Local Government DivisionMinistry of Local Government,

Rural Development and Cooperatives

Citizen Perception Survey Citizen Perception Survey on

Services Delivery :Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad

This report has been prepared with support from EU, SDC, DANIDA, UNCDF and UNDP

European Union

DANIDAMinistry of ForeignA�airs of Denmark

P a g e i

Research TeamDr. Mohammed Yusuf, SRSDr. Mohammad Mamdel Hossain, SRSSiddiquer Rahman, SRS

Research AdvisorsH. M. Nazrul Islam, Programme Analyst, UNDPMd. Mozammel Haque, Project Manager, UZGPDr. Sarwar Bari, Project Manager, UPGPMd. Habebur Rahman, Research Officer, UZGP & UPGP, UNDP

Prepared bySurvey and Research System (SRS)House # 8, Road # 6, Sector # 03, Uttara, Dhaka

Published byLocal Government DivisionMinistry of Local Government, Rural Development and CooperativesGovernment of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh

Copyright c 2014ISBN : 978-984-33-9087-5

Citizen Perception Survey on Services Delivery :Upazila Parishad & Union Parishad

Disclaimer :The Document has been produced with the �nancial assistance of the contributing donors of the UZGP and UPGP i.e EU, DANIDA, SDC, UNDP and UNCDF. The views expressedherein can in no way be taken to re�ect the o�cial opinion of the supporting donors.

P a g eii

Message

Monzur HossainSenior Secretary, Local Government DivisionMinistry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives

When local Governance is about being a government for the people, it is imperative that we not only go beyond delivering services but also hear from the people about how we serve them. I commend this initiative of the local governance projects to conduct the Citizen Perception Survey and the report for its focus, content and contribution.

The Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) and Upazila Parishad Governance Project (UZGP), have been implemented by Local Government Division (LGD) from 2012. These project were taken up to improve the functional and institutional capacity, as well as accountability of the local government instiutions (LGIs) across the country. They were seen as platforms to cnhance awareness of citizens about their right and privilege and secure services that LGIs are mandated to provide.

The Citizen Perception Survey has given us the third eye view as well as to know the actual scenario of the functioning of Upazila Parishads and Union Parishads, and the manner in which the projects are making a difference from the perspective of the people. After taking a close look at the outcomes of the survey, I think, this type of study should be done periodically, so that we get to know how the peple benefit from our efforts and interventions. I found some suggestions of the survey particularly illuminating and worthy of serious reflection to improve the performance of local government.

The projects, UZGP and UPGP, the UNDP team and the survey firm SRS, have partnered well to complete the study. I appreciate their efforts. I would also like to commend the National Project Directors of UPGP and UZGP for the strong support and guidance they extended, as well as our development partners the European Union, DANIDA, SDC, UNCDF and UNDP for their continuous contribution and cooperation in all our endeavours.

P a g e iii

The Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) and Upazila Parishad Governance Project (UZGP), have been implemented by Local Government Division (LGD) from 2012. These project were taken up to improve the functional and institutional capacity, as well as accountability of the local government instiutions (LGIs) across the country. They were seen as platforms to cnhance awareness of citizens about their right and privilege and secure services that LGIs are mandated to provide.

Message

Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives

KM Mozammel HoqAdditional Secretary, Local Government Division

The Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP), working since December 2011, is being implemented by Local Government Division (LGD). This five-year project (Dec’11 to Nov’16) is piloting innovations to improve the functional and institutional capacity and accountabillity of the Union Parishads (UP). It will also help increase citizen’s involvement in UP activities in order to achieve effective and efficient delivery of services.

Since the project aims at bringing in positive changes in the lives of people, particularly poor and marginalized through working with UPs, it is important to know their perception about the services provided by UPs. So, it was a timely initiative to conduct the “Citizen Perception Survey” and I would like to appreciate UPGP for initiating the survey. The survey was conducted both at 7 UPGP districts and equal number of control districts. As reported in the survey, the Union Parishads in general have shown considerable improvement since the baseline of UPGP was conducted. However, the improvement at UPs supported by UPGP was slightly better than UPs from control area. There was improvement in the knowledge and awareness of the citizens regarding their rights as well as the functions of Union Parishad in the project areas. Ward Shava, Parishad meetings and other meetings have seen significant improvement. However, additional efforts are needed to make the SC more effective. According to the survey respondents, the status of governance indicators such as transparency, accountability, responsiveness is showing improvement. Citizen satisfaction has increased significantly which is highly encouraging.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all that have made the carrying out of the survey possible. My heartfelt thanks go to all the respondents who generously gave of their time and insight in answering questions asked by the survey team. I would like to thank relevant officialsand elected representatives from the UPs for extending excellent support to the survey team. Iwould also like to thank the survey team from the survey firm SRS for conducting the surveywith commitment. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to our development partners EU, SDC, UNCDF, UNDP for their financial support and technical assistance.

I hope UPGP will carry out such survey on a regular basis, as appropriate, which will inspire the project to continue its good work and as the same time will remind the project to take corrective measures, where things will have gone wrong.

P a g eiv

Message

Md. Shah KamalAdditional Secretary (Admin), LGD &National Project Director, UZGP

With a view to building the Upazila Parishads as active and vibrant Local Government unit to ensure pro-poor and service delivery at the local level, Local Government Division (LGD) started Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) in August 2011. The UZGP, since its inception, has supported to build the capacity of elected and government officials to enable Upazila Parishad (UZP) to further strengthening democratic practices in serving their constituents. The project-supported capacity development initiative has resulted in MDG-oriented Planning, Budgeting and improved service delivery and promoted accountability at UZP level. The project also provides performance-based block grants to select UZPs to implement development schemes that benefit tens of thousands of people in rural Bangladesh.

To assess the result achieved so far as well as understand the perception of people about different aspects of UZPs including service delivery, transparency and accountability mechanism and democratic practices, it was essential to conduct a 3rd party survey. Accordingly, the project conducted the “Citizen Perception Survey”. The survey has been conducted both at the project area and control area to have a systematic comparison between them. CPS result reveals that UZPs as a whole have improved their performance in terms of planning and budgeting, however, UZPs supported by UZGP have done slightly better than the UZPs that are not supported by the project. People are now aware of their right to information (RTI). All the UZPs have formed 17 SC though initiatives are required to make these committees more effective. As revealed in the survey, some efforts are still needed to bring all the units under one umbrella and act as a single body. To ensure smooth execution of services, transferred departments should be made more involved with UZP in the future.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all the respondents who generously gave of their time and insight in answering questions asked by the survey team. I am thankful to the officials and elected repre-sentatives from the UZPs for their outstanding support that they extended to the survey team. I would also like to thank the survey firm SRS, especially, the members of the survey team for their painstaking efforts in making the survey meaningful. Finally, I would like to thank our development partners EU, SDC, UNCDF, UNDP for their financial support and technical assistance.

I sincerely hope that the findings of the survey will inspire the project as well as UZPs to perform even better in future. I would encourage UZGP to carry out such surveys at regular intervals that would work as tools for self-evaluation and allow us to put more efforts in making the lives of the citizens of this country better.

P a g e v

With a view to building the Upazila Parishads as active and vibrant Local Government unit to ensure pro-poor and service delivery at the local level, Local Government Division (LGD) started Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) in August 2011. The UZGP, since its inception, has supported to build the capacity of elected and government officials to enable Upazila Parishad (UZP) to further strengthening democratic practices in serving their constituents. The project-supported capacity development initiative has resulted in MDG-oriented Planning, Budgeting and improved service delivery and promoted accountability at UZP level. The project also provides performance-based block grants to select UZPs to implement development schemes that benefit tens of thousands of people in rural Bangladesh.

To assess the result achieved so far as well as understand the perception of people about different aspects of UZPs including service delivery, transparency and accountability mechanism and democratic practices, it was essential to conduct a 3rd party survey. Accordingly, the project conducted the “Citizen Perception Survey”. The survey has been conducted both at the project area and control area to have a systematic comparison between them. CPS result reveals that UZPs as a whole have improved their performance in terms of planning and budgeting, however, UZPs supported by UZGP have done slightly better than the UZPs that are not supported by the project. People are now aware of their right to information (RTI). All the UZPs have formed 17 SC though initiatives are required to make these committees more effective. As revealed in the survey, some efforts are still needed to bring all the units under one umbrella and act as a single body. To ensure smooth execution of services, transferred departments should be made more involved with UZP in the future.

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsPage No.

Background Introduction and Backdrop Citizen Perception Survey and Assessment of Results Objectives of the Study Scope of Work Methodology Survey Methodology Statistical Considerations for determination of sample size Relevance of Margin of error with Std. error Selection of sample respondents in Clusters Sample Design and Distribution of sample Selection of sample district and upazilas in a division in control areas Respondents for CPS in sample household Qualitative assessment of the CPS Field Operation Data Analysis Validity Check and adjustment Respondents’ Profile Sex composition Age composition Educational distribution Occupational classification Household Income Religious status Involvement in LGI KII Respondents’ Profile FGD participants’ profile Survey Findings Union Parishad Right to Information (RTI) Parishad Meeting (PM) Ward Shava (WS) Standing Committee (SC) Union Development Coordination Committee (UDCC) and Project Implementation Committee (PIC) Schemes/Projects Annual Plan and Five Year Plan Budget Audit, Taxes and Fees Law and Order Situation Service Delivery Overall UP’s Performance of UP Representatives and Official Upazila Parishad

1.1.11.21.31.42.2.12.12.22.32.42.52.62.72.82.92.103.3.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.4.14.1.14.1.24.1.34.1.44.1.5

4.1.64.1.74.1.84.1.94.1.104.1.114.1.124.2

0113131617172121212121222426262728283131313131313232333439393941414344

4448495254555660

Executive Summary

P a g evi

4.2.14.2.24.2.34.2.44.2.54.2.64.2.74.2.84.2.94.2.104.2.114.2.124.2.134.2.145.5.15.1.15.1.25.1.35.1.45.1.55.1.65.1.75.1.85.1.95.1.105.25.2.15.2.25.2.35.2.45.2.55.2.65.2.75.2.86.6.16.1.2 Part I:6.1.2.16.1.2.26.1.2.36.1.2.46.1.2.56.1.2.66.1.2.76.1.2.86.1.2.96.1.3 Part II:6.1.3.1

Knowledge about UZP Right to Information (RTI) Parishad Meeting Upazila Parishad Committee (UPC) Project Implementation Committee (PIC) Schemes/Projects Annual Plan and Five Year Plan Budget Income and Expenditure of UZP Law and Order Situation Service Delivery Coordination Overall UZP’s Performance involving representatives and Official Women Development Forum (WDF)Institutional Assessment Union Parishad Checklist Status of Union Parishad Citizen Charter and Right to Information Status of Ward Shava UP’s Monthly Meetings Standing Committees UP Annual and Five year plan Budget, Audit and Tax Status of MDG Schemes of UP in 2013 Management Information System (MIS) of UP Upazila Parishad Checklist Citizen Charter and Right to Information UZP’s Monthly Meeting UZP’s Committees Budget Annual and Five Year Development Plan Activities for disadvantaged people Miscellaneous aspects of UZP Improvement due to UZGP Qualitative Survey Findings Focus Group Discussion With Respect to Upazila Parishad Opinion of the FGD respondents about UZP activities Selection and implementation of scheme /projects Upazila Parishad Meeting About 17 committees of the Parishad Planning and Budget of the Parishad Information released/receipt Women Development Forum Function of the Parishad Co-ordination With Respect to Union Parishad FGD respondents knowledge on UP activities

60606162636467697171727374778181818182828282838485858686868789909090919595959595969797989899999999

P a g e vii

99101101101102102102103103104104104104105105105106106107107107108108109109109109109109109110110113113115115116117118118119123123125131131133135

6.1.3.26.1.3.36.1.3.46.1.3.56.1.3.66.1.3.76.1.3.86.1.3.96.1.3.106.26.2.16.2.1.16.2.1.26.2.26.2.2.16.2.2.26.2.36.2.3.16.2.3.26.2.3.36.2.3.46.2.46.2.4.16.2.56.2.5.16.2.5.26.2.66.2.6.16.2.6.26.2.6.36.2.6.46.2.6.57.7.17.27.37.47.57.67.77.88.8.18.29.9.19.2

Selection and implementation of scheme /projects Union Parishad Meeting About 13 committees of the Parishad Planning and Budget of the Parishad Information released/receipt Women Development Forum Function of the Parishad Co-ordination Ward Shava Key Informants Interview (KII) Knowledge and Awareness of Citizens Whether laws and rules were in operation Disclosure of Citizen’s Charter Committees Standing Committees Departmental Committees Budget, Planning and Programs Planning (Annual and Five year Plans) Schemes/projects Budget Taxes, fees, charges etc. Services of UZP and UP Service Delivery Strengthening Training/Research By Laws/Rules etc. Miscellaneous Association of UP Chairmen and Association of UZP Chairmen Women Development Forum (WDF) Resource Corner Impact of UZGP and UPGP Suggestions for StrengtheningCase Study Success in Activating Standing Committees at Sulla Seasonal Students of Dupoti Monosatoli School Became Regular Students Ramkrishnopur Union is Regenerated with Continuous Flow of Information Participatory Planning of Purnimagatti UP Providing Training to School Management Committee (SMC) Add a New Dimension Single Crop Kanchonpur Beel Changed into Triple Crops Paddy Land Divorced, poor Gulbahar become self-reliant through tailoring by WDF Boat Ambulance Scheme of Keorjore UP Remains HangingComparison with Baseline Study Union Parishad Upazila ParishadConclusion and Recommendation Conclusion RecommendationsReferences

P a g eviii

1516222223232323273234354041424344

47485254555659616263646768707172737376778181818282828383

Page No.List of TablesUZPs under UZGPUPs under UPGPUZPs under UZGPSample HouseholdSocio-economic CharacteristicsControl areasControl UZPsUPs of Control DistrictsSurvey Respondents Household Respondents’ profile KII Demographic Information: Detail information on FGD Participants Right to Information (RTI) Parishad Meeting Different aspects of Ward Shava Standing Committee (SC) Union Development Coordination Committee (UDCC)and Project Implementation Committee (PIC) Schemes/ProjectsAnnual Plan and Five Year PlanBudgetAudit, Taxes and FeesLaw and OrderService DeliveryOverall UP’s Performance of UP Representatives and OfficialRight to Information (RTI)Parishad MeetingUPC CommitteeProject Implementation Committee (PIC)Schemes/ProjectsAnnual Plan and Five Year PlanBudgetAuditLaw and Order SituationService DeliveryCoordination between UZP Officials Overall UZP’s Performance involving representatives and Official Women Development Forum (WDF)Availability of Union Parishad Act 2009 in UP officeStatus of Citizen’s CharterUP assigned any person for providing information to CitizenWard Shava held in 2013UP Monthly MeetingStanding CommitteesAnnual and Five Year PlanAvailability of Annual Budget

Table 1.1Table 1.2Table 2.1Table 2.2Table 2.3Table 2.4Table 2.5Table 2.6Table 2.7Table 3.1Table 3.2Table 3.3Table 4.1.1Table 4.1.2Table 4.1.3Table 4.1.4Table 4.1.5

Table 4.1.6Table 4.1.7Table 4.1.8Table 4.1.9Table 4.1.10Table 4.1.11Table 4.1.12Table 4.2.1Table 4.2.2Table 4.2.3Table 4.2.4Table 4.2.5Table 4.2.6Table 4.2.7Table 4.2.8Table 4.2.9Table 4.2.10Table 4.2.11Table 4.2.12Table 4.2.13Table 5.1Table 5.2Table 5.3Table 5.4Table 5.5Table 5.6Table 5.7Table 5.8

P a g e ix

Page No.List of Figures

Table 5.9Table 5.10Table 5.11Table 5.12Table 5.13Table 5.14Table 5.15Table 5.16Table 5.17Table 5.18Table 5.19Table 5.20Table 5.21Table 5.22Table 5.23Table 5.24Table 5.25Table 5.26Table 5.27Table 5.28Table 7.1Table 8.1Table 8.2Table 8.3Table 8.4Table 8.5Table 8.6Table 8.7Table 8.8Table 8.9Table 8.10Table 8.11Table 8.12Table 8.13Table 8.14

‘Open Budget’ held at UPsAudit of UPsHolding Tax payerProjects/schemes under MDGSchemes of UPsStatus of MISEffectiveness of UP’s MIS systemStatus of Citizen CharterStatus of RTI facilities at UZPUZP’ monthly meetingInvitation of monthly meetingPresence of Member of Parliament (MP) in the monthly meetingFormation of Upazila parishad’s committees in 2013Number of meeting heldGender of chairperson of the committeesStatus of budget preparation for 2013-14Status of Annual and Five Year Development PlanUZP activities for disadvantaged peopleStatus of Annual Performance Report (APR) for transferred officialsUZP visit by Government Officials in 2013 Standing Committee (Sulla UZP)Status of Citizen Charter in the UPs (Project Area)Status of Ward Shava in the UPs (Project Area)Awareness on Standing Committees (Project Area)Awareness on Annual Plan, Five-Year Plan and BudgetStatus of Schemes implementedStatus of audit by the government’s appointed auditors Citizen’s satisfaction on overall performance of UPsAwareness on the functions of UZPsStatus of Citizen Charter in the UZPs (Project AreaStatus of monthly meetingStatus of UZP’s committeesAwareness on Annual Plan, Five-Year Plan and BudgetKnowledge about scheme selectionCitizen’s satisfaction on UZPs Activities

Page No.List of Tables8383848485858586868787878889899090909091114123123124124124124125125126126126127127127

Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4Figure 5Figure 6Figure 7Figure 8Figure 9Figure 10

Citizen Charter at the premises of Union ParishadKnowledge about UISCSatisfaction on services received from UISCOpinion on willingness to inform UP activitiesKnowledge about the union parishad meetingKnowledge about the Ward ShavaKnowledge about the Standing CommitteeEffectiveness of Standing CommitteesSatisfaction on PIC meetingKnowledge about the schemes/projects

39394040414143434444

P a g ex

Page No.List of FiguresFigure 11Figure 12Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15Figure 16Figure 17Figure 18Figure 19Figure 20Figure 21Figure 22Figure 23Figure 24Figure 25Figure 26Figure 27Figure 28Figure 29Figure 30Figure 31Figure 32Figure 33Figure 34Figure 35Figure 36Figure 37Figure 38Figure 39Figure 40Figure 41Figure 42Figure 43Figure 44Figure 45Figure 46Figure 47Figure 48

Evaluation of the effectiveness of schemes/projectsSatisfaction on the quality of implemented projectsKnowledge about annual planning of UPKnowledge about five year planKnowledge about UP annual budgetUP budget preparation process (Multiple response)Evaluation of open budget meetingSatisfaction on the open budget sessionSatisfaction on budget preparation systemKnowledge about audit of union parishadWilling to pay more tax for service improvementSatisfaction on UP tax assessment and collectionSatisfaction on services provided by union parishadOverall transparency of UP functionsOverall accountability of UP Satisfaction on overall performance of UPKnowledge about functions of UZPCitizen Charter at the premises of upazila ParishadBill board helpful for transparencyKnowledge about the upazila parishad meetingSatisfaction on UZP meetingKnowledge about the UZP committee Knowledge about the PICSatisfaction on PIC meetingKnowledge about the schemes/projectsSelection process of schemes/projectsSatisfaction on the quality of implemented projectsKnowledge about annual planning of UZPKnowledge about five year planKnowledge about UZP annual budget UZP budget preparation process (Multiple Responses) Satisfaction on the budget sessionKnowledge about income and expenditure of UZPSatisfaction on services provided by UZPOpinion about the overall transparency of UZP functionsOpinion on the responsiveness of UZPSatisfaction on overall performance of UZPKnowledge about WDF

4646484849495050515253545657575860606161626263646465666768696970717274747677

List of AnnexureHousehold Survey QuestionnaireUZP Institutional ChecklistUP Institutional Checklist

139163168

Annexure -1Annexure -2Annexure -3

Abbreviations and AcronymsAbbreviations and Acronyms

Annual Development ProgrammeBangladesh Institute of Development StudiesCitizen Perception SurveyCommunity Based OrganizationDirector of Local GovernmentFocus Group DiscussionFive Year PlanGovernment of BangladeshInformation and Communication TechnologyKey Informant InterviewLine DepartmentLocal GovernmentLocal Government Engineering DepartmentLocal Government Rural Development & CooperativesLocal Government Strengthening Project Learning-Innovation ComponentMillennium Development GoalsManagement Information SystemMember of ParliamentNon- Government OrganizationNational Institute of Local GovernmentProject Implementation CommitteesPublic Procurement RulesRight to InformationStanding CommunitiesSchool Management CommitteeTerms of ReferenceTest ReliefUnion Development Coordination CommitteeUpazila EngineerUnion Information Service CentreUnited Nation Capital Development FundUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUpazila Nirbahi officerUnion ParishadUnion Parishad Governance ProjectUpazila ChairmanUpazila Governance ProjectUpazila ParishadUpazila Vice ChairmanVulnerable Group DevelopmentWomen Development Forum

P a g e xi

ADPBIDSCPSCBODLGFGDFYPGOBICTKIILDLGLGEDLGRD&CLGSP-LICMDGMISMPNGONILGPICPPRRTISCSMCTORTRUDCCUEUISCUNCDFUNDPUNOUPUPGPUZCUZGPUZPUZVCVGDWDF

UP Ward ShavaUP Ward ShavaUP Ward Shava

Executive Summary

P a g e 1

The Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) has been working since August 2011 and the Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) has also been working since December 2011 under Local Government Department. Both the projects started operation late from 2012. The baseline surveys for both these five years' projects were undertaken, completed and the findings were published. The overall objective of the CPS (short name of the study) was to find out the understanding how citizens perceive and value services made available by Local Government Institutions, and to assess the results achieved so far by UZGP and UPGP.

