - 18 13
    • Number of target CSOs with legislative agenda items reflected in Parliament Bills.
    38 14 11 9 4 40 28
    • Number of target CSOs having a legislative agenda with Parliament
    IR-9.1.2 LEVEL 1 0 1 - - 1 1
    • Number of Private Members Bills introduced by MPs.
    15 7 2 5 1 13 10
    • Number of bills substantively reviewed by parliamentary committees before enactment.
    IR-9.1 LEVEL 1 1 - - - 6 4
    • Number of Parliamentary Committees invited by CSOs for briefings and dialogue.
    50 14 7 16 13 50 42
    • Number of CSOs submitting written comments to parliamentary committee hearings
    SO-9 LEVEL Actual Annual FY 04 Actual Jul-Sep 04 Actual Apr-Jun 04 Actual Jan-Mar 04 Actual Oct-Dec 03 Target FY 04 Baseline FY 04 Uganda LSA PMP REPORTING – FY 2004
  • 11. Data Collection
    • Data is collected through various sources including, but not limited to, the parliamentary secretariat or clerk, interviews with MPs and staff, examination of legislative records, interviews with CSOs, news accounts, scorecards, indexes, surveys.
    • Baseline data is often a problem
    • Data collection can be costly and may require additional funding
    • Provides impetus for improving legislative record-keeping systems
    • Provides quantitative information but good impact evaluations also require qualitative information
    • Indicators don’t tell the whole story (attribution/causation question); many variables besides assistance programs can contribute to changes in parliamentary performance over time
    • Performance measuring data has been utilized in evaluating individual programs but no attempt yet to use the data systematically to review overall impact of USAID legislative programs
  • 12. Additional Resources
    • http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/
    • USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening (PN-ACR-215)
    • Handbook of Democracy and Governance Indicators (PN-ACR-211)
    • Email orders to docorder@dec.cdie.org