The geographical coverage of the study was 14 districts from all (seven) divisions. Among the districts, seven were selected as project area where both the projects were providing support and additional seven districts were chosen as control area. Five categories of tools were applied in the field for data collection and triangulation of the findings. The tools were Household Survey, Key Informant Interview (KII), Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Institutional Checklist and Case Studies.

A total 3360 Households were randomly surveyed from project areas (1680) and control areas (1680) where the respondents were the heads of households. In KII, 118 persons were interviewed through open-ended question-naire. Respondents of KII were Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad Chair, Vice-chair, members and relevant government officials at field and central level. Total 28 FGDs were conducted at Upazila and Union level to get the in-depth information with cross-checking. A total 27 Institutional checklists were filled out from 27 Upazila Parishads and 166 institutional checklists were filled out from the same number of Union Parishads to know institutional level status. Finally, eight cases were studied to get the real picture of the field.

2. Study Methodology

3. Survey RespondentsThe survey respondents comprise 68.8% male and 31.2% female in the project area corresponding to 69.4% male and 30.6% female in the control area. The average age of the respondents was 42 years while minimum age was 18 years and maximum age up to 82 years.

The highest 33.2% of the respondents studied upto class V followed by the respondents who never attended school (28.2%). Of the rest, 38.8% of the respondents studied up to class IX and higher. One-third (34.1%) of the respond-ents were in agriculture followed by (19.3%) housewives, day laborers/rickshaw pullers (15.5%), businessmen (17.4%), service holder (6.4%), unemployed (3.4%) and students (3.6%). The study shows that slightly lower than three-fourths (73.5%) of the respondents were engaged in agriculture, business, day labor, service, etc. and their distribution in project and control areas were similar. The educational and occupational distribution of the respond-ents in percentage was more or less similar in project and control areas. In the survey, 8.1% of the respondents involved themselves with UP/UZP during the last 5 years.

With a view to capturing expected results from the CPS, the response, received from different groups in the form of household questionnaire, UP checklist (based on the information given by the UP Chair, Member and Secretary) and UZP checklist (based on the information given by UNO along with support from Chairman and Vice Chairman of UZP), have been recorded on various aspects of the Union Parishad and Upazila governance.

4. Survey Findings

1. Background

Executive Summary

P a g e2

The Citizen Perception Survey reveals that more than two-thirds (75.7%) of the sample respondents noticed the presence of Citizen Charter at UP premises in project areas compared to 61.5% in control areas. More than 98% of the respondents in the project areas opined that these Citizen Charter was somewhat realistic while in control areas the percentage was slightly lower.

It was found that about 90% of the respondents knew about Union Information and Service Center (UISC) in project areas while it was 13% lower in control areas. About 72.4% of the respondents in project areas and 57.4% of the respondents in control areas were satisfied with the information and services received from UISC.

According to the checklist, the UP Act 2009 was available in 96.5% UP offices in project areas and 92.6% UP offices in control areas. Among the UPs having Citizen Charter, 70.3% in project areas and 29.7% in control areas displayed the Citizen Charter in open place. To provide information to the citizen, 89.4% UPs in project areas and 79% UPs in control areas assigned dedicated person.

4.1 Union Parishad4.1.1 Citizen Charter

The survey findings show that more than half of the respondents in project areas were aware of UP council meet-ings, while the same was 36.2% in control areas. Regarding the awareness on Ward Shava, it was found that 46.4% of the respondents knew about it in project areas, while the figure was 39.1% in control areas.

However, the percentage of people having knowledge about Standing Committee was lower in UPs where 20.4% of the respondents in project areas and 18.8% of the respondents in the control areas had knowledge about it.

The percentage of respondents who knew about the Union Development Coordination Committee (UDCC) was 15.8% in control areas while it was found 5% higher in the project areas.

The study shows that the respondents who knew about UP Project Implementation Committee (PIC) were 26.5% and 22.3% in project areas and control areas respectively.

With regard to meetings and committees, the UP checklist records that almost all the UPs in both project areas and control areas were found compliant with UP legislation. It was found that average 2 Ward Shava Meetings were held in every UP. Each of the UPs had 13 standing committees as per the legislation. However, the UPs in the project areas had higher number of monthly meetings (12/year) and thus 100% compliant with UP legislation while the UPs in the control areas had average 11 monthly meetings.

4.1.2 Council and Committee meetings

The number of people having knowledge about schemes/project was approximately one-fifth (or less) in both project areas (20.4%) and control areas (18.3%) of the UPs. Of these informed respondents, 18.1% in the project areas and 15.3% in the control areas took part in different schemes/project meetings.

The checklist records that the number of schemes, implemented by UPs in 2013, was average 40 in project areas compared to average 35 in control areas.

4.1.3 Schemes/Projects

The respondents who knew about the Annual Plan of UP, was higher (16.4%) in project areas than that of (11.3%) control areas. Regarding Five Year Plan, about 10% of the respondents in project areas were aware of it while only 4.4% respondents in control areas knew about it.

4.1.4 Plan and Budget

Executive Summary

P a g e 3

The Upazila based CPS shows that 30.8% of the respondents noticed the Citizen Charter at the UZP premises in project areas while the same was 13.3% lower in control areas.

The checklist shows that the Citizen Charter was displayed in 100% Upazilas of project areas. On the other hand, 76.9% Upazilas in control areas displayed the Citizen Charter. Pertaining to RTI facilities, the Upazila Parishad Checklist records that all the UZPs (100%) in project areas took initiatives on RTI Act compliance while in control areas the figure was 92.3%. Among the sample UZPs, 71% in project areas and 92% in control areas appointed Information Officer to provide information to the citizen.

Pertaining to initiatives on women development, 72.7% of the respondents informed that UP had undertaken activi-ties to improve socio-economic condition of women during last one year in project areas while the figure was much lower at 49.3% in control areas. However, 17.5% of the respondents in project areas and a higher 42% of the respondents in control areas did not have any idea about it.

In the UP checklist, women development issue was reflected in the status of MDG for “Women empowerment and equality between male and female”. It was found that 94.1% UPs in project areas and 76.4% UPs in control areas implemented projects/schemes on Women empowerment and equality between male and female. On the other hand, the feedback was negative in 5.9% UPs of project areas and 23.6% UPs of control areas.

4.2 Upazila Parishad4.2.1 Citizen Charter

The Upazila based household survey showed that 29.3% respondents in project areas and 22.8% respondents in control areas knew about UZP council meetings. The percentage of people having knowledge about Upazila Parishad Committee is 20.8% in project areas compared to 13.7% in control areas. The survey shows that 22.8% of the respondents in project areas of UZP had knowledge about PIC and a little lower 18.8% of the respondents knew about the same in control areas.

As per the checklist, all 17 (100%) Standing Committees had been formed in both project and control UZPs by December, 2013 in compliance with the UZP Act. All these standing committees held 6 meetings during the year and minutes of the meetings were issued for 71% of project areas and 64% of control areas. Moreover, all the UZPs in both project areas and control areas organized their monthly meetings in presence of the UZP chairman in compli-ance with the UZP legislation.

4.2.2 Council / Committee meetings

4.1.6 Women development

Regarding the satisfaction level, 67.6% of the respondents were found satisfied (including highly satisfied) to receive services from UP office in project areas and a much lower 46.7% respondents in control areas.

The UP checklist reflects that the UPs in project areas were fully compliant with UP legislation in terms of preparing the Annual Plan whereas 97.5% UPs in the control areas prepared it. With regard to Five Year Development Plan, 92.9% UPs of project areas compared to 81.5% UPs of control areas had their plan. Open budget sessions were held in 92.9% UPs in project areas and 93.8% UPs in control areas. The budget was audited in 65.9% UPs of project areas though the control areas demonstrate slightly higher percentage in this regard.

4.1.5 Satisfaction on delivered services

In the UZPs, slightly more than one-tenth (10.6%) of the respondents knew about schemes/projects in project areas and a little lower i.e. 8.7% of the respondents knew about the same in control areas. However, 57.3% of these respondents in project areas took part in the schemes/projects while 35.6% of the respondents did the same in control areas.

4.2.3 Schemes/Projects

Regarding the satisfaction level, 57.5% of the respondents of the project areas were satisfied (including highly satis-fied) with the activities performed by UZP while in control areas it was only 40.3%. Correspondingly, the percentage of dissatisfied people was less in the project areas compared to control areas.

About coordination between UZP official and elected representatives, majority of the respondents replied positively. In this regard, the coordination between UZP Chair vs. UNO, UZP Chair vs. Vice-chair, UZP Vice Chairman and female, UZP Chair vs. Govt. Official (transferred), UNO vs. Govt. Official (transferred), UZP Chair vs. MP, MP vs. UNO, UZP Chair vs. UP Chair were considered and the response reflects that the level of coordination was higher in the project areas compared to than that of control areas.

Executive Summary

P a g e4

4.2.4.1 Annual and Five Year PlanThe study reveals that the percentage of people aware of having Annual Plan of UZPs was 19.6% in project area compared to 13.9% respondents in control area. Regarding Five Year Plan, the response was further lower where 10.8% respondents in the project areas and 7.7% respondents in control areas had knowledge about Five Year Plan of UZPs.

Overall, the project areas recorded better outcome with regard to Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan in the UZPs as per the checklist. All the UZPs (100%) in project areas had their Annual Development Plan for the year 2013-14 whereas in the control areas it was 84.6%. Likewise, the percentage of UZPs, having Five Year Plan, is 11% higher in the project areas compared to the control areas where 46.2% UZPs had their plan.

The KII personnel covered in the survey were UP Chairman, UZP Chairman, UNO, Upazila Engineer, Upazila Women and Children Welfare Officer, DF, DLG and DDLG.

4.2.4 Plan and Budget

4.2.5 Satisfaction on delivered services

4.2.6 Coordination

Regarding knowledge on WDF (Women Development Forum), it was found that 59.7% of the household respond-ents were aware of WDF in project areas of UZP while the figure was far lower at 29.4% respondents in control areas. This reflects that 40.3% respondents in project areas and still higher 70.6% respondents in control areaswere not aware of WDF.

The checklist records that the committee on Women and children development was formed in all the project UZPs as well as control UZPs and 100% of the committees in the project areas had female chairperson compared to 84.6% in project areas. In this regard, the number of meetings held in the project areas was average 6/year compared to average 5/year in control areas.

4.2.7 Women development

About the knowledge on annual budget of UZP, 19.3% of the respondents knew about budget of UZP in project areas compared to 13.2% in control areas. Among the respondents having knowledge about UZP budget, 39.7% in the project area and 26.7% in control area informed that there was budget meeting during last one year (2013).

The checklist reflects that for the year 2013-14, 100% upazilas of project areas compared to 92.3% upazilas of control areas prepared their budget. Regarding pre-budget session, 92.9% upazilas of project areas organized the session which is 8% higher than that of control areas. It was found that 78.6% upazilas of project areas and 84.6% upazilas of control areas disclosed their budget to the Citizen.

4.2.4.2 Budget

5. Key Informants Interviews (KII)

Executive Summary

P a g e 5

During the study, most of the respondents of both project area and control area opined that most of those UZP offices were operating in accordance with the existing rules and regulations. However, opinion of some of the respondents reflects that there are still huge scopes for improvement. In this regard, about half of the respondents of both project and control areas emphasized on the need for creating awareness among the officials and making them more accountable to be fully compliant with the laws, rules and regulations. About one-third of the respondents of both areas, particularly in control areas expressed that they needed proper guidelines from the Ministries and Departments.

5.1 Knowledge and awareness among the citizens

5.2 Committees

5.1.1 Maintenance of laws and rules in operation

According to the KII, Considerable improvement has been observed in terms of awareness on access to information/right to information. Three-fourths of the respondents in project area compared to two-thirds of the respondents in control area informed that all UZPs and UPs had published citizen charter at their respective office premises. Half of the respondents in project area opined that the use of bill board, sign board, notice board and festoons had been increased while in control area one-third of the respondents supported this.

Regarding the formation of Standing Committees, almost all the respondents informed that SC has been formed in all UZPs and UPs. They also stated that female participation has been ensured in those SC as per the guideline. According to two-thirds of the respondents of both project area and control area, all those Standing Committees were playing active role in carrying out departmental programs and other initiatives.

5.3 Budget, Planning and programs5.3.1 Annual Plan and Five year PlanThree-fourths of the respondents of project areas and half of the respondents of control areas reported that they had Annual Plan and Five year Plan. Some respondents of both project areas and control areas were of the opinion that Annual Plan was made available but Five Year Plan was not.5.3.2 Schemes/projects Most of the respondents of both project and control areas told that there were guidelines for preparation of develop-ment schemes/projects and that the guidelines were properly followed. Two-thirds of the respondents of project areas and three-fourths of the respondents of control areas told that elected representatives, officials and members of various committees participate effectively in the preparation of development schemes/projects.

5.3.3 BudgetAll respondents of both project and control areas asserted that all UZPs and UPs had their own budget. Slightly less than half of the respondents of both areas told that UPZ and UP prepared their budget and they were participatory. Most of the respondents of project areas and three-fourths of the respondents of control areas expressed that budget preparation shava of UPZs and UP open budget meetings were held. Three-fourths of the respondents of both areas told that UZP and UP budgets were disclosed and they were disclosed through open budget meeting, miking, bill board, web site, notice board, government gazette, local publicity, etc.

5.3.4 Taxes, fees, charges etc.To a query whether there was need for further decentralization of fiscal power to the UZP and UP, most of the respondents of project areas and about three-fourths of the respondents of control areas responded affirmatively.

Almost all the respondents of project areas opined that there was considerable improvement in local governance and local service delivery system due to implementation of Union Parishad Governance Project and Upazila

5.1.2 Disclosure of Citizen Charter

5.4 Services of UZP and UP

Executive Summary

P a g e6

5.5 Strengthening

6.1 Citizen Charter

6.2 Plan and Budget

5.5.1 By-laws/Rules etc.To a query whether there was any need for further by-laws, rules, notifications, circulars, guidelines etc. for strength-ening the participatory governance in planning, budgeting and service delivery of UZP and UP, two-thirds of the respondents of project area and three-fourths of the respondents of control area replied affirmatively.

5.5.2 Training/ Research Almost all the respondents of both areas advocated for further training and research in the areas of improvement under LGIs, Regarding training courses, they emphasized on rules and regulation, RTI, office management, project preparation, project implementation monitoring, budgeting and taxation, skill development training on different types of occupations e.g. cottage industry, health, education, mother and child care etc.

5.5.3 Women Development Forum (WDF)Regarding the Women Development Forum (WDF), three-fourths of the respondents in project area and half of the respondents in control area opined that it was effective and had positive impact on promoting female empowerment and other female welfare issues.

An analysis of the two studies reveals that there was significant improvement in the initiatives related to the citizen charter in both UP and UZP. The percentage of people, having seen the Citizen Charter in the office premises, increased by 35.7% in the UP and 25.75% in the UZP during CPS compared to the baseline survey. As per CPS study, citizen charter was available at 100% UZPs offices while baseline survey shows that Citizen Charter was found at only 85.7% UZPs. Pertaining to the availability of Citizen Charter at UP premises, the baseline survey shows that only 58% of UPs had Citizen Charter in the UP offices while according to CPS, Citizen Charter was avail-able in more than 70% UP offices.

According to the study, the improvement regarding the availability of Annual Development Plan is outstanding in both UPs and UZPs. The percentage of UZPs having their Annual Development Plan reached to 100% in 2013 while it was only 42.8% in the earlier period. According to CPS, the number of people aware about Annual Budget in the UPs has become almost double in 2013 compared to the baseline survey.

In terms of the availability of Five Year Development Plan, CPS found 22% increase (from 71% to 92.9%) in UPs compared to the baseline survey. While baseline survey found no UZPs having their Five Year Development Plan, as per CPS, the plan was available in 57.1% UZPs.

Outstanding improvement has been seen in budget audit. While the baseline survey reflects that no budget audit was conducted in any of the UPs during the fiscal year 2011-12, the CPS study shows that budget was audited by the Government’s appointed auditors in approximately 66% of the UPs.

A Comparative study of some of the indicators of Baseline Survey and Citizen Perception Survey (CPS) showed considerable development in consequence of the initiatives taken under UZGP and UPGP.

Parishad Governance Project in the selected (piloted) areas and those projects had the chance for replication in other areas. About a half of the respondents of control areas asserted that there was considerable improvement and the projects might be replicated elsewhere.

6. Comparison with Baseline and CPS

Executive Summary

P a g e 7

Citizen’s satisfaction level has also seen a significant improvement in terms of the percentage of satisfied people. During the CPS, the percentage of satisfied people increased by 45% appx. Both in the UPs and UZPs compared to the base line survey.

The initiatives, taken under UZGP and UPGP, have been resulted in a number of positive impacts as acknowledged by the respondents. The project is contributing to the major indicators of the Governance such as public participa-tion, responsiveness, transparency and accountability. In terms of strengthening the UPs and UZPs and socio-economic condition of the locality, most of the KII and FGD respondents of both areas expressed that they had facili-tated preparation and implementation of budget. According to their views, the project has enhanced public participa-tion, increased transparency and accountability, strengthened administrative and financial management and initiated the tasks of publication and circulation of documents. The capacity building initiatives, one of the important aspects of Governance, is also showing good results to foster people development. The respondents opined that UZGP and UPGP had positive impacts on training of public representatives, officials and people of the locality. Significant improvement has been reflected in preparation and implementation of Annual Plan, Five Year Plan and Budgets which are now being done ensuring the participation of local people. Perceptible improvement has also been noticed in holding meetings of Parishad and various Commit-tees regularly. There was also improvement in monitoring of the projects by officials on the basis of indicators prepared for the purpose.

Different indicators of Right to Information (RTI) indicate the development resulted though UZGP and UPGP. According to the opinion of the respondents, awareness on citizen charter, knowledge about the functions of UP and UZP and relevant committees, knowledge about different schemes and projects etc. have been improved significantly.

The impact of UZGP and UPGP has also been reflected positively in citizen's satisfaction on overall performance of UPs and UZPs. The achievement is remarkable considering the improvement trend revealed through the analysis of the previous and current survey statistics.

6.3 Committees

6.4 Citizen’s Satisfaction

The recommendations have been put forward based on the interpretation and extract of the study findings elabo-rated in this report. Below are the major recommendations for necessary implementation to achieve the targeted outputs of UZGP and UPGP.

Remarkable improvement has also been observed regarding formation of committees. The percentage of UZPs, having all the committees, has been increased by more than 50% (from 35% to 85.7%) in 2013 compared to earlier period. The percentage of people (HH), participating in Ward Shava, is also on the increasing trend (by 6% appx.) in CPS compared to the base line data. During the CPS, the percentage of respondents, having knowledge on the functions of UZPs, has increased by 44.3% (from 33.2% to 77.5%) compared to base line survey.

7. Impact of UZGP and UPGP

8. Recommendations

Information dissemination by UP and UZP is to be made more effective to provide complete information to the people both quantitatively and qualitatively and citizen charter is to be made present at the premises of all UP and UZP with more realistic information. The authorities of UP and UZP are needed to be more cooperative in disseminating information to general public.

Executive Summary

Access to information:

1.

The Union Information Service Centre (UISC) needs to be strengthened to increase its coverage of providing information. To encourage general public to get basic information from UISC, concerned authority should promote their initiatives through circulation of leaflets, booklets etc. as well as organizing seminars, work-shops, fairs etc.

2.

Meetings and agenda:

Ward Shavas are represented by the voters of the Wards of UP. All Ward Shavas are to be made fully participa-tory. The discussion and decisions in Ward Shavas are not to be dominated by Chairman or members or any outsiders. All participants must have equal opportunity to express their views and decisions are to be made through vote of the participants.

3.

The area specific concerned parts of UZP activities, schemes/projects and services are to be discussed in Ward Shava. This will help in providing recommendation of Ward Shava to UZP through the Chairman of UP.

4.

Discussion regarding issues about schemes/projects, development plans and budget during formulation, implementation and review/audit stages are needed to be ensured in all Ward Shava.

5.

To ensure democratic participation of voters and public representatives, all meetings of Ward Shava, Council, Standing Committee and other Committees of UP and UZP are needed to be regularized as per rules which includes regularization of methods of invitation, time of notification, fixing of agenda, dates of meetings and so on.

6.

The representation of women and marginalized group of people is to be ensured where feasible in meetings of Ward Shava, Council, Standing Committee and other Committees of UP and UZP.

7.

Working environment:

The prevailing deteriorated working environment in certain UP and UZP due to conflict between activities of Departmental Committees and Standing Committees are needed to be resolved through cooperation and dialogue. Where necessary the resolutions of Departmental Committee meetings are to be vetted by Chairman of the Parishad.

8.

Continuous dialogue and cooperation is necessary to resolve any conflict between UP/UZP and line/transferred departments. The line/transferred departments need to work as directed by UP/UZP in affairs/matter concerning of UP/UZP.

9.

The officials of transferred departments are needed to be fully transferred to and accommodated within the premises of UP/UZP. If needed, a notification from Cabinet Division might be issued in this respect.

10.

Work performance might be improved by overcoming the conflict between UZC and UNO, which prevail in some UZP, by dialogue, cooperation, awareness building and the Chairman taking keen interest.

11.

The governance/oversight of local honorable MP in local affairs is desirable to be kept within the limit as per law.

12.

P a g e8

Executive Summary

The interest of women, poor and marginalized groups of people are needed to be ensured in the preparation and implementation of annual budget of all UPs and UZPs under UZGP and UPGP.

21.

Budget of both UP and UZP are needed to have provisions for adequate funding. Besides, increase of government and donor grants, it needs restructuring of its tax base and coverage and rescheduling of tax, fees etc. rates based on local needs and according to the ability and willingness of people to pay tax. This will increase efficiency in taxation system.

22.

The authorities of UP and UZP need to ensure all time easy availability of services to the citizens. With a view to achieving this, sufficient funding is needed to be made available to UP and UZP to expand current service delivery and implement new project to meet citizens’ demands.

23.

Guidelines and regulations:

Scheme/project selection criteria are needed to be followed properly for selection and prioritizations of schemes/projects. Formal comprehensive guidelines are needed to be prepared and implemented towards this end.

13.

The existing published documents of Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan do not contain informa-tion regarding basic and socio-economic condition of the locality, activities, development schemes/project/programmes of UP and UZP. The reporting gaps (including those in the web-site) are needed to be removed and the documents of Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan are needed to be published by all UPs and UZPs in the project area.

14.

The existing guidelines for preparing development plans/programmes (Annual and Five year) are needed to be followed properly.

15.

Necessary rules and regulations, not yet in place, are to be made in support of Union Parishad Act 2009, Upazila Parishad Act 2009 and Upazila Parishad (Revised) Act 2011 and put in action.

16.

Service quality:

The problems of lack of transparency/accountability and excessive bureaucracy that hamper efficient service delivery are needed to be overcome through proper supervision and inspection from the concerned Ministries.

24.

Planning and budgeting:

Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan of all UPs and UZPs within UZGP and UPGP are needed to spell out properly including the allocation for achieving MDGs.

17.

The preparation, implementation and monitoring/reviewing of schemes/projects, Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan are needed to be made more participatory with voters’ participation besides public repre-sentatives. With this end in view, adequate number of seminars, workshops etc. are needed to be organized to ensure participation of voters particularly at the upazila level.

18.

The budget sessions are needed to be regularized in all UPs and UZPs within the coverage of UZGP and UPGP. Budget sessions are to be organized according to the rules. All the participants are needed to be informed about budget session in time and participation of women and marginalized group of people are to be ensured and each participant must get equal chance to talk.

19.

Budget preparation process needs to be made more participatory through organizing budget sessions at UP level and UZP level and must not be decisive with the opinion of Chairman, member, outsiders/influential people and honorable MPs.

20.

P a g e 9

Executive Summary

The instances of corruption in the form of misinformation, money, time (delay) and harassment with respect to delivery of services are needed to be reduced through applying the method of reward and punishment.

25.

Each department must introduce complain book/box. Hearings on major complains are to be arranged regu-larly by the concerned authority and action should be taken according to rules.

26.

WDF:

The existing joint venture programme of UZGP and UPGP for formulation and activation of women Develop-ment Forum (WDF) at UZP level needs to be continued and ensure complete coverage within jurisdiction of UZGP and UPGP. Women empowerment is needed to be advocated by organizing seminars, workshops etc. and publishing leaflets, booklets and encouraging participation of women in various activities at UP level and UZP level.

27.

Training and development:

The existing training programme on planning and budgeting, leadership/team building and management, financial management and public procurement rules, retreat training workshop, refreshers training, review workshop, report writing etc. are to be continued in more effective ways. Training programme on laws, rules and regulation including RTI needed to be organized as and when required. The training programmes are to cover public representations, voters/citizens as members of Ward Shava and official/staff of UP and UZP.

28.

Monitoring:

Continuous monitoring of UZP and UP is needed to be done particularly from the offices of, DLG and DDLG on the basis of identified and specific indicators to ensure Governance.

The Citizen Perception Survey provides a high level idea about the performance of selected UP and UZP but in-depth research is required to capture the Governance and democracy issues comprehensively though some of the Governance issues have been recorded in this report. According to the statement of the survey respond-ents, the status of governance indicators such as transparency, accountability, responsiveness is showing improvement, however, in-depth research along with follow-up research would help ensure continuous improve-ment and thus achieve the targets.

29.

P a g e10

Women Development ForumWomen Development Forum PlanningPlanning

B a c k g r o u n d

11

Scheme - UZPScheme - UZP

Background

1.1 Introduction and BackdropThe local government system, evolving in Bangladesh through centuries, has a long tradition and legacy of its own. The ‘Village Panchayat’ system existed since early times. To serve British imperial interests i.e. collection of revenue and maintenance of law and order, the Village Chowkidari Act, 1870 in Bengal was passed to establish union Panchayats and subsequently the Ripon resolution was passed in 1885 as the Bengal Local Self-Government Act. Since then, a number of attempts have been made to tinker with the local government system in Bangladesh. There were efforts before and after Independence of Bangladesh in 1971 to bring changes concerning tiers of local government but the structure of the local government system remained almost the same. The Local Government Ordinance 1976 made provisions for a Union Parishad for a union and a Thana Parishad for a Thana and the introduction of the Local Government Ordinance in 1982 changed Thana Parishad as Upazila Parishad followed by the Local Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance in 1983. By and large, Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad provide both the proximity to citizens - government close to the people-and offer the appropriate size for scale efficiencies to be captured in the delivery of rural services.

A more significant change with a view to strengthening the local government system was brought about since the current ruling regime got its power in 2008. The Union Parishad Act 2009 was passed in line with the constitutional provision of decentralization. Under the law, the Union Parishad comprises one elected Chairman and nine elected members and three elected female members. It introduced Ward Shava below UP with provision of mass participa-tion meetings by Wards. The enactment of Upazila Parishad Act 2009 revived the defunct Upazila Parishad Act 1998 with revisions. Subsequently, Upazila Parishad (Revised) Act 2011 was passed that incorporated further revisions. The composition of Upazila Parishad is one elected Chairman, two elected Vice-Chairmen (one female), Chairmen elected or in-charge of UPs within the jurisdiction of UZ, Mayor elected or temporarily in-charge of each Paurashava (if any) within the jurisdiction of UZ and female members of reserved seats of UPs/Paurashavas within the jurisdiction of UZ. The Perspective Plan and Sixth Five Year Plan (2011-2016) of Bangladesh prepared during the current regime identifies and highlights local governance as one of the key priorities for accelerated develop-ment and poverty reduction.

In the face of need for comprehensive reform strategy to strengthening local government system, the donors such as World Bank, UNDP, UNCDF, etc. have funded several programs undertaken by Local Government Division (LGD). The Sirajganj Local Governance Development Fund Project (SLGDFP-from 2000 to 2005), conducted through the UN Capital Development fund and the UNDP, was implemented to strengthen local government through capacity building and block grants. The SLGDFP aimed at improving transparency and accountability through social mobilization, public score cards, complaint books, open budget meetings, and ward-level bottom-up planning. The success of the SLGDFP led towards bolstering participatory governance at the local level. In 2007, the government launched a national decentralization program funded by the World Bank called Local Government Support Program (LGSP) and subsequently Local Government Support Program-Learning and Innovation Compo-nent (LGSP-LIC) to improve local governance and local service delivery. Following the success of this project, in 2011 the UNCDF and UNDP launched additional projects, the Union Parishad Governance Project and the Upazila Governance Project, to increase the scale of its previously implemented pilot program in Sirajganj district.

The Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) and Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) are a part of the overall programmatic framework for UNDP and UNCDF support to the Government of Bangladesh in the area of Local Governance reforms, supported by the European Union, and the Governments of Switzerland (SDC) and Denmark (DANIDA). The UZGP is the product of the Preparatory Assistance that UNDP implemented during 2009-2010 (with Swiss support) to address many of initial challenges of UZPs. This UZGP document is complemented by the programmatic framework document itself and the partner project UPGP that provides support to the Union Parishad (UP) level of local government as part of the wider Local Government Support Program. In this regard the UZGP

P a g e 13

Background

and UPGP projects will have horizontal and vertical linkages throughout their implementation. In terms of project management, there will be a shared implementation team(s) supporting both the projects. Programmatically, both the projects will share a common output covering policy and capacity development frameworks. The timeframe for UZGP is from August 2011 to July 2016, while UPGP is being implemented covering the period December 2011 to November 2016.

The key output of UZGP focuses on (a) strengthened Upazila Parishads as more functional, democratic, transparent and accountable institutions; (b) Strengthened Planning and Budgeting system at UZP with MDGs orientation for pro-poor service delivery mechanism; and (c) Strengthened technical capacity of Local Government Division for effec-tive policy review, monitoring, lesson learning and capacity development of LGIs for improved Local Governance.

The key output of UPGP focuses on (a) Strengthened Democratic Accountability and transparency of the Union Parishad through citizen engagement; (b) Improved innovations in Pro-Poor and MDG-Oriented Planning, Financ-ing and Implementation of Service Delivery by Union Parishads; and (c) Strengthened technical capacity of Local Government Division for effective policy review, monitoring, lesson learning and capacity development of LGIs for improved Local Governance.

The UZGP intends to build upazilas as active and vibrant LG unit bringing all service providers at Upazila level under the accountability framework of UZP and create a mechanism of participatory, democratic and accountable body corporate as envisioned in the Local Government (UZP) Act. Three outputs of the project are elaborated below.

The activities that are being carried out under the first output of the project aim at building the capacity of the UZP mainly to transform it into a fully functional institution and to promote democracy and to empower people, in particular the women representatives to participate in the policy debate of the UZP. The capacity building efforts include making the UZP functionaries understand their basic roles and functions. This is contributing to enhance their skills to perform within the provisions of the existing legal framework and meeting the expecta-tion of their male and female constituencies.

The second output intends to create a simple and viable planning and budgeting system under the existing legal framework and support improvements to the management and coordination of the infrastructure support and local services assigned to all the Upazila Parishads of Bangladesh under capacity development support. The project will ensure the preparation of five year plan for all Upazilas following the guidelines prepared by LGD. The project under this output also provides support to an MDG oriented participatory planning and budg-etary framework for 14 UZPs of Bangladesh. This will include a fiscal facility intended both to support develop-ment planning and actual delivery of gender sensitive and inclusive local services and infrastructure to a selected number of UZPs spread over all the seven divisions of the country. It will also provide support to the Upazila Parishads as a means to improve basic service delivery within the areas assigned to them with a view to making a difference in development and contributing to the achievement of the MDGs.

As mentioned above, the third output is common to the UZGP project and its partner project UPGP. It includes support to the development of national policies and systems including rules and regulation which will enable implementation of the Upazila Parishad Act. The project will also assist the government to prepare and opera-tionalize manuals including those for planning, human resources and administration. This Output targets the capacity for policy development and national systems supporting local governance comprising both the LG training institutions, technical support and monitoring by the DLG, and DDLGs at divisional and district levels and relevant sectoral entities.

In line with the main objective of the project UPGP is piloting innovations to improve the functional and institutional capacity and democratic accountability of Union Parishads and to increase citizen involvement in order to achieve effective, efficient and accountable delivery of pro-poor infrastructure and services. The initiatives include a signifi-cant gender mainstreaming effort, looking at local women leadership empowerment, participation and voice. Three outputs of the project together intend to achieve a comprehensive development outcome by maximizing effective-ness of UPs as the lowest tier of democratically elected service provider.

P a g e14

Background

The UZGP and UPGP projects are being implemented in 14 UZPs and 564 UPs respectively under seven districts of all the seven divisions of Bangladesh.

The first output addresses two dimensions of improving democratic accountability at UP level. The first is the functional dimension of UP affairs with a focus on ensuring that elected officials of UP fulfill statutory provisions and function more effectively with regard to their stipulated roles, responsibilities and obligations. The project is carrying out activities to build the capacity of UP Chairpersons and Ward Members including Women Mem-bers to implement new responsibilities, identifying and removing bottlenecks and ensuring that they are supported with the right skills and capacities in line with the provisions of powers, functions and responsibilities stipulated in the UP Act 2009. The second dimension is that of equitable and inclusive engagement between citizens and the UP and ultimately deepening the values of local democracy as well as ensuring pro-poor service delivery. Activities that are being implemented under this output include activation of the Ward Shava, strengthening of the Standing Committees, which provide a forum for citizens to represent specific interest groups in areas such as health, education and agriculture as well as the interests of women and poor members of the community, and support to Women‘s Development Forum.

The activities being carried out under the second output intends to empower 564 UPs in seven districts to exer-cise their mandate in planning and delivery of services that contribute more effectively to the achievement of MDGs through strategic local development planning, equitable and improved financial management and local revenue mobilization. The performance-based grants, being provided from the project, are instead be based on a fiscal ―topping up of the existing GoB annual block grants (supported by the LGSP II) to pilot promotion of performance improvements in specific core areas and provide additional funding to the well-performing UPs within the geographical coverage of the program. The grant will focus on targeted areas of UP performance within cross-sectoral performance areas (as the UP grants are not sector specific) such as: development planning, accountability, project implementation capacity, own source revenues, poverty targeting/equity (e.g. the extent to which the development plan target the poor), gender and (perhaps) environment/climate change adaptation. Another important area is to enhance UP’s own revenue mobilization.

The third output which is common to the UZGP project and its partner project UPGP targets the capacity for policy development and national systems supporting local governance comprising both the LG training institu-tions, technical support and monitoring by the DLG, and DDLGs at divisional and district levels and relevant sectoral entities. This output will also attempt to create a continuous citizen state collaboration, including the engagement of civil society organizations (CSOs), experts, politicians and elected and nonelected officials of local government. Under this output the projects also support LGD to conduct high profile policy research with an aim to develop policy framework and institutions supporting Local Governance.

Division1.2.3.4.5.6.7.

BarisalChittagongDhakaKhulnaRajshahiRangpurSylhet

BargunaBrahmanbariaKishoregonjKhulnaSirajganjRangpurSunamganj

BargunaSadarBanchharampurKishoreganjSadarDacopeKazipurPirgachhaJagannathpur

BetagiBrahmanbariaSadarMithamainDumuriaUllah ParaPirganjSulla

Selected District Upazila

Table 1.1: UZPs under UZGP

P a g e 15

Background

1.2 Citizen Perception Survey and Assessment of ResultsA Citizen Perception Survey (CPS) is aimed at capturing “citizens' voice” on the effectiveness of public service provi-sions of LGIs and local democracy through eliciting views of stakeholders including communities and representa-tives of the local government. It attempts to provide a) a means for collecting citizen feedback on the quality and adequacy of public services; b) a scientifically rigorous basis for social monitoring/ auditing; and c) a comprehensive and proactive agenda for communities and service providers to engage in a meaningful dialogue and explore better ways for improving the delivery of public services and quality of local democracy.

CPS employs standardized quantitative instruments with range of qualitative tools to enrich the analytical part of the report and synchronize it with the existing governance environment, particularly at the local level in the country. Hence, the report is able to reflect on existing LGIs and citizens’ feedback on local governance, democracy and public service delivery. While it is important to measure citizen perception about the quality of service delivery by LGIs as a whole, it is also important to gauge the efficiency of the LGIs that receive additional supports from UZGP and UPGP projects.

It is a general practice that citizen based survey is used for designing the overall monitoring system so that people’s perception is considered to measure the achievement of a particular program. Accordingly, the projects would able to use the findings of the survey in fine-tuning the monitoring system and make necessary changes in the activity plan as appropriate. Generally, citizen perception survey reveals good data in a stable environment. Since the governance and security environment in the country remains by and large stable, it is expected that the survey would able to reveal useful data that would be used to the projects to make their activities more people oriented.

Additionally, as per the Results Frameworks and Joint Program Monitoring Frameworks (JPMF) of both the projects, it is a requirement to conduct a Citizen Perception Survey along with an assessment of results achieved so far.

The citizen perception survey and the assessment of results will primarily provide the LGD, the UZGP and the UPGP with evidence on the current status quality of service delivery by LGIs in the project districts as well as similar number of control districts. The projects will be able to use the findings of the survey in fine-tuning the monitoring system and make necessary changes in the activity plan as appropriate. Findings and recommendations from this survey and assessment will also enable the LGD to initiate necessary policy reform towards improving service deliv-ery provisions by LGIs. It will also be able to serve to improve the effectiveness of projects as well as performance of LGIs in a manner that will enhance cost effectiveness, gender sensitivity and inclusion, and responsiveness to the special needs of the poor.

Table 1.2: UPs under UPGPDivision

Total

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.

BarisalChittagongDhakaKhulnaRajshahiRangpurSylhet

BargunaBrahmanbariaKishoregonjKhulnaSirajganjRangpurSunamganj

42100108

68837687

564

District Number of UPs

P a g e16

Background

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.4 Scope of Work

The overall objective of the CPS is to find out the understanding how citizens perceive and value services made available by Local Government Institutions, and to assess the results achieved so far by UZGP and UPGP against their respective annul work plan.

Specific objectives of the survey were:

The main components of this study included:

The survey should also derive recommendations that would be of use to the projects for planning future activities and promoting dialogue with and between stakeholders to achieve better results in the future.

Obtaining citizen feedback on the adequacy and quality of public services provided by LGIs (UP and UZP);

Eliciting information about citizen participation in decision making process of LGIs;

Determining the level of awareness of citizens and local government officials on their mutual rights and responsibilitiesAssessing the achievement of results by UZGP and UPGP by engaging with different stakeholders.

Identifying and proposing a detailed methodology, based on international good practices, for conducting this Citizen Perception Survey and Assessment of Results

a.

Carrying out a set of well-structured field observations and consultations, on the current state and scope of services being delivered to households

e.

Obtaining perceptions of the capacity of UPs and UZPs to effectively carry out their duties including a feed-back on the personnel and services provided by these LGIs for maintaining law and order

f.

Exploring, reflecting and identifying areas and options for actions whereby local governments could contribute to improve service effectiveness

g.

Assessment of the result of both UZGP and UPGP till end of 2013. h.

Reviewing of legal provisions and mandates related to the role of UPs and UZPs in delivering servicesb.

Acquiring perceptions of the responsiveness of UPs and UZPs in regards to citizens’ priority service needsc.

Eliciting opinions of the ability of UPs and UZPs to effectively represent them and the degree to which representative bodies are held accountable for their decisions and the services that they provide

d.

P a g e 17

22

Planning - UPPlanning - UP

M e t h o d o l o g y

2.1 Survey Methodology

The survey, “Citizen Perception Survey on Services Provided by Local Government Institutions as well as Assess-ment of Results Achieved by UZGP and UPGP” is sponsored by UNDP and carried out during 2014 by the Survey and Research System (SRS) for data of the year 2013. The purpose of the survey is to bring together indicators regarding perception of people as well as of officials on democratic participatory governance, status of planning, budgeting and implementing of activities to achieve development goals including MDGs and efficiency in services delivery of Upazilas and Unions under UZGP and UPGP. With a view to capturing expected results from the CPS, quantitative data have been collected through structured questionnaire e.g. household survey questionnaire. This instrument quantitatively measures the perception of citizens on local government and public service delivery (demand side). The qualitative aspect of the study uses multiple instruments to analyze both the supply and demand side of public service delivery. They are Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Key Informants Interviews (KIIs) and Case Studies. Data have been gathered from project areas and control areas to make comparisons. The methodology of the study has been illustrated in the following sections.

2.2 Relevance of Margin of error with Std. error

The Terms of Reference (TOR) described the specifications of Citizen Perception Survey regarding the services that were to be provided by Local Government Institutions as well as assessment of results achieved by UZGP and UPGP. The objectives of the CPS and scope of assessments of the CPS results were stated in the TOR. The assessment of the survey findings were expected to indicate appropriate recommendations to improve service delivery by the LGIs.

For quantitative assessment and analysis, data collection was to be carried out through structured household survey questionnaire; an appropriate household survey based on statistical procedure was to be designed.

Qualitative assessments were to be made using multiple survey instruments to gather information through FGDs and in-depth Interviews with the key informants. A few case studies relating to budget allocation, spending prioritiza-tion were also planned to supplement the CPS findings.

The margin of error at 95% confidence level for an estimate is equal to twice, i.e. 2 times the std. error of the estimate. It is important that margin of error is converted as a factor of std. error to meet requirement of 95% confi-dence level in the estimate of a perception.

Citizens' perception on an attribute or characteristic could be measured as a proportion. The true value P for the proportion of an attribute (item) is unknown. The variance of an estimate

p of P ignoring fpc (finite population corrections) is n

PQ where n is sample size and population

size N is very large (infinite!). For attributes with P between 30% and 70% the standard error

nPQ changes very little and a sample of 100 can provide an estimate P with a standard

error (std. error) estimated around 5%. Thus, a sample 100 respondents, carefully selected for the project areas of all 7 divisions or for a specific division, will provide an estimate P for an attribute, perception on an item, with a std. error of 5%.

2. Methodology

P a g e 21

2.1 Statistical Considerations for determination of sample size

Methodology

2.3 Selection of sample respondents in ClustersThe sampling procedure is designed to select sample respondents in clusters of 10 persons per village for both project areas (selected districts, upazilas and union parishads) and control areas. Cluster sampling, however, is expected to increase the sampling error of the estimates for attributes. The variance of the estimate of attributes are increased by a factor equal to l+(m-l) where m is the size of clusters and is the intra-cluster correlation and sample n is equal to n=txm where t is the number of clusters in the sample and m is the number of respondents per cluster. The factor l+(m-l) is the design effect (deff), ratio of the variance the sample design use to that of a simple random sample of same number of sample units.

2.4 Sample Design and Distribution of sampleStatistical considerations mentioned above describes the standard procedures that were followed in the CPS. The TOR indicated the main features of sampling procedure to be used in the CPS.Sample design considered an overall sample size of 1680 (50%) in project areas and another 1680(50%) in control areas and desegregated the overall sample in each area among the divisions (7), upazilas (2 upazilas per division), unions (6 per upazila) and two sample villages per union. The sampling scheme adheres to TOR restrictions of sample distribution, 50% in project areas and 50% in control areas and margin of error contained below 5%. The sample design further considered selecting 10 sample persons (households) per village, thus a village contained a cluster of 10 households. The sampling procedure as described ensured desegregation of sample respondents by geographical location, areas in hierarchical order, social and economic characteristics as well as remoteness and backwardness of the citizens that included marginalized and socially excluded groups including poor and vulnerable women, ethnic minority, disable, etc.

Sample distribution for project areasThe selected districts and selected upazilas for all seven divisions were shown in the TOR. The sample design considered 6 sample unions and 2 villages per sample union in a selected upazila of the project areas. Each sample village was to contain a cluster of 10 sample households (respondents). Thus the distribution of sample households in project areas was as follows:

Sample distribution for control areasIn selecting the control upazilas of the paired project upazilas, an upazila of the nearby district with easy connectivity and similar socio-economic characteristics of the population were considered. Socio-economic characteristics, literacy (rate), drinking water source (tube well), electricity access, own housing facilities etc. as obtained in the 2011 population census report were considered as shown in table below:

Table 2.1: UZPs under UZGPDivision

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.

BarisalChittagongDhakaKhulnaRajshahiRangpurSylhet

BargunaBrahmanbariaKishoregonjKhulnaSirajganjRangpurSunamganj

BargunaSadarB.BariaSadarKishoreganjSadarDacopeKazipurPirgachhaJagannathpur

BetagiBanchharampurMithamainDumuriaUllah ParaPirganjSulla

Selected District Upazila

Table 2.2: Sample Household

Project area7 Divisions 7 Districts 14 84 168 1680

Selected District Selected Upazilas Selected Unions Selected Villages Sample HH Selected

P a g e22

Methodology

Use of Control Area Information in Assessing the Impact in Specified Project Intervention1. In statistical surveys to assess development activities in specified project areas data from comparable/ similar ecological environment, easy connectivity and also similar socio-economic condition of the population are also used for analytical comparison. Data from surrounding areas help to calibrate and make assessment of relative move

Table 2.3: Socio-economic CharacteristicsProject Area Control Area

Literacy

Tube-well

Electricity

HousingTenancy

Literacy

Tube-well

Electricity

HousingTenancy

Zila

Borguna

B.Baria

Kishorgonj

Khulna

Sirajganj

Rangpur

Sunamganj

BargunaSadar

Betagi

B.BariaSadar

Banchharampur

Mithamain

KishoreganjSadar

Dacope

Dumuria

Ullahpara

Kazipur

PirgachhaUpazila

PirganjUpazila

Sulla

Jagannathpur

56.1

58.6

53.4

38.5

30.9

48.9

56.0

52.6

43.6

37.5

44.6

45.4

34.3

39.9

93.9

96.0

91.3

91.3

79.7

93.3

30.6

99.1

94.7

97.0

96.3

97.9

98.7

87.8

24.8

30.0

90.4

75.8

33.5

52.9

28.2

58.6

44.3

28.2

28.6

30.8

37.0

40.7

94.8

97.7

81.5

96.7

90.0

88.5

93.3

93.9

94.9

96.2

94.9

97.1

94.9

81.1

1.9

0.9

16.7

1.9

5.5

9.5

2.2

2.5

2.0

1.7

0.8

1.1

1.5

6.0

50.0

59.1

54.6

51.2

30.5

38.7

55.2

53.7

44.0

45.6

44.1

40.6

33.7

36.1

99.0

96.6

97.2

91.9

80.0

91.8

98.0

98.0

89.6

93.2

97.5

94.0

94.1

82.6

26.4

31.1

73.2

48.4

35.3

29.1

42.5

52.3

46.5

43.8

21.8

22.1

34.7

40.2

95.5

98.9

98.2

97.8

94.3

97.0

95.8

90.4

94.7

96.0

97.8

97.1

95.6

93.9

1.1

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.9

0.5

1.9

1.6

2.5

1.4

0.8

0.5

1.3

1.2

Patuakhali

Comilla

Netrokona

Jessore

Pabna

Gaibandha

Hobigonj

Kalapara

Mirzaganj

Brahmanpara

Nangalkot

Khaliajuri

NetrokonaSadar

Keshabpur

Manirampur

Bhangura

Chatmohar

Sadullapur

Sundarganj

Lakhai

Ajmerigonj

Upazila (%) (%) (%) Own Rent Own RentZila Upazila (%) (%) (%)

Table 2.4: Control areasControl area

7 Divisions 7 Districts 14 84 168 1680Selected District Selected Upazilas Selected Unions Selected Villages Sample HH Selected

Table 2.5: Control UZPsDivision

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.

BarisalChittagongDhakaKhulnaRajshahiRangpurSylhet

PatuakhaliComillaNetrokonaJessoreBograGaibandhaHobigonj

KalaparaBrahmanparaNetrokonaSadarKeshabpurSherpurSadullapurLakhai

MirzaganjNangalkotKhaliajuriManirampurDhunatSundarganjAjmerigonj

Selected District Upazila

Table 2.6: UPs of Control Districts Division

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.

BarisalChittagongDhakaKhulnaRajshahiRangpurSylhet

PatuakhaliComillaNetrokonaJessoreBograGaibandhaHobigonj

71185

8692

1108277

District Number of UPs

Total UPs 703

P a g e 23

Methodology

Selection of villages from the selected union and selection of householdsTwo sample villages were selected in each union from census ordered list of villages in each sample union again employing standard statistical procedure with appropriate interval of selection randomly. Villages, vary in size and intervals or gaps for selection, were determined from census numbers and actual selection was made in the field starting from identifiable starting spot and with gaps as the investigator traveled through the village. Listing of house-holds also could be used for selection.

Implementation of sample selection at various levels or jurisdictionsSample frames for selection of sample units at various jurisdictions considered using the census data and/or the lists maintained by the BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). Sample frames thus created with census data were used to select samples at various levels. Number of households or population was considered as measure of size for sample selection at all levels.

Census population in ordered list was used for selection of districts in control areas in the divisions. Districts in the project areas were excluded while selecting districts in control areas. In each division a sample district from the rest- other than project area was selected at random on statistical basis. The measure of size in terms of number of households could be considered in the selection process for control areas; however TOR specifications made no discriminatory preference by size of the districts or any other jurisdiction.Census also provided ordered lists of upazilas and other jurisdictions- unions, villages, etc. along with number of households and population. The number of households and population were used to determine the measure of size while selecting upazilas. Two upazilas were selected on standard statistical basis at random with appropriate inter-val of selection determined using number of households as measure of size.

Selection of Unions by UpazilaSix unions, as per design in each upazila, were selected in project areas as well as in each selected upazila of control areas from census ordered list of unions using standard statistical procedure.

ment and changes taking place in the project areas. The areas chosen from the surrounding areas for comparison of data are designated as ‘control area’. Thus in a specified geographical area or in an administrative expanse all areas or pieces of areas other than the designated project area qualify to be treated as control areas for the purpose of comparison provided they are similar to the area chosen for the project intervention.

3. Control areas are expected to be approximately similar by type to the project areas. It is possible some attributes/ characteristics in control area e.g. literacy is higher than that in the project area- that does not in any way hamper building analytical tools for comparison and measure impact of project intervention. In general, analytical tools– calibration procedures are defined in relative terms. Calibration may define discrepancies (differences) between two attributes for project areas and those for control areas or the ratios of the two. The differences, say between estimates of citizens’ perceptions for various attributes of interest in project area and control area at the time of inception of project activities (beginning) and the same estimates of perceptions over time – period of project activi-ties to show the changes taking place, i.e., the impact of project interventions over time and during the period.

2. Conceptually, prior to inception and undertaking of the project activities the geographical expanse or landscape within the administrative boundary is expected to include areas that are similar to the project areas defined, while there may be areas within the administrative areas that are distinct (from the project areas). In reality, non-project areas generally incorporate larger part of the administrative or geographical expanse and contain areas approxi-mately similar to the areas of the project boundary. Research and investigation are normally carried out selecting sample areas of similar administrative hierarchy, easy-to-access areas and similar socio-economic condition as ‘control areas’ and use the data for relative comparison purpose. The data from designated areas are used by designing calibration procedures appropriate to various attributes and characteristics to assess the impact of the project activities and interventions. Some similarity of control area characteristics such as literacy, use of tube well, electricity etc. are shown in Table 2.3.

P a g e24

2.5 Selection of sample district and upazilas in a division in control areas

Methodology

Project UZPs.

P a g e 25

Methodology

Considering that UPGP works with Union Parishad and UZGP works with Upazila as active LG unit that were engaged in creating simple viable planning and budgeting system and supporting implementation of the Upazila Parishad Act, it was felt heads (of households) were most appropriate respondents to provide information for CPS. However, proportion of women heads of households was much lower than that of male heads of households. All out efforts were made to get as many women heads as possible in the sample of households. Survey tool, a structured household questionnaire, was developed very carefully to capture quantitative data as specified in the TOR. It was important that data– evidences, desired in TOR, were comprehensively covered by the household survey for both UPGP and UZGP overall and for all component of the survey.

Multiple instruments had to be developed to gather data, assess and analyze both supply and demand side of public service delivery. For qualitative assessment FGDs, Key Informant Interviews and a number of Case studies were also conducted.1. FGDs: As many as 28 FGDS, 14 in project area upazilas and 14 in control areas/upazilas were conducted. Participants of the FGDs included:

Recruitment of Field StaffSteps to recruit field personnel were initiated following signing of the contract. Recruitment of field staff was completed before training. For the field operation and data collection 32 interviewers, 8 supervisors, 6 research assistants, 1 research associate and 1 coordinator were recruited. Efficient and expert interviewers were selected from among the list of about 200 interviewers and supervisors that the SRS holds since 1995.

Training of Field StaffThe field-staff-Interviewers, quality controllers, research assistants and supervisors were given training on field data collection based on the final version of the questionnaires. The training was given over a period of 3 days including final briefing before departure for field work.

During analysis, information received from quantitative and qualitative sources were reviewed for complimentary as well for supplementary evidences.2. Key Informant Interviews: Total 118 Key informant interviews were conducted. These were distributed in the 28 upazilas-14 in project areas and 14 in control areas.Respondents for KIIs, as designed, included key personnel from different levels of administrative areas and units.

3. Case Studies: The case studies highlighted information with respect to budget allocations, spending, standing committee formation and prioritization of development activities/project and exemplified positive changes brought under various circumstances.

Pre-testing and Finalization of Study ToolsThe draft questionnaires were pre-tested at a nearby place using the experienced interviewers of SRS and those results were discussed with the UNDP before finalizing the survey questionnaires.

Printing of ToolsRequired number of survey instruments were printed and stored for later use in field for data collection. Printing of these materials was completed well in time before training of the field staff.

Existing and previous non-elected standing committee members;

Marginalized community members (religious, ethnic, caste, etc.);

Local non-Government OrganizationsInterest Groups (teachers, religious leaders (Imams/Purahits), women leaders, transporters, farmers, professional association members etc.)

P a g e26

2.6 Respondents for CPS in sample household

2.7 Qualitative assessment of the CPS

Methodology

The training was imparted through classroom lectures and also through hands-on data collection from field using the questionnaires. The trainees were given some conceptual explanation of different types of information that was being sought and recorded in the questionnaires. They went over each and every question. They were provided with explanation of the piece of information required for an item, how to ask the question related to the item and how the information was to be recorded. They were trained on how to use the instruction manual for filling up the question-naires. After one day of classroom lecture and demonstration, the trainees were asked to use their own household for actual data collection using the questionnaires and demonstrate their skills and attainment in the art of data collection. Trainees were organized into smaller groups of interviewers and supervisors to check the collected infor-mation. Shortcomings and mistakes were examined and proper instructions on ‘how to avoid errors and mistakes’ were given. There was a final briefing session in which each and every interviewer was given close attention and guidance.KII, Case Study and FGD training were given separately. The research assistants used loosely structured question-naire for KII, question outline for Case Study and discussion guide for FGD and as such they were trained on how to use these tools, how to ask questions, what should be asked, what should not be asked, how to note response and how to code notes. The trainees were also trained on how to avoid errors and mistakes. Training was also given on how to organize the FGD along with the explanation on the purpose and scope of the discussion. The participants were asked to give their names and short acquaintance. The discussion started around the key themes using questions prepared in advance.In addition, supervisors were given special lectures and training related to supervision and monitoring of field work and other duties, such as arranging schedules, solving difficulties, communication with survey coordinators and headquarter that they had to perform.

The study was completed by engaging 32 interviewers, 8 supervisors, 6 research assistants, 1 research associate and 1 coordinator within 3 weeks from 16 March 2014 to 04 April 2014 including travel time.Table 2.7: Survey Respondents

Survey Activity Target Respondent No of Interview

Project Control

Total

Household surveyUZP InstitutionalQuestionnaireUP InstitutionalQuestionnaireFGD

Key InformantInterview

Head of the householdsUpazila Chairman/ UNO

UP o�ce

168014

85

14

90

168014

81

14

28

336028

166

28

118

Participants include:Existing and previous non-elected standing committee members;Marginalized community members (religious, ethnic, caste);Local non-Government OrganizationsInterest Groups (teacher, religious groups)UP Chairman, Upazila Chairman/ UNO, Upazila Engineer,Upazila Woman and Children Welfare O�cer,DF, DDLG, Deputy Secretary(DS)

Activities / ProjectsCase Study 8 8

Quantitative Interview: One Supervisor and four interviewers formed a team; sample respondents were selected at random. The duration of the maximum time of the interview of the respondent was about two hours.As described above, the data collection was performed by a total of 32 interviewers and 8 supervisors. Thus one supervisor looked after the data collection of 4 interviewers and he/she was always in 4 interviewers group. Initially, as stated earlier, a supervisor checked the interview session conducted by the interviewer for the first one/two

P a g e 27

2.8 Field Operation

Methodology

The list of participants in FGDs was finalized with UNDP. Participants were contacted in advance. A letter of invita-tion was sent to each participant and was reminded about the focus group discussion one day before the session. The number of participants in each FGD was 8 - 10. Audio recorder was used to record the deliberations. 6 research assistants were engaged for KII, CS and FGD data collection.

The structured questionnaires (F2F), responses on questionnaires (KII) and discussion guide in question form (FGD) were reviewed and manually edited. Manual editing took care of proper identification of codes. Consistency and appropriateness of the information was also checked through manual editing. Data was edited and coded before they were entered into computer.

Data Entry : Data entry commenced as soon as the edited filled-in questionnaire started coming to the head-quarter. Data entry was completed in about one week. One highly qualified System Analyst of SRS’s data process-ing team guided the programmer and data entry operations. Five skilled data entry operators were engaged for this work. The edited and coded data were entered into computer. Data edit and data entry included:

Sharing Draft Report : The draft report was shared with key stakeholders such as UNDP with multimedia presentation. After sharing report key comments were recorded.

Report Preparation : Initially, a draft report, incorporating the findings of the survey, was prepared and submitted to UNDP for review and comments. A workshop was arranged to discuss the draft report and the final report was submitted to the UNDP incorporating the feedback received during the workshop.

For validation check of survey findings, the team cross-checked selected indicators and adjusted accordingly. 20.6% respondents were randomly selected from the survey. Queries were about Ward Shava, open budget meeting and visiting UP or UZP office during 2013. Adjusted indicators were whether they the respondents attended the meetings and visited UP and UZP office.

(i) Data entry into the computer files (ii) Cleaning of data(iii) Preparing master data files for analysis (MS Access and SPSS)(iv) Preparing statistical table

interviews; after being satisfied with the work of the interviewer, the supervisor allowed him/her to continue interview on his/her own. The supervisor observed the work of the interviewers each day and assessed the performance of all Interviewers by the close of the given enumeration period. He also monitored the progress of work and main-tained a tight inventory of data collection.

All blank questionnaires were distributed among 8 supervisors. During the field work every supervisor stayed in a convenient place with his/her own team members. At the end of every working day he/she sat down with his team members and checked, cross checked their filled-in questionnaires one by one. If his/her work was satisfactory, he/she was given the filled-in schedules and 5 blank schedules for next day. If there was any inconsistency, he/she went back to the field and recollected the data. If any investigators’ activities were not satisfactory, supervisor was asked to spot fire him/her and make a replacement from the HQ reserved list. One interviewer completed 5 inter-views per day.

Qualitative Interview: The list of respondents was finalized with UNDP. Research assistants identified the upazila and district level respondents for KII. KII interview dates, time and place of interview were informed to the respondents beforehand. The duration of one interview would be nearly one and a half hour.

P a g e28

2.9 Data Analysis

2.10 Validity Check and adjustment

33

Respondents’ ProfileOpen Budget - UPOpen Budget - UP

The respondents of the Citizen Perception Survey consist of various categories of stakeholders of which house-holds, FGD and KII have been considered as the major tools for this study. The data, collected for the year 2013, also includes demographic information such as age, sex, income level etc. However, an Institutional checklist has also been developed to view the outcome from a different angle.

3. Respondents’ Profile

3. Respondents’ Profile

P a g e 31

3.1 Sex composition

Total number of HH heads, covered in the survey, is 3360 of which 1680 are in the project area and 1680 are in the control area.

The survey respondents comprise 68.8% male and 31.2% female in the project area corresponding to 69.4% male and 30.6% female in the control area.

3.2 Age compositionThe respondents were from different age groups- 18-30 years, 31-45 years, 46-64 years and 65 years and above. The average age of the respondents was 42 years while minimum age was 18 years and maximum age was 82 years. Approximately, one-fourth (23.4%) of the respondents are in the age group of 18-30 years which is slightly higher (24.1%) in control area. The next working age group 31-45 years also has slightly higher 44.3% respondents in control area compared to 40.9% respondents in project area. The next two age groups however have higher percentages 28.9% and 6.8% respectively in project area compared to 25.4% and 6.1% respectively in control area.

3.3 Educational distributionThe respondents were divided into seven educational groups of which the highest 33.2% respondents studied up to class V followed by the respondents who never attended school (28.2%). Of the rest, 21.1% studied up to class IX, 9.2% passed SSC, 4.1% passed H.S.C. and above 4.2% are graduates. The educational distribution of the respondents, in percentages, was more or less similar in project and control areas.

3.4 Occupational classificationThe sample respondents have been classified into seven occupational groups of which one-third (34.1%) of the respondents are in agriculture followed by (19.3%) housewife, day laborers/rickshaw pullers (15.5%), business (17.4%), service (6.4%), unemployed (3.4%) and students (3.6%). The distribution is almost similar in the project areas and the control areas. The study shows that slightly lower than three-fourths (73.5%) of the respondents are engaged in agriculture, business, day labor, service, etc. and their distribution by project and control areas are almost similar.

3.5 Household IncomeBased on the household income according to the respondents’ opinion, the respondents were clubbed into six monthly income (Tk.) groups from below Tk 5,000 to Tk 50,000 and above. The highest 43.8% of the respondents fall under the second lowest income group of Tk 5,001 – 10,000. This is followed by the income group of below Tk 5000 (28.1%) and by Tk 10,001 – 20,000 (22.4%) respondents in project area. The other three income groups individually are less than 4% while it is less than 6% if combined. These percentages for control area are more or less similar to those in project area. The average income per-household per-month comes to Tk 9,355/- for project area and Tk 8,971 for control area.

3.6 Religious statusAmong the survey respondents, majority of people were Muslims who are 86.1% in project area and 91.2% in control area. The rest of the respondents are mainly Hindu who are 13.6% in project area and 8.6% in control area. The percentage of Christians and Buddhists are negligible compared to the Muslims and the Hindus.

3.7 Involvement in LGIThe study on household shows that 8.1% of the respondents have involved themselves with UP/UZP during last 5 years of which a higher 11.5% were in project area and a lower 4.6% respondents were in control area. It also reveals that the involvement of male respondents got involved with UP/UZP during last 5 years is more than double (12.4%) in project area against 6% in control area. The involvement of female respondents with UP/UZP during last 5 years is not very significant. Only 9.5% respondents in the project area and a very small percentage of female respondents (1.6%) in the control area were involved with the LGIs.

In terms of capacity of involvement with UP/UZP, business related activities top the list. About one-third of the respondents (31.7%) got involved with UP/UZP in business related activities of which 23.8% were in project area and 51.3% were in control area. The next highest involvement was by 30.6% respondents as a Chairman/member of UP/UZP in project area and by 19.2% respondents in control area. Involvement in service related activities with UP/UZP was also significant for both project (12.4%) and control area (14.1%). Male involvement was much higher than that of female in both project and control areas.

Respondents’ Profile

Table 3.1: Household Respondents’ pro�leParticulars Project

n

Total

Gender

Age of Respondent

Occupation

Education

Male

Female

Up to 30

31 – 45

46 – 64

65 & Over

Agriculture

Business

Service

Day labour/ Rickshaw/van/pushcart puller

Housewife

Student

Unemployed

Others

Never attended school

Passed up to class V

Passed up to class IX

SSC passed

HSC passed

Graduate

Graduate and above

1680

1156

524

393

687

485

115

573

292

108

261

324

62

60

0

474

558

354

155

69

55

15

Total

% n %

Control

100.0

68.8

31.2

23.4

40.9

28.9

6.8

34.1

17.4

6.4

15.5

19.3

3.7

3.6

0.0

28.2

33.2

21.1

9.2

4.1

3.3

.9

1679

1166

513

405

744

427

103

580

271

107

311

318

38

54

0

479

703

300

100

61

28

8

100.0

69.4

30.6

24.1

44.3

25.4

6.1

34.5

16.1

6.4

18.5

18.9

2.3

3.2

0.0

28.5

41.9

17.9

6.0

3.6

1.7

.5

P a g e32

3.8 KII Respondents’ Profile

Below table explains the profile of the KII participants in detail:

Occupational distribution: The Key Informants are mostly Upazila Level Officers of various professions such as Upazila Chairman, Upazila Vice Chairman who are elected and others are govern-ment and non-govt. others like UZP Engineers, UZP Women and Children Welfare Officers, Teachers, etc. They comprise the largest 73.7 percent of all KIIs. The KIIs at district level and above are the DS, D.D.L.G and ADC who comprise only 14.4% of all KIIs. The elected UP Chairman are the KIIs at Union level who form 11.9% of the KIIs.

Particulars Project

n

Total

Household Income

Religion

Below Tk 5,000

Tk 5,001 - 10,000

Tk 10,001 - 20,000

Tk 20,001 - 30,000

Tk 30,001 - 50,000

Tk 50,001 and above

Muslim

Hindu

Christian

Buddhist

Others

1680

472

735

377

59

29

8

1446

229

4

1

0

193

1487

59

24

46

64

Total

% n %

Control

Involvement of any HH member inUP/UZP during last 5 years

Yes

No

As a Chairman/ Member of UP/UZP

Service related

Business related

Others

Household involvement withUP/UZP in what capacity

100.0

28.1

43.8

22.4

3.5

1.7

.5

86.1

13.6

.2

.1

0.0

11.5

88.5

30.6

12.4

23.8

33.2

1679

489

686

437

39

25

3

1532

145

0

2

0

78

1601

15

11

40

12

100.0

29.1

40.9

26.0

2.3

1.5

.2

91.2

8.6

0.0

.1

0.0

4.6

95.4

19.2

14.1

51.3

15.4

Sex: Among the KII respondents, majority of participants (84.7%) were male.

Age composition: The age distribution of KII respondents were 1.7%, 52.2%, 41.7% and 4.3 in age groups up to 30 years, 31-45 years, 46-64 years and 65 and over years respectively.

Educational distribution: The Percentages of participants according to level of education such as passed up to class IX, SSC passed, HSC passed, graduate and graduate and above were 4.4%, 5.3%, 14.9%, 20.2% and 55.3% respectively.

Income distribution: The Percentage distributions of participate according to monthly income groups such as Tk. 5,001-10,000, Tk. 10001-20,000, Tk. 20,000-30,000, Tk. 30,001-50,000 and Tk. 50,001 and above were 1.9%, 5.6%, 3.3%, 15.0% and 68.2% respectively

Respondents’ Profile

P a g e 33

3.9 FGD participants’ profile:Sex: More than three/fourths of the total FGD participants were male and about one/fourth were female.

Age distribution: Most of the participants (84.0%) were in the age group of 31 – 45 years and 46 – 64 years.

Occupational distribution: Percentages of participants according to occupations such as agricul-ture, business, service, day labour/ rickshaw/van/pushcart puller, housewife and others were 10.8%, 27.2%, 46.4%, 5.2%, 4.4% and 6.0% respectably.

Educational distribution: Percentages of participants according to levels of education such as never attended school, passed up to class V, passed up to class IX, SSC passed, HSC passed, Post Graduate and above were 10.0%, 8.0%, 13.6%, 14.8%, 11.2%, 20.0% and 22.4% respectively.

Respondents’ Profile

Table 3.2: KII Demographic Information:

Particulars

Occupation & Designation

Gender

Age ofRespondent

Education

Income

Category

Totaln % n % n %

Project Area Control Area

Deputy SecretaryDDLGADCUZP ChairmanUZP Vice ChairmanUNOUZP EngineerUP ChairmanUZP Women WelfareFamily PlanningAgricultural O�cerLive Stock & FisheriesMediaOtherMaleFemaleUp to 3031 – 4546 – 6465 & OverPassed up to class IXSSC passedHSC passedGraduateGraduate and aboveTk 5,001 - 10,000Tk 10,001 - 20,000Tk 20,001 - 30,000Tk 30,001 - 50,000Tk 50,001 and above

112

49

1021181410

25228

10018

26048

556

172363

26

101673

0.8%10.2%

3.4%7.6%8.5%

17.8%15.3%11.9%

8.5%1.7%4.2%1.7%1.7%6.8%84.715.3

1.752.241.7

4.34.45.3

14.920.255.3

1.95.69.3

15.068.2

111

467

141314

414227

7713

14638

545

131649

259

1351

1.1%12.2%

4.4%6.7%7.8%

15.6%14.4%15.6%

4.4%1.1%4.4%2.2%2.2%7.8%85.614.4

1.151.142.2

5.64.65.7

14.918.456.3

2.56.3

11.316.363.8

01033750611001

2351

1410

01147

140113

22

0.0%3.6%0.0%

10.7%10.7%25.0%17.9%

0.0%21.4%

3.6%3.6%0.0%0.0%3.6%82.117.9

4.056.040.0

.03.73.7

14.825.951.9

.03.73.7

11.181.5

P a g e34

Detail profile of FGD participants is given in the below table:

Income distribution: Percentages of participants according to monthly income groups such as below Tk 5,000, Tk 5,001 - 10,000, Tk 10,001 - 20,000, Tk 20,001 - 30,000, Tk 30,001 - 50,000 and Tk 50,001 and above were 15.2%, 28.0%, 40.0%, 10.8%, 1.6% and 4.4% respectively.

Table 3.3: Detail information on FGD Participants

Particulars

Gender

Age ofParticipants

Occupation

Education

Monthlyincome

Category

Totaln

Total

% n % n %Project Area Control Area

MaleFemaleUp to 3031 – 4546 – 6465 & OverAgricultureBusinessServiceDay labour/ Rickshaw/van/pushcart pullerHousewifeOthersNever attended schoolPassed up to class VPassed up to class IXSSC passedHSC passedGraduatePost Graduate and aboveBelow Tk 5,000Tk 5,001 - 10,000Tk 10,001 - 20,000Tk 20,001 - 30,000Tk 30,001 - 50,000Tk 50,001 and above

250194

5632

13179

82768

116131115252034372850563870

10027

411

10077.622.412.852.431.6

3.210.827.246.4

5.24.46.0

10.08.0

13.614.811.220.022.415.228.040.010.8

1.64.4

1309832146743

617394913

93

1914121618232836284416

33

10075.424.610.851.533.1

4.613.130.037.710.0

6.92.3

14.610.8

9.212.313.817.721.527.721.533.812.3

2.32.3

1209624186436

2102967

02

1266

2221102728

2425611

18

10080.020.015.053.330.0

1.78.3

24.255.8

0.01.7

10.05.05.0

18.317.5

8.322.523.3

1.735.046.7

9.2.8

6.7

Respondents’ Profile

P a g e 35

44Upazila ParishadUpazila Parishad

Union ParishadUnion Parishad

S u r v e y F i n d i n g s

4.1.1.1 Presence of Citizen Charter at the premises of the UP

Transparency is one of major indicators of good governance while Citizen Charter works as an important tool of transparency. Pertaining to the awareness on Citizen Charter, 75.7% of the respondents informed that they had

4.1.1.3 Visited UISC during last year Among the survey respondents, the percentage of people, who visited UISC during last one year for information, was 82.8% in the project area corresponding to 74.7% in the control area.

4.1.1.4 Quantity of services from UISC during last one yearThe study on the quantity of information and services received by the respondents from UISC during last one year reflects that 99% of the respondents in project area received information and services as compared to that of 98.6% in the control area. The percentage of respondents who did not receive any information and service was only 1.0% in project area compared to 1.4% in control area.

seen the Citizen Charter in the UP premises of the project areas while 61.5% had seen it in the control areas. On the contrary, 24.3% respondents in the project area did not have exposure to the citizen charter compared to 38.5% in control area.

Among the respondents, who had seen the citizen char-ter, 98.1% in the project area considered that the informa-tion in the Citizen Charter was realistic while the response of only 1.9% reflects that the information was non-realistic. The opinion was almost similar in control area where 96.5% of the respondents expressed that the infor-mation in the Citizen Charter was realistic and only 3.5% respondents opined that the information was not realistic.

4.1.1.2 Knowledge about Union information and Service Centre (UISC)

The study on knowledge of UISC that provides basic information to general public for their day to day use, shows that 89.3% respondents of the project area and 76% respondents of the control area were aware of it while 10.7% of the of the project area and 24% of the control area did not know about UISC.

4.1.1.5 Satisfaction on services received from UISC

The satisfaction level of the respondents who received information and services from UISC has been qualified in five categories. Majority of the respondents i.e. 72.4% in project area and 57.4% in control area expressed that they

4.1 Union Parishad

4. Survey Findings

4.1.1 Right to Information (RTI)

75.7%

61.5%

YES NO

ControlProject

24.3%

38.5%

Citizen Charter at the premises of Union ParishadFigure1

ControlProject

76.0%89.3%

10.7%

NOYES

24.0%

Knowledge about UISCFigure2

P a g e 39

Among the survey respondents, a number of individuals opined that UPs were very much willing to provide infor-mation and in percentage it was 18.3% in project area compared to 15.5% in control area. 77.2% of the respondents in the project area and 72.3% of the respondents in the control area told that UPs were somewhat willing to give information regarding their activities. However, some of them informed that UPs were not willing at all and the figure was 4.6% in the project area and 12.3% in the control area.

4.1.1.6 Observe the list of schemes that are being implemented by UP during last one year

In reply to a question whether they have seen the list of schemes being implemented by UP, 60.3% of the respondents in project area and 51.6% in control area replied in the affirmative.4.1.1.7 Willingness of Union Parishad to inform the people

were satisfied while 19.0% respondents in project area and 30.4% in control area told that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The percentage of respondents who were highly satisfied was 5.4% in project area compared to 9.2% in control area. However, a small number of recipients were dissatisfied with the services both in project and control area.

Table 4.1.1: Right to Information (RTI)Particulars#

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Citizen charter at the premises ofUnion ParishadViews on citizen charter are realistic

Knowledge about UnionInformation and Service Centre (UISC)Sought services from USIC during 2013

Quantity of services from UISCduring last one yearSatisfaction on UISC

Observe the list of schemes that were beingimplemented by UP during last one yearOpinion, what nature of willingnessdo the union parishad have toinform the people

Response Project Control%n%n

YesNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYesNoHighly Satis�edSatis�edNeither satis�ed nor Dissatis�edDissatis�edHighly Dissatis�edYesNoVery much willingSomewhat willingNot at all willing

889286872

171265

1511046

2171036

1056

752197

286

1013667248

104862

75.724.398.1

1.989.310.782.817.299.0

1.05.4

72.419.0

2.70.6

60.339.718.377.2

4.6

717449692

251117

353833282821

1276

475252

223

851799214

1000170

61.538.596.5

3.576.024.074.725.398.6

1.49.2

57.430.4

2.70.4

51.648.415.572.312.3

Survey Findings

Satisfaction on services received from UISCFigure3

5.4%9.2%

HighlySatisfied

Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

72.4%57.4%

19.0%30.4%

2.7% 2.7% .6% .4%

Opinion on willingness to inform UP activities Figure4

18.3% 15.5%

Very much willing Somewhat willing Not at all willing

77.2%72.3%

4.6%12.3%

P a g e40

ControlProject

ControlProject

It came out from the survey that the majority of respondent i.e. 84.8% knew about holding of UP Council meeting in project areas while in control areas it is 76.8%. The respondent, having no information about holding UP meeting in last one year, were 12.6% in project area and 22.2% in control area.

Of the respondents, the percentage of people having knowledge about holding Ward Shava in the year 2013 was 85.2 in project area while the percentage was 75.0 in control area.However, 11.2% respondents in project area and 22.2% respondents in the control area did not have any informa-tion on holding the Ward Shava in 2013

4.1.2.1 Knowledge about the UP Parishad meeting

The study reveals that 50.2% of respondents in the project area and 36.2% respondents in control area had knowledge about UP Parishad meeting. On the other hand, almost half of the respondents in the project area did not know about Parishad meeting while two- thirds of the respondents in control area fall under this group.

4.1.2.2 Holding Parishad Meeting during last one year (2013)

4.1.2 Parishad Meeting (PM)

4.1.3.1 Knowledge about the Ward Shava

About the awareness on Ward Shava, 46.4% respond-ents in project area and 39.1% in control area were aware of it. The respondents, who replied that they did not know about Ward Shava, were 53.6% in project area and 60.9% in control area.

4.1.3.3 Attendance of Ward Shava during last one year.Among the respondents, who have knowledge about WS, 13.9% of respondents in project area informed that they had (or family member) attended the Ward Shava while 86.1% respondents did not attend the Ward Shava. In control area, 10.7% respondents attended the Ward Shava while 89.3% respondents did not attend.

4.1.3.2 Holding of Ward Shava during last year (2013)

Table 4.1.2: Parishad MeetingParticulars#

1.

2.

Knowledge about the unionparishad meetingHolding parishad meeting during lastone year (2013)

Response Project Control%n%n

YesNoYesNoDon’t Know

843837715

22106

50.249.884.8

2.612.6

6081071

4676

135

36.263.876.8

1.022.2

Survey Findings

4.1.3 Ward Shava (WS)

50.2%36.2%

49.8%

YES NO

63.8%

Knowledge about the union parishad meetingFigure5

46.4%39.1%

53.6%

60.9%

NOYES

Knowledge about the Ward ShavaFigure6

P a g e 41

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.1.3.6 Discussion on priority of schemes held in the Ward Shava

In reply to a question whether there was discussion in Ward Shava regarding priority of Schemes, 95.2% respond-ents in project area and 100% respondents in control area supported this.

4.1.3.7 Discussion on Budget of UP held in the Ward Shava

Regarding the discussion on budget in the Ward Shava, majority of the respondents had positive views in both project and control area. 90.5% of the respondents in project area and 100% of the respondents in control area replied in the affirmative. On the other hand, 9.5% respondents in project area informed that budget was not discussed in Ward Shava meeting.

4.1.3.8 Satisfaction on activities of Ward Shava

Regarding satisfaction on activities of Ward Shava, 71.4% of the respondents in project area and 40% of the respondents in control area were ‘satisfied’. The percentage of respondents in project area who were ‘highly satis-fied’ was 9.5% against 10% in control area. There were no ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘highly dissatisfied’ respondents in any area.

4.1.3.4 Equal Chance to talk in Ward Shava

Of the total survey participants, 90% in project area and 100% in control area expressed that they had equal chance to talk in the Ward Shava meetings. This leaves out a mere 10% participants who informed that they did not get equal chance to talk in the Ward Shava meetings in project area while in control area no participant expressed such views.

4.1.3.5 Development plan discussion held in the Ward Shava

Development plan discussion in Ward Shava was supported by 95.2% respondents in project area and 100% respondents in control area.

Survey Findings

Table 4.1.3: Di�erent aspects of Ward ShavaParticulars#

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Knowledge about the ward shava

Holding of ward shava during lastone year (2013)

Equal chance to talk in ward shava

Attended ward meeting during last one year

Development Plan discussed inthe ward shavaDiscussion on priority of schemesheld in the ward shava

Discussion on Budget of UP held inthe ward shavaSatisfaction on activities of ward shava

Response Project Control%n%n

779901664288722

136182

201

201

1922

15400

46.453.685.23.6

11.213.986.190.010.095.24.8

95.24.8

90.59.59.5

71.419.00.00.0

657102249318

1461192100

110

110

11014500

39.160.975.02.7

22.210.789.3

100.00.0

100.00.0

100.00.0

100.00.0

10.040.050.00.00.0

YesNoYesNoDon’t KnowYesNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYesNoHighly Satis�edSatis�edNeither satis�ed nor Dissatis�edDissatis�edHighly Dissatis�ed

P a g e42

4.1.4 Standing Committee (SC)

4.1.4.2 Knowledge about any Standing Com-mittees meeting was held during last one year

It came out from the survey that 79.6% of the respondents in project area knew about holding of standing committee meeting during last one year while 53.8% respondents in control area knew about it. The percentage of respondents who had negative idea about the meeting in project area was 2.9% compared to 0.6% in control area. On the other hand, a significant percentage of the respondents i.e. 45.5% in control area had no idea about meeting while the figure was much lower at 17.5% in project area.

4.1.4.1 Knowledge about the Standing Committee (SC)

The survey recorded that 20.4% of respondents in project area and 18.6% of respondents in control area had knowledge about Standing Committee. On the other hand, 79.6% of respondents in project area did not know about standing committee meeting corre-sponding to 81.4% in control area.

4.1.4.3 Effectiveness of Standing Committees

In evaluating the effectiveness of standing committee of a project, the respondents (those who have knowledge about schemes/projects) had a wide range of opinion. Of the respondents 47.8% voted for ‘effective’ category in the project area corresponding to 40.9% in control area. The second highest category was who thought the projects were neither effective nor ineffective and in percentage they were 44.3% in project area and 33.3% in control area. The group of respondents who thought it was ‘very effective’ was 7.1% in project area and 25.8% in control area. However, a very negligible 0.8% respondents in project area found the SC ineffective while no one in the project area was found in this category.

Table 4.1.4: Standing Committee (SC)Particulars#

1.

2.

3.

Knowledge about the standing committee

Standing committees meeting washeld during last one year (2013)

E�ectiveness of Standing Committees

Response Project Control%n%n

3431337273106018

122113

20

20.479.679.6

2.917.5

7.147.844.3

.80.0

3131366

1682

142345444

00

18.681.453.8

.645.525.840.933.3

0.00.0

YesNoYesNoDon’t KnowVery E�ectiveE�ectiveNeutralIne�ectiveVery Ine�ective

Survey Findings

20.4% 18.6%

YES NO

79.6% 81.4%

Knowledge about the Standing CommitteeFigure7

Effectiveness of Standing CommitteesFigure8

7.1%

25.8%

47.8%40.9%

44.3%

33.3%

.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

VeryEffective

VeryIneffective

Effective Neutral Ineffective

P a g e 43

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.1.5.1 Knowledge about the union development coordination committee (UDCC)Regarding knowledge about the Union Development Coordination Committee (UDCC), the respondents who informed that they knew about committee were 20.8% in project areas corresponding to 15.8% in control area. The percentage of the respondents, who replied in the negative, was 79.2% in project area while the figure was slightly higher at 84.2% in control area.

4.1.5.2 Knowledge about the Project Implementation committee (PIC) Regarding the knowledge about the Project Implementation committee (PIC), 26.5% of the respondents in project area and 22.3% of the respondents in control area knew about the Project Implementation Committees. On the other hand, the percentage of respondents who had no idea about PIC meeting was 73.5 in project area and 77.7 in control area.

4.1.6.1 Knowledge about scheme/project Regarding knowledge about scheme/project, the percentage of respondents who were aware of the scheme/project was 20.4 in the project area compared to 18.3 in control area. On the other hand, 79.6% in project area and 81.7% in control area were unaware of the scheme/project.

4.1.6 Schemes/Projects

4.1.5.3 Satisfaction on PIC meeting

About the level of satisfaction on activities of PIC meet-ing, 67.4% in project area and 43.9% in control area expressed that they were satisfied. On the other hand, the percentage of ‘neutral’ respondents was 26.4% in project area compared to 45.1% in control area. The percentage of highly satisfied respondents was 3.9% in project area while the figure was 10.6% in control area. A small number of people were found dissatisfied and in percentage they were 2.3% in project area and 0.4% in control area.

4.1.5 Union Development Coordination Committee (UDCC) and Project Implementation Committee (PIC)

Table 4.1.5: Union Development Coordination Committee (UDCC) and Project Particulars#

1.

2.

3.

Knowledge about the union developmentcoordination committee (UDCC)Knowledge about the ProjectImplementation committee (PIC)

Satisfaction on activities of (PIC)

Response Project Control%n%n

3491331

4451235

12207

8170

20.879.226.573.5

3.967.426.4

2.30.0

2651414

3751304

28116119

10

15.884.222.377.710.643.945.1

.40.0

YesNoYesNoHighly Satis�edSatis�edNeither satis�ed nor Dissatis�edDissatis�edHighly Dissatis�ed

Survey Findings

Satisfaction on PIC meetingFigure9

3.9%10.6%

43.9%

26.4%

45.1%

2.3% 0.4%

67.4%

HighlySatisfied

Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied

Knowledge about the schemes/projectsFigure10

20.4% 18.3%

79.6% 81.7%

Yes No

P a g e44

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.1.6.2 Participation in scheme/projectRegarding the participation of respondents in schemes/projects, 18.1% of the informed respondents in project area and 15.3% in control areas participated in different schemes/projects. The percentage of respondents who did not take part in schemes/projects was 81.9% in project area while the figure was 84.7% in control area.

4.1.6.3 Benefited by scheme/project implementationThe informed respondents were asked if they were benefited with the implementation of scheme/project. According to their response, 83.4% of the respondents were benefited with the implementation of scheme/project in project areas corresponding to a lower 68.8% respondents in control areas. The respondents, who were not benefited from the scheme/project, were lower in project areas (11.7%) than that of control areas (16.6%). The number of respond-ents, who did not know about the benefit of the project, was 5% in project areas while the figure was 9.6% higher in control areas.

4.1.6.4 Consideration for taking UP scheme/projectIn a multiple answer question, the respondents were asked to provide the issues that should be taken up for imple-menting a scheme/project (the issues considered and the percentage of the respondent’s reply for each issue is given in detail in Table 4.1.6). It was found that the highest 60.4% of the respondents in project areas advocated for the issue of development for poor and marginalized community compared to 45.4% in control areas. The next highest recommendation was in favor of overall local development which was chosen by 51.7% of the respondents in project areas 47.8% of the respondents in control areas. The other issues were ‘satisfying the political leader’ and ‘personal benefit’ each of which were supported by less than 6% of the respondents in project areas and control areas.

4.1.6.5 Selection process of schemes/projectsPertaining to the selection process of schemes, 59.6% of the respondents was in favor of joint decision by chairman and members in project areas compared to 50.8% in control areas. On the other hand, 27.2% of the respondents in project areas and 26.6% of the respondents in control areas opted for the participatory way of selection. The chairman’s decision based selection process was reported by 12.0% of the respondents in project areas and by 10.1% of the respondents in control areas. Influential/political persons also influencedthe decision of project selec-tion in favor of which 14.4% respondents were found in project area compared to 13.8% in control area.

FGD report validated the results of selection process of schemes/projects within UP. Participants of nine FGDs in project areas compared to the one FGD in control areas opined that the list of schemes/projects was prepared after selection and decision in Ward Shava. Participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas informed that Chairman and members of UP took initiate to select and determine schemes/projects. Partici-pants of one FGD in project areas and one FGD in control areas told that Planning Committee took initiative to select and determine schemes/projects. Participants of three FGDs in control areas told that they did not have any clear idea about this.

4.1.6.6 Monitoring the schemes/projects under implementationAbout monitoring the schemes/projects under implementation, 41.1% respondents informed that the chairman himself monitored the scheme in project areas corresponding to 42.5% respondents in control areas. This was followed by scheme supervision committee which was supported by 28.3% respondents in project areas and 14.9% respondents in control areas. The number of respondents, who did not know about this, was 30.6% in project areas while the figure was much higher at 42.5% in control areas.

4.1.6.7 Knowledge about MDGPertaining to the knowledge about MDG, 8.5% of the respondents in project areas knew about MDG compared to 4.5% in control areas. Thus the study reflects that 91.5% of the respondents in project areas and 95.5% of the respondents in control areas did not have any knowledge about MDG.

Survey Findings

P a g e 45

4.1.6.10 Evaluation of the effectiveness of schemes/projectsIn evaluating the effectiveness of the projects, the highest 48.5% respondents in project areas opined that the projects were effective while only 36.0% in control areas had similar views. 42.6% of the respondents in project areas and a slightly higher 47.3% in control areas thought that they were neither effective nor ineffective (neutral).

5.1% of the respondents in project areas and 8.1% respondents in control areas opined that the projects were highly effective. However, a small number of the respondents also voted for ‘ineffective’ or ‘very ineffec-tive’ category both in project areas and control areas.

4.1.6.11 Satisfaction on the quality of implemented project

Regarding the satisfaction about the quality of imple-mented project, 62.5% of the respondents in project area were found satisfied on the implemented project while the figure was much lower (39.3%) in control area. The second highest percentage of neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction was expressed by 31.5% respondents in project area and a higher 48.3% respondents in control area.

Among the respondents, 3.0% in project area and 4.1% in control area were highly satisfied. However, a small percentage of respondents were found dissatisfied bothin project area (2.1%) and control area (6.2%). A few ‘highly dissatisfied’ people were also there and the percentage was 0.9% in project area and 2.1% in control area.

4.1.6.8 Project taken to achieve MDG?In answer to the question if any project was taken up to achieve MDG, 92.3% of the respondents in project area informed that projects were taken up to achieve MDG compared to 84.2% in control areas. A lower percentage of respondents i.e. 3.5% in project area and 7.9% in control area informed that they did not have any such project. There were also a number of people who had no idea about this and in percentage they were 4.2% in project area and 7.9% in control area.

4.1.6.9 Project taken to improve condition of marginalized community? About taking any project to improve the condition of marginalized community, 69.4% of the respondents in the project area informed that such projects were taken compared to 47.1% in control area. However, a significant number of respondents i.e. 27.7% in project area and 41.6% in control area did not know about it. The percentage of respondents, who informed that no such project was taken, was 2.9% in project area compared to 11.4% in control area.

Survey Findings

Evaluation of the effectiveness of schemes/projectsFigure11

VeryEffective

VeryIneffective

Effective Neutral Ineffective

5.1% 8.1%

48.5%

36.0%42.6% 47.3%

2.4% 6.7%1.5% 1.8%

Satisfaction on the quality of implemented projectsFigure12

HighlySatisfied

Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

3.0% 4.1%

62.5%

39.3%31.5%

48.3%

2.1% 6.2% 0.9% 2.1%

P a g e46

ControlProject

ControlProject

Table 4.1.6: Schemes/ProjectsParticulars#

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Knowledge about schemes /project

Participation in scheme/projectrelated meeting

Bene�ted by implementedscheme/project

Considerations for taking UPschemes/projects(Multiple Response)

Selection process of schemes/projects(Multiple Response)

Monitor the schemes/projects implementation

Knowledge about MDG

Any projects have been taken toachieve MDG

Project(s) taken to improve thesocio-economic condition ofmarginalized/excluded community

E�ectiveness ofschemes/projects

Satisfaction about the qualityof implemented projects

Response Project Control%n%n

3431337

62281286

4017

167195

2017

39140

19948

097

14100

105142

1538131

56

238109517

163143

85

10208105

73

20.479.618.181.983.411.7

5.051.760.4

6.25.3

.927.212.059.614.4

0.028.341.1

0.00.0

30.68.5

91.592.3

3.54.2

69.42.9

27.75.1

48.542.6

2.41.53.0

62.531.5

2.1.9

3081371

47261212

5145

140133

2019

37930

15141

246

13100

13176

160364

66

14535

12823

102134

195

12114140

186

18.381.715.384.768.816.614.647.845.4

6.86.51.0

26.610.150.813.8

.714.942.5

0.00.0

42.54.5

95.584.2

7.97.9

47.111.441.6

8.136.047.3

6.71.84.1

39.348.3

6.22.1

YesNoYesNoYesNoDon’t KnowOverall Local DevelopmentDevelopment for poor andmarginalized communitysatisfying the political leaderpersonal bene�tOthersParticipatory wayChairChair & MemberIn�uential/political personsOthersScheme supervision committeeChairmanUP membersUNO/representativeDon’t KnowYesNoYesNoDon’t KnowYesNoDon’t KnowVery E�ectiveE�ectiveNeitherIne�ectiveVery Ine�ectiveHighly Satis�edSatis�edNeither satis�ed nor Dissatis�edDissatis�edHighly Dissatis�ed

Survey Findings

P a g e 47

4.1.7.1 Knowledge about annual planning of UPRegarding the knowledge about Annual Planning of UP, 16.4% respondents in project area knew about annual planning of UP corresponding to 11.3% in control area. The percentage of respondents who did not know about annual plan was 83.6 in project area and 88.7 in control area.

4.1.7.3 Knowledge about five year plan

Regarding the knowledge about Five Year Plan of UP, 9.9% of the respondents of project area and 4.4% respondents in control area were aware of the plan. Percentage of respondents who were unaware of Five Year Plan was 60.1% in project area and 35.9% in control area. Percentage of respondents, who told that they did not know about the plan, was 29.9% in project area compared to 59.7% respondents in control area.

Pertaining to the knowledge about having a Five Year Plan by UP, respondents who replied affirmatively was

4.1.7.2 Has UP an Annual PlanPertaining to the knowledge about having Annual Plan, 62.9% of the respondents in the project area informed that their UP had Annual Plan while it was only 42.6% incontrol area. Percentage of respondents, according to who annual development plan was not prepared, was 4.7% in project areas and 7.9% in control areas. Percentage of respondents, who told that they did not know if UP had an annual budget, was 32.4% in project area compared to 49.5% in control area.

4.1.7.4 Has your UP a Five Year Plan

30.9% in project area and 20.8% in control area. The percentage of respondents, who told that no five year plan was prepared, was 3.1% in project areas compared to 1.4% in control areas. However, a significant number of people did not have any idea of it and the figure was 66% in project area while a higher percentage of respondents (77.8%) in control area were in the same category.

4.1.7 Annual Plan and Five Year Plan

Table 4.1.7: Annual Plan and Five Year PlanParticulars#

1.

2.

3.

4.

Knowledge about annual planning of UP

Has UP an Annual Plan

Knowledge about �ve year plan

Has your UP a Five Year Plan

Response Project Control%n%n

2751405

1731389

1671010

50350

5107

16.483.662.9

4.732.4

9.960.129.930.9

3.166.0

1901489

81159474

6031002

151

56

11.388.742.6

7.949.5

4.435.959.720.8

1.477.8

YesNoYesNoDon’t KnowYesNoDon’t KnowYesNoDon’t Know

Survey Findings

Knowledge about annual planning of UPFigure13

Yes No

16.4% 11.3%

83.6% 88.7%

Knowledge about five year planFigure14

Yes No Don’t Know

9.9%4.4%

35.9%

60.1%

29.9%

59.7%

P a g e48

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.1.8.3 Knowledge about open budget meeting

Regarding knowledge about open budget meeting, 29.4% in project area 24.2% in control area told that they knew about open budget meet-ing. Majority of the respondents were found unaware of the meeting both in project area (70.6%) and control area (75.8%).

4.1.8.2 UP budget preparation process

budget was prepared based on opinion of honorable member of parliament of locality were higher in case of project area compared to those in case of control area. Responses by six options such as organizing open budget meeting, based on opinion of chairman, based on opinion of member, based on opinion of influential persons of the locality, based on opinion of honorable member of parliament of the locality and others were 57.9%, 64.2%, 46.5%, 41.9%, 12.5% and 1.8% respectively in case of project area and 42.4%, 41.3%, 43.5%, 34.3%, 11.4% and 1.9% respec-tively in case of control area.

4.1.8.1 Knowledge about UP annual budgetThe respondents, who had knowledge about UP Annual budget, were 26.9% in project area compared to 22.3% in control area. Percentage of respondents who replied in the negative was 4.6% in project areas compared to 5.6% in control areas. The percentage of respondents, who told that they did not know about UP annual budget, was 68.5% in project area compared to 72.1% in control area.

According to the survey respondents, responses against all probable answers except the answer that

4.1.8 Budget

Survey Findings

Knowledge about UP annual budgetFigure15

26.9%22.3%

4.6% 5.6%

68.5%72.1%

Yes No Don’t Know

UP budget preparation process (Multiple response)Figure16

Open budget session

Based on chairman’s opinion

Based on member’s opinion

Based on influential person’s opinion

Based on honorable MP’s opinion

Others

57.9%42.4%

64.2%41.3%

46.5%43.5%

41.9%34.3%

1.8%1.9%

12.5%11.4%

4.1.8.4 Was there any open budget session held in the last one year (2013-14)

In response to the question asked whether there was open budget meeting during last one year (2013), 84.2% of respondents in project area and 67.1% of the respondents in control area replied in the affirmative. The percentage of respondents, who replied negative, was 5.1% in project area compared to 3.4% in control area. The percentage of respondents, who told that they did not know, was 10.7% in project area against 29.5% in control area.

P a g e 49

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.1.8.9 Involvement of general people increased in budget preparationRegarding general people’s involvement in UP budget preparation, majority of the respondents informed that participation of people increased. Respondents in project area who told affirmatively were 86.5% and were higher compared to 64.4% in control area. Percentage of respondents who told negatively were 8.2% in project areas compared to 15.2% in control areas. However, 5.3% respondents in project area and 20.3% respondents in control area did not have any knowledge about it.

FGDs widened the view that opinion of the people was taken in preparing annual budget of UP. In response to a query on whether civil people’s opinion was taken in preparing annual budget of UP, participants of thirteen FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas told that civil people’s opinion was taken in preparing annual budget for UP. Participants of one FGD in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas told that people’s opinion was not taken in preparing annual budget. Participants of two FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

4.1.8.5 Attended Budget meeting during last one yearWith regard to attending budget meeting by the respondent / family member in last one year, the percentage of respondents, who replied in the affirmative, was 21.3% in project area compared to 16.4% in control area. The percentage respondents who responded negatively, was 78.7% in project area while the figure was 83.6% in control area.

4.1.8.6 Was the meeting participatory (equal chance to talk)Among the respondents, 89.4% in project area and 78.1% in control area informed that they had equal chance to talk in budget meeting. On the contrary, according to 10.6% respondents in the project area, the meeting was not participatory while the figure is almost double in the control area.

4.1.8.7 Evaluation of open budget meetingTo evaluate the open budget meeting, the respondents expressed their opinion in five categories. Percentages of respondents who told very good, good, neither, bad and very bad were 25.5%, 36.2%, 38.3%, 0.0% and 0.0% respectively in case of project area and 6.3%, 31.3%, 50.0%, 12.5% and 0.0% respectively in case of control area.

4.1.8.8 Satisfaction on the open budget ses-sion

In reply to a query on the level of satisfaction regarding open budget meeting, majority of the respondents told that they were satisfied. The percentage of satisfied respondents in project area was 70.2% though in control area the figure was 40.6%. 19.1% of the respondents in the project area and 40.6% of the respondents in the control area were neutral in this regard. The percentage of respondents, who told that they were highly satisfied, was 8.5% in project area compared to 6.3% in control area. Percentage of respondents who told they were dissatisfied were 2.1% and 12.5% in case of project area and control area respectively. No ‘highly dissatisfied’ respondent was found in project area or control area.

Survey Findings

Evaluation of open budget meetingFigure17

Very good Good Neutral bad Very bad

25.5%6.3%

36.2%31.3%

38.3%50.0%

0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Satisfaction on the open budget sessionFigure18

8.5% 6.3%

70.2%

40.6%

19.1%

40.6%

2.1%12.5%

0.0% .0%

HighlySatisfied

Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

P a g e50

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.1.8.10 Facilities for women and poor class people are considered in preparing the budget In response to a question whether interest of women and poor people was taken into consideration during budget preparation, most of the respondents replied affirmatively and the percentage of respondents was 86.7% in project area compared to 63.1% in control area. The percentage of respondents, who told negatively, was 6% in project areas while the figure is 13.6% in control areas. Among the respondents, 7.3% in project area and 23.3% in control area did not have any idea about it.

4.1.8.11 Satisfaction on budget preparation systemRegarding the level of satisfaction on budget preparation system, most of the respondents informed that they were satisfied. The percentage of respondents, who told that they were satisfied, was 70.2% in project area while the figure for satisfied respondents in control area was 41.1%. 19.3% respondents in project area and 44.4% respond-ents in control area were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral).The percentage of respondents, who were highly satisfied, were 5.8% in project area and 7.1% in control area.

However, a small number of respondents were found ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘highly dissatisfied’ and in percentage, the figures were 3.7% in project area and 5.6% in control area under dissatisfied category and 0.9% in project area and 1.8% in control area under highly dissatisfied category.

Survey Findings

Satisfaction on budget preparation systemFigure19

Highly Satisfied Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

5.8% 7.1%

70.2%

41.1% 44.4%

19.3%

3.7% 5.6% .9% 1.8%

P a g e 51

ControlProject

4.1.9.1 Knowledge about audit of Union Parishad

The survey reflects that majority of the respondents did not have any knowledge about audit of UP. 20.4% of the respondents in project area and 13.5% of the respond-ents in control area were aware of the audit of UP. While 79.6% in project area and 86.5% in control area did not know about it.

Table 4.1.8: BudgetParticulars#

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Knowledge about UP annual budget

UP budget preparation process(Multiple Response)

Knowledge about open budget meeting

Was there any open budget sessionheld in the last one year (2013-14)

Attended Budget meeting during lastone year (household member)Equal chance to talk in open budgetmeeting

Evaluate the open budget meeting

Satisfaction on the open budget session

Involvement of general people inbudget preparation

Facilities of women and poor classpeople are considered at preparing the budget

Satisfaction with budgetingpreparation system

Response Project Control%n%n

4521228

254282204184

558

4941186

416255347

17442

5121718

004

33910

3913724

392273325

3018316

4

26.973.157.964.246.541.912.5

1.829.470.684.2

5.110.721.378.789.410.625.536.238.3

0.00.08.5

70.219.1

2.10.0

86.58.25.3

86.76.07.35.8

70.219.3

3.7.9

3741305

153149157124

417

4071272

27314

12035

17825

72

1016

402

1313

40

2415776

236518724

139150

196

22.377.742.441.343.534.311.4

1.924.275.867.1

3.429.516.483.678.121.9

6.331.350.012.5

0.06.3

40.640.612.5

0.064.415.220.363.113.623.3

7.141.144.4

5.61.8

YesNoOpen budget sessionBased on chairman’s opinionBased on member’s opinionBased on in�uential person’s opinionBased on honorable MP’s opinionOthersYesNoYesNoDon’t KnowYesNoYesNoVery goodGoodNeitherBadVery badHighly Satis�edSatis�edNeither satis�ed nor Dissatis�edDissatis�edHighly Dissatis�edincreasedNot increasedDon’t KnowYesNoDon’t KnowHighly Satis�edSatis�edNeither satis�ed nor Dissatis�edDissatis�edHighly Dissatis�ed

Survey Findings

Knowledge about audit of union parishadFigure20

Yes No

20.4%13.5%

79.6%89.5%

P a g e52

ControlProject

4.1.9 Audit, Taxes and Fees

4.1.9.6 Increased taxes vs. improved ser-vicesIn response to a query whether respondents would pay increased taxes if the quality of services of UPs were enhanced, 67.2% respondents in project area and 63.0% in control area replied affirmatively. The percent-age of respondents, who replied in the negative, was 32.1% in project area compared to 37.0% in control area.

4.1.9.7 Payment of any fees, tolls other than holding taxRegarding the payment of any fees other than holding taxes, more respondents in project area informed that they paid fees, tolls or any other fees besides holding tax compared to those in control area. The percentage of respond-ents in project area who paid fee besides holding tax was 52.0% against 38.3% in control areas. The respondents, who paid tolls besides holding tax, was 11.3% in project area compared to 5.1% in control area. The percentage of respondents in project area who paid anything other than holding tax was 9.5% as against that of 5.1% in control area.

4.1.9.2 Knowledge about the annual income and expenditure of UPDuring the survey, 66.7% of the respondents informed that they knew about the annual income and expenditure of the UP in project area while 44.7% respondents in control area were aware of it. The respondents, who did not know about the annual income and expenditure of the UP, were 33.3% in project area compared to 55.3% in control area.

4.1.9.3 Pay holding tax regularlyRegarding the payment of holding taxes, 87.6% in the project area and 78.2% in control area informed that they paid holding tax regularly. The percentage of respondents, who told negatively was 9.2% in project area compared to 11.9% in control area. Some respondents informed that the question was not applicable for them and in percent-age it was 3.3% in project area and 9.9% in control area.

4.1.9.4 Present tax assessment system Regarding the appropriateness of present tax assessment system, 72.6% in the project area and 60.9% in the control area opined in favor of it. The percentage of respondents, who told negatively, was 8.6% in project areas compared to 5.0% in control areas. 18.9% of the respondents in project area and 34.1% of the respondents in control area did not know about it.

4.1.9.5 People pay tax regularly than beforeIn response to a query whether people were paying tax regularly than before, 81.4% of the respondents in project area and 75.4% of the respondents in control area gave positive answer. The percentage of respondents who replied negatively were 18.6% in project area compared to 24.6% in control area.

4.1.9.8 Satisfaction on the UP tax assessment and collection procedureRegarding the level of Satisfaction with the UP tax assessment and collection procedure, most of the respondents were found either ‘satisfied’ or ‘neutral’ (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied). The percentage of respondents who informed that they were satisfied was 58.1% in project area compared to only 34.1% in control area. Among the respondents, 35.7% in project area and 55.3% in control area were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The percent-age of highly satisfied people was 1.7% both in project area and control area. However, the percentage of ‘dissatis-fied’ respondents was 3.8% in project area compared to 5.4% in control area while 0.7% in project area and 3.5% in control area were ‘highly dissatisfied’.

Survey Findings

Willing to pay more tax for service improvementFigure21

Yes No

67.9%63.0%

32.1%37.0%

P a g e 53

ControlProject

Survey Findings

Satisfaction on UP tax assessment and collectionFigure22

Highly Satisfied Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

1.7%1.7%

34.1%

58.1%

35.7%

55.3%

3.8% 5.4% .7% 3.5%

Table 4.1.9: Audit, Taxes and FeesParticulars#

Knowledge about audit of Union Parishad

People’s knowledge about the annualincome & expenditure of UP

Pay holding tax regularly

Present tax assessment system isappropriate

People pay tax regularly than before

If services is improved by UP, will youagree to pay more tax

Pay any tolls other than holding tax

Satisfaction on UP tax assessment andcollection

Pay any fees other than holding tax

Pay anything other than holding tax

Response Project Control%n%n

34213381120

5601471

15455

1219144317

1355309

1134535874806190

1490160

152027

946581

6211

20.479.666.733.387.6

9.23.3

72.68.6

18.981.418.667.932.152.048.011.388.7

9.590.5

1.758.135.7

3.8.7

2261453

750929

1313199167

102384

5721230

4021040

611643

103686

159385

159428

550893

8757

13.586.544.755.378.211.9

9.960.9

5.034.175.424.663.037.038.361.7

5.194.9

5.194.9

1.734.155.3

5.43.5

YesNoYesNoYesNoNot applicableYesNoDon’t KnowYesNoYesNoYesNoYesNoYesNoHighly Satis�edSatis�edNeither satis�ed nor Dissatis�edDissatis�edHighly Dissatis�ed

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

4.1.10.1 Knowledge about law and order situation of the unionPertaining to knowledge about law and order situation of the union, 53.9% respondents in project area replied that the law and order situation of the union was good which was supported almost equally by 53.1% respondents in control area. 40.3% of the respondents in project area opined that the law and order situation of the union was mod-erate corresponding to 40.6% respondents in control area. However, according to a small number of respondents, the law and order situation of the UP was bad and they were 5.8% in project area and 6.3% in control area.

P a g e54

ControlProject

4.1.10 Law and Order Situation

4.1.11.1 Services received from UP office during last one yearRegarding the services received from UP office during last one year, 65.1% of the respondents in project area informed that they received services from UP office during last one year compared to 59.1% respondents in control area. Around 34.9% respondents in project area and slightly higher 40.9% respondents in control area did not go to UP office to receive services during last one year. The various services received from UP offices area certificate, ID card, voter listing, official work (school, NGO, etc.) meetings, agriculture and other training, conflict and resolution, allowance, VGF, relief and various registration.

4.1.11 Service Delivery

Table 4.1.10: Law and Order

# Particulars Response Project Control

n % n % 1 Law and order situation Good 905 53.9 892 53.1

Moderate 677 40.3 682 40.6 Bad 98 5.8 105 6.3

2 Roles of village police to improve the law and order situation

Good 733 43.6 767 45.7 Moderate 830 49.4 818 48.7 Bad 117 7.0 94 5.6

3 Village court activating Yes 1376 81.9 1104 65.8 No 241 14.3 409 24.4 Don’t Know 63 3.8 166 9.9

4 You /your family member/ neighbors anybody of your locality went to the village court for any dispute resolution

Yes 1223 88.9 928 84.1 No 133 9.7 118 10.7 Don’t Know 20 1.5 58 5.3

Survey Findings

4.1.10.2 Roles of village police and village defense force to improve the law and order situation Regarding the views on the roles of village police and village defense forces to improve the law and order situation of the union, 49.4% respondents were of the views that village police and village defense forces were ‘moderate’ in their activities of maintaining law and order situation in project area and 48.7% in control area. This was followed closely by 43.6% respondents who considered police and defense as ‘good’ in their action and behavior in project areas which was supported by 45.7% respondents in control areas. However, in this regard, the option ‘bad’ was chosen by 7% of the respondents in project area and 5.6% of the respondents in the control area.

4.1.10.3 Village CourtRegarding village court, the survey reflects that 81.9% asserted on the active role of the village courts in union in project area and 65.8% respondents in control area. However, 14.3% of the respondents expressed that the village courts did not work in project areas which were supported by a higher 24.4% respondents in control areas. The percentage of respondents, who did not know if village court was really active in the UPs, was 3.8% in project area compared to 9.9% in control area.

4.1.10.4 Use of village courts by family members for dispute resolution In response to a reply to the question if he/she went to the village court for any dispute resolution, 88.9% of the respondents informed that they had used village courts for dispute resolution in project area compared to 84.1% respondents in control area. Nearly 10% respondents of both project and control areas did not use village court for dispute resolution while 1.5% in project area and 5.3% in control area did not have any idea about it.

P a g e 55

4.1.11.2 Received the service from UP office About receiving the services provided by the UP office, 98.4% of the respondents informed that they received services from UP office in project area compared to 79.2% respondents in control area.

4.1.11.3 Satisfaction on services provided by UP

Regarding the satisfaction level of the respondents who received services from UP offices, 59.6% of the respond-ents in project area were found satisfied compared to a much lower 40% respondents in control area. This was followed by 25% respondents in project area who were neutral (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) while the figure was much higher at 43.5% in control area. Among the respondents, 8% were highly satisfied to receive services from UP office in project area compared to 6.7% respond-ents in control area. The percentage of respondents, who were dissatisfied, was 6.2% in project area compared to 7.8% in control area. A very negligible 1.1% of the respondents in project area and 2% of the respondents in control area were found ‘highly dissatisfied’.

4.1.12.1 UP chairman, member, female member and Secretary can be seen if necessaryDuring the survey, the respondents were asked if they could see separately each of UP chairman, member, female member and Secretary when they needed.

UP Chairman: Among the respondents, 54.2% in project and 57.6% in control area reported that they could meet UP Chairman easily and 37.3% respondents in project and 32.3% respondents in control area reported that it was possible to meet UP Chairman sometimes. Combining these two meeting possibilities together, the total meet-ing opportunity of respondents with the UP Chairman came to 91.5% respondents in project and 89.9% in control area.

4.1.12 Overall UP’s Performance of UP Representatives and Official

Table 4.1.11: Service Delivery

# Particulars Response Project Control

n % n %

1 During last one year You /any of your household member went to the UP o�ce for getting any

Yes 1094 65.1 993 59.1

No 586 34.9 686 40.9

2 Receive the services provide by the union parishad

Yes 968 98. 4 638 79.2

No 16 1.6 168 20.8

3 Satis�ed on services provided by union parishad

Highly Satis�ed 133 8.0 109 6.7

Satis�ed 988 59.6 649 40.0

Neither satis�ed nor Dissatis�ed

414 25.0 706 43.5

Dissatis�ed 103 6.2 126 7.8

Highly Dissatisf ied 19 1.1 32 2.0

Survey Findings

Table 4.1.11: Service Delivery

Satisfaction on services provided by union parishadFigure23

Highly Satisfied Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

8.0% 6.7%

59.6%

40.0%

25.0%

43.5%

6.2% 7.8%1.1% 2.0%

P a g e56

ControlProject

Regarding the transparency of UP activities, 58.5% of the respondents expressed UP activities as transparent in project area which was supported by a far lower 34.0% respondents in control area. 5.9% of the respondents opined that UP activities were ‘very trans-parent’ compared to 6.6% in control area. In this regard, 19.3% of the respondents in project area and 26% of the respondents in control area voted for ‘low transpar-ent’. The percentage of respondents with the opinion of very low transparency was also considerably high (around one-tenth and two-tenths of respondents in project and control areas respectively). The percentage of respondents with opinion of not at all transparent is very low (3.6%) in project area but much higher (13%) in control area.

4.1.12.3 Opinion about accountability of UP activitiesRegarding the accountability of UP activities, 63.7% respondents considered the UP activities as accountable in project area which was supported by a much lower 47.9 percent respondents in control area. Another 6.6% respondents considered UP activities as fully accountable in project area and is supported by 6.1% respondents in control area. A considerably high 20.7% respondents in project area and 29% respondents in control area consid

4.1.12.2 Opinion about the transparency of UP activities

ered UP activities as low accountable. The percentage of respondents, who voted for ‘very low accountable’ was considerably low (3.5%) in project area which is still lower (2.3%) in control area. However, 5.5% of the respondents in project area and a high 14.5% of the respondents in control area opined that the UPs were not at all accountable.

UP Member: Of the total respondents, 72.9% in project area and 69.6% in control area informed that they could meet UP member easily and 21.9% respondents in project area and 22.1% respondents in control area informed that it was possible to meet UP member sometimes. Combining these two meeting possibilities together, the total meeting opportunity with the UP member reached to 94.8% respondents in project and 91.7% in control area.

UP Female Member: Among the respondents, 64.6% in project and 63.8% in control area reported that they could meet UP female member easily and 27.3% respondents in project and 25.2% respondents in control area had reported that it was possible to meet UP female member sometimes. Combining these two meeting possibilities together, the total meeting opportunity of respondents with the UP female member stood at 91.9% respondents in project and 88% respondents in control area.

UP Secretary: According to the feedback of the respondents, 78.3% in project area and 74.9% in control area could meet UP secretary easily while 16.7% respondents in project area and 16.3% respondents in control area informed that it was possible to meet UP secretary sometimes. Combining these two meeting possibilities together, the total meeting opportunity with the UP secretary stood at 95% respondents in project and 91.2% in control area.

4.1.12.4 Opinion on the responsiveness of UP

Regarding responsiveness of UP, 68.2% respondents inproject area expressed that considerable responsiveness exists which was supported by much lower percentage (47.2%) of respondents in control area. Among the respondents, 6.5% in project area and 6.1% in control area

Survey Findings

Overall transparency of UP functionsFigure24

Verytransparent

Lowtransparent

Very Lowtransparent

Not at allTransparent

5.9% 6.6%

58.5%

34.0%

19.3%26.0%

12.7%

3.6%13.0%

20.4%

Overall accountability of UPFigure25

Veryaccountable

Accountable low accountable Very lowaccountable

Not at all

6.6% 6.1%

47.9%

20.7%29.0%

3.5% 2.3% 5.5%14.8%

63.7%

P a g e 57

ControlProject

ControlProject

expressed that the UP was very responsive. 19.9% respondents in project area and much higher 32.8% respond-ents in control area considered UP as ‘low responsive’. The percentage of respondents, who voted for ‘very low responsive’ is considerably low in both project area (3%) and control area (3.7%). However, a small number of respondents opined that UPs were not at all responsive and the figure was only 2.3% in project area compared to 10.2% in control area.

4.1.12.5 UP took up any activity to improve socio-economic condition of women during last one yearIn response to the question if UP took up any activity to improve socio-economic condition of women during last one year, 72.7% of the respondents replied that UP had undertaken activities to improve socio-economic condition of women during last one year in project area which was supported by a much lower percent of respondents (49.3%) in control area. 9.8% of the respondents informed that UP did not take up any activity to improve socio-economic condition of women during last year in project area compared to 8.7% respondents in control area. Among the rest, 7.5% respondents in project area and a higher 42% respondents in control area did not have any idea about it.

Survey Findings

4.1.12.6 Opinion about the UP activities to improve the socio-economic condition of the poor people and women

The views of the respondents were collected on the UP activities to improve the socio-economic condition of the poor women and out of them 16.3% respondents in project area and compared to 10.8% respondents in control area opined that they were good. Among the respondents, 71.9% in project area and 68.5% in control area evalu-ated the activities as ‘average’. The percentage of respondents who termed the activities as ‘bad’ was 6.4% in project area compared to 9.3% in control area. Some respondents voted for ‘very bad’ and in percentage they were 3.6% in project area and 8.1% in control area.

4.1.12.7 Satisfaction on the overall performance of UPThe study on satisfaction level of respondents on the overall performance of the UP shows that the highest 55.4% respondents expressed satisfaction with the overall performance of the UP in project area compared to a much lower 30.6% respondents in control area. This was followed by the view of neutral (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) 35.1% respondents in project area and by a much higher percentage (56.1%) of respondents in control area. These two views together formed the views of a total of 90.5% respondents in project area and almost a similar percentage (86.7%) of respondents in control area. 1.7% respondents in project area and 0.8% respondents in control area were highly satisfied with the overall performance of UP. However, 6.5% respondents in project area and slightly higher 8% respondents in control area were dissatisfied with overall performance of UP. A small number of respond-ents were found highly dissatisfied and in percentage they were 1.4% in project area and a higher 4.5% in control area.

Satisfaction on overall performance of UPFigure26

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neutral HighlyDissatisfied

Dissatisfied

1.7% .8%

30.6%

55.4% 56.1%

35.1%

6.5% 8.0%1.4% 4.5%

P a g e58

ControlProject

Table 4.1.12: Overall UP’s Performance of UP Representatives and O�cial

Particulars#

Possible to meet UP Chairman1

Possible to meet UP Member2

Possible to meet UP Female Member3

Possible to meet UP Secretary4

Opinion about the overall transparencyof UP functions

5

Opinion about the overall accountabilityof UP

6

Opinion on the overall responsivenessof UP

7

UP take any activities to improve thesocio-economic condition of poorwomen in the last year

8

Opinion about the UP’s activities toimprove the socio-economiccondition of poor women

9

Overall satisfaction10

Response Project Control%n%n

910627

871244

1224368

301246

1085459

692542

1316281

376

4098

970320211

60109

1056343

5892

1061113

3254938

1222164294

27256

1131101

5729

930589109

23

54.237.3

5.2.7

2.672.921.9

1.8.7

2.764.627.3

4.11.52.5

78.316.7

2.2.4

2.45.9

58.519.312.7

3.66.6

63.720.7

3.55.56.5

68.219.9

3.02.3

72.79.8

17.51.7

16.371.9

6.43.61.7

55.435.1

6.51.4

967543

652

1021169

37149

387

1072423

798

971257

27344

4101105544417327208

97766463

37236

96743516

59161827146706

45150952129113

14513942135

75

57.632.3

3.9.1

6.169.622.1

2.9.2

5.263.825.2

4.7.5

5.874.916.3

2.6.2

6.06.6

34.026.020.413.0

6.147.929.0

2.314.8

6.147.232.8

3.710.249.3

8.742.0

3.210.868.5

9.38.1

.830.656.1

8.04.5

EasilyMeet sometimesDi�cultNot possibleNo commentsEasilyMeet sometimesDi�cultNot possibleNo commentsEasilyMeet sometimesDi�cultNot possibleNo commentsEasilyMeet sometimesDi�cultNot possibleNo commentsVery transparentTransparentLow transparentVery low transparentNot at allVary accountableAccountableLow accountableVery low accountableNot at allVery responsiveResponsiveLow responsiveVery low ResponsiveNot at allYesNoDon’t KnowVery GoodGoodAverageBadVery BadHighly Satis�edSatis�edNeither satis�ed nor Dissatis�edDissatis�edHighly Dissatis�ed

Survey Findings

P a g e 59

4.2.1.1 Knowledge about functions of UZP

Regarding the knowledge on functions of UZP, more than three-fourths (77.5%) of the respondents in project area and slightly lower 73.3% respondents in control area informed that they knew about it. Thus the remaining 22.5% respondents in project area and 26.7% respond-ents in control area did not know about the activities and responsibilities of UZP. However, the above findings reflect only the views provided by the respondents which were not verified through any other tool.

4.2.2.1 Citizen Charter at the premises of UZP

Regarding the awareness on Citizen Charter, 30.8% of the respondents informed that they had seen the Citizen Charter at the UZP premises in project area while 17.5% in control area had seen it. The respondents who had not seen the Citizen Charter at UZP premises was also significantly high (50.7%) in project area and still higher (60.3%) in control area. The remaining 18.5% respondents in project area and 22.2% respondents in control area did not know about Citizen Charter.

Findings of KII widened the view regarding Citizen Charter published by UZP. To a query whether all UZPs and UPs had published Citizen Charter within their working jurisdiction, three-fourths of the KII respondents of project areas compared to two-thirds of the respondents in control areas replied affirmatively. Some respondents informed that Citizen Charter was published partially while some replied in the negative.

4.2.2.2 Are the views on Citizen Charter realistic?In response to the question on the content of the Citizen Charter, 99.2% of the respondents in project area opined that the information on the Citizen Charter was realistic and the opinion was almost similar in the control area (99.6%). Thus, only a very negligible percentage of respondents remained who reported that the content in the Citizen Charter was not realistic and they were 0.8% in project area and 0.3% in control area.

4.2.2.3 Billboard by UZP containing description of activities Regarding seeing bill board in UZP premises, 46.1% respondents informed that they had seen the bill boards containing description of UZP activities in project area while only 31.3% respondents in control area had seen such bill boards. Among the respondents, 6.3% in project area informed that they had not seen any such bill boards while this percentage was higher (30.4%) in control area. Nearly half of the respondents (47.6%) in project area and 38.3% respondents in control area did not know about the presence of bill board containing information on UZP activities.

Survey Findings

4.2 Upazila Parishad

4.2.1 Knowledge about UZP

4.2.2 Right to Information (RTI)

Knowledge about functions of UZPFigure27

Yes No

77.5%73.3%

22.5% 26.7%

Citizen Charter at the premises of upazila ParishadFigure28

No Don’t knowYes

30.8%

17.5%

50.7%

60.3%

18.5%22.2%

P a g e60

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.2.3.1 Knowledge about the UZP meeting

Regarding the knowledge about UZP meeting, 29.3% respondents in project area informed that they knew about UZP meeting which was supported by 22.8% of respondents in control area. Thus the respondents, who did not know about UZP meeting, were much higher both in project area as well as in control area which were 70.7% and 77.2% respectively.

4.2.3 Parishad Meeting

4.2.2.4 Bill Board helpful for transparency

About the effectiveness of the billboards in terms of transparency, 97.2% of the respondents in project area opined that the presence of bill board was helpful for the transparency of UZP activities which was supported by slightly higher 99% respondents in control area. Thus a very negligible percentage of the respondents remained who thought bill board did not help UZP transparency and they were 1.9% in project area and 1% in control area.

4.2.2.5 Opinion on willingness of the UZP to inform people

Regarding the views on the willingness of UZP to inform the people of the UZP activities, 94.9% of the respondents in project area expressed that UZP was willing to inform the people about the UZP activities which was supported by a higher 97.4% respondents in control area. A small number of respondents who opposed this view were 5.1% in project area and 2.6% in control area as they think that UZP was not at all willing to inform people about their activities.

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 Citizen Charter at the premises of upazila Parishad

Yes 518 30.8 294 17.5 No 852 50.7 1013 60.3 Don’t Know 310 18.5 372 22.2

2 Views on Citizen Charter are realistic Yes 514 99.2 293 99.7 No 4 0.8 1 0.3

3 Any bill board of UZP’s functions Yes 774 46.1 525 31.3 No 106 6.3 511 30.4 Don’t Know 800 47.6 643 38.3

4 Bill board helpful for transparency Yes 752 97.2 520 99.0 No 15 1.9 5 1.0 Don’t Know 7 .9 0 0.0

5 Opinion, what nature of willingness do the upazila parishad have to inform the people

Yes 430 94.9 372 97.4 No 23 5.1 10 2.6

Table 4.2.1: Right to Information (RTI)

Survey Findings

Bill board helpful for transparencyFigure29

YES NO DON’T KNOW

0.0%0.9%1.0%1.9%

97.2% 99.0%

Knowledge about the upazila parishad meetingFigure30

YES NO

29.3%22.8%

70.7%77.2%

P a g e 61

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.2.3.2 Satisfaction on UZP meetingAbout the level of satisfaction on the UZ meeting activities, a significantly high percentage (64.1%) of the respond-ents were satisfied on the activities performed by council meetings in project area which was however much lower (34.5%) in control area. The respondents, who were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the council meeting activi

informed that the representatives of marginalized group of people were present in the Parishad meetings. Partici-pants of nine FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas opined that all the attendees partici-pated in discussions and logical and acceptable decisions were taken in the parishad meetings. Participants of some FGDs, however, informed that UNO and Chairman took the decisions, and even participants of some FGDs informed that MP took the decision.

4.2.4.1 Knowledge about UZP Committee

Regarding the knowledge about UZP Committee, the respondents, who informed that they knew about committee, were 20.8% in project area and 13.7% in control area. The percentage of the respondents, who replied in the negative, (i.e. did not know about UZP Committee), was much higher which was 79.2% in project area compared to 86.3% in control area.

4.2.4 Upazila Parishad Committee (UPC)

ties, were 29.1% in project area and a higher 50.3% in control area. The respondents, who expressed their dissatisfaction, were 1.7% in project area against 9.9% in control area. A number of respondents, who were highly satisfied with the meeting activities, were 5.1% in project area and 5.3% in control area.FGD findings regarding UZP meetings validated some of the results of HH survey. Participants of nine FGDs in project areas compared to seven FGDs in control areas informed that all got equal opportunity to express their views in the Parishad meetings. Participants of seven FGDs in project areas and ten FGDs in control areas

Table 4.2.2: Parishad Meeting

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 Knowledge about the upazila parishad meeting

Yes 492 29.3 382 22.8 No 1188 70.7 1297 77.2

2 Satisfaction about UZP meeting activities

Highly Satisfied 12 5.1 9 5.3 Satisfied 150 64.1 59 34.5 Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied

68 29.1 86 50.3

Dissatisfied 4 1.7 17 9.9 Highly Dissatisfied 0 0.0 0 0.0

Survey Findings

Satisfaction on UZP meetingFigure31

HighlySatisfied

Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

5.1% 5.3%

64.1%

34.5%50.3%

29.1%

1.7%9.9%

0.0% 0.0%

Knowledge about the UZP committeFigure32

YES NO

20.8%13.7%

79.2%86.3%

P a g e62

ControlProject

ControlProject

About the level of satisfaction on activities of standing (UZP’s committees), 70.3% of the respondents expressed their satisfaction on the activities of the Standing Committees in project area which was supported by much lower 48.3% respondents in control area. This was followed by a moderate satisfaction of 26.9% respondents in project area and much higher 46.0% respondents in control area. These two satisfaction levels together provide support of 97.2% respondents in project area and 94.3% respondents in control area.

Results of HH survey was validated by findings of FGDs and KII. Participants of five FGDs in project areas as against three FGDs in control areas told that all 17 Committees of the parishad were active and meetings were being held by every two months. Participants of some FGDs of project areas and control areas told that the Commit-tees were active partially and even some FGDs told they were active to some extent. Participants of three FGDs in project areas and four FGDs in control areas told that the reasons of committees not in action was that they were accountable to none.

All most all KII respondents in project areas and control areas informed that 17 Standing Committees were formed and participation of women was answered. Two/third respondents of both project areas and control areas told that they were playing active role in performing activities. The reasons for not playing active role by some were (a) lack of skill and training, (b) lack of awareness, (c) irregular meetings, (d) insufficient budget, (e) lack of willingness and (f) lack of supervision from ministries. Only half of the KII respondents told that Standing Committees were holding regular meetings. Most of the respondents of both areas told that decisions of the meetings were not implemented or implemented partially because of negligence of public representatives. Suggestions to make Standing Commit-tees more active were (i) adequate training, (ii) building awareness, (iii) increasing cooperation among officials and public representatives, (iv) increasing budget and manpower, (v) ensuring presence of chairman and UNO in the meetings and (vi) ascertaining provision of reward and punishment.

4.2.4.2 Satisfaction on UZP’s committees meeting

4.2.5.1 Knowledge about Project Imple-mentation Committee (PIC)Regarding the awareness on Project Implementation Committee, 22.8% of the respondents in project area and 18.8% of the respondents in control area had knowledge on PIC. Thus the respondents, who replied that they did not know about PIC, were higher at 77.2% in project area and were further higher at 81.2% in control area.

4.2.5 Project Implementation Committee (PIC)

Table 4.2.3: UPC Committee

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 Knowledge about the Upazila Parishad committee

Yes 350 20.8 230 13.7 No 1330 79.2 1449 86.3

2 Satisfaction about UZP committees activities

Highly Satisfied 4 2.3 2 2.3 Satisfied 123 70.3 42 48.3 Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied

47 26.9 40 46.0

Dissatisfied 1 .6 2 2.3 Highly Dissatisfied 0 0.0 1 1.1

Survey Findings

Knowledge about the PICFigure33

YES NO

22.8%18.8%

77.2%81.2%

P a g e 63

ControlProject

4.2.5.2 Satisfaction on PIC meetingRegarding the level of satisfaction of the respondents on the PIC meeting activities, 64.5% of the respondents in the project area and 47.2% of the respondents in control area were found satisfied on the activities performed by council

4.2.6.2 Participation in schemes/project work

meeting. The respondents, who were neutral (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) with the PIC meeting activities, were 26.6% in project area compared to 43.8% in control area. The percentage of respondents, who were highly satisfied with the PIC meeting activities, was 6.9% in project area compared to 5.6% in control area. However, there was also a group of respondents who expressed their dissatisfaction and they were 2.0% in project area and 3.5% in control area.

4.2.6.1 Knowledge about the schemes/ project

From the survey, it was found that 10.6% of the respondents in project area and 8.7% respondents in control area had knowledge about the schemes /projects. The remaining 89.4% of the respondents in project area and 91.3% respondents in control area had no idea about the schemes/projects.

4.2.6 Schemes/Projects

Table 4.2.4: Project Implementation Committee (PIC)

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 Knowledge about the Project Implementation committee (PIC)

Yes 383 22.8 316 18.8 No 1297 77.2 1363 81.2

2 Satisfaction about PIC meeting activities

Highly Satisfied 14 6.9 8 5.6 Satisfied 131 64.5 68 47.2 Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied

54 26.6 63 43.8

Dissatisfied 4 2.0 5 3.5 Highly Dissatisfied 0 0.0 0 0.0

Survey Findings

Satisfaction on PIC meetingFigure34

HighlySatisfied

Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

6.9% 5.6%

64.5%

47.2%

2.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0%

26.6%

43.8%

Knowledge about the schemes/projectsFigure35

YES NO

10.6% 8.7%

89.4%91.3%

Regarding the participation of respondents (those who had knowledge about schemes/projects) in schemes/projects, 57.3% of the respondents in project area and a lower percentage i.e. 35.6% of respondents in control area took part in schemes/projects. Thus the percentage of respondents who did not take part in any schemes/projects was 42.7% in project area and 64.4% in control area.

The findings of FGD show that there was public involvement in listing and selecting schemes/projects. Participants of eight FGDs in project areas compared to seven FGDs in control areas informed that public were directly involved

P a g e64

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.2.6.5 Selection process of schemes/projects

Pertaining to the selection process of schemes, 56.2% of the respondents (those who had knowledge about schemes/projects) in project area and 51.7% respond-ents in control area had advocated for joint decision of chairman and members while 37.3% respondents in the project area and 34.3% respondents in control area supported the participatory way of selection. The third way of selection which is the chairman’s decision was supported by 21.3% respondents in project area and by 11.9% respondents in control area.

4.2.6.6 Knowledge about MDGThe study shows that the highest 80.3% of the respondents in project area and 70.5% in the control area knew about MDG. Nearly one-tenth of the respondents (9.6%) in project area did not know about MDG compared to 19.2% in control area.

4.2.6.7 Any project taken to achieve MDG goals Of the survey respondents who know about MDG, 89.5% in project area informed that projects were there to achieve MDG goals compared to 73.8% respondents in the control area. However, 7.0% respondents in the project area and 21.4% respondents in the control area did not have any idea about it.

4.2.6.8 Any project taken to improve socio-economic condition of marginalized groups

About taking any project to improve condition of marginalized groups, 81.5% of the respondents informed that projects had been taken to improve the condition of the marginalized groups in project area compared to 59.6% respondents in control area. Thus the percentage was much lower in control area compared to those in project area.

Survey Findings

in listing and selecting schemes/projects. Participants of three FGDs in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas told that public were not directly involved in listing and selecting schemes/projects but elected repre-sentatives were involved. However, it was found that the participants of three FGDs in project area and five FGDs in control area had no clear idea about this.

4.2.6.3 Benefited by scheme/project implementationAmong the survey respondents with knowledge about schemes/projects, 84.3% in project area and 66.4% in control area informed that they were benefited from the implementation of scheme/project. Some of the respondents informed that they did not know about the benefit of the project which was 3.4% in project area while in control area no one was found in this category.

4.2.6.4 Consideration for taking up scheme/projectIn a multiple answer question the respondents (those who have knowledge about schemes/projects) were asked to provide the issues that should be taken up for implementing a scheme/project. According to the study, the highest recommendation of respondents (62.6%) was in favor of the issue of overall local development for project area which was 55.6% for control area. Among the respondents, 60.3% advocated for the issue of development for poor and marginalized community in project area which was 41.0% for control area. The other issues carried far less percentages of recommendation of the respondents which was about 5%.

Selection process of schemes/projectsFigure36

Participatoryway

Chair & Member Chair OthersInfluential /Political persons

37.3% 34.3%

56.2% 51.7%

21.3%11.9% 4.9%8.9% 0.0% 0.0%

P a g e 65

ControlProject

These three ways together stood at 97.7% respondents in project area and 97.4% respondents in control area which provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the project. However, a very negligible 2.2% respondents in project area and 2.7% respondents in control area termed the project ineffective.

4.2.6.10 Satisfaction on the quality of implemented projectRegarding the satisfaction about the quality of implemented project, 53.4% of the respondents (those who had knowledge about schemes/projects) in project area and

Findings of FGDs widen the views of HH survey regarding the selection and implementation of schemes/projects of UZP. Participants of four FGDs in project area against one FGD in control area told that Standing Committees prepared the schemes/project. Participants one of four FGDs in project area against five FGDs in control area told that Chairman/members of UP prepared schemes/projects list and sent to Upazila Parishad. There were other ways of selection of schemes/project such as Local MP intervention, selection by UZP chairman, vice-chairman, project preparation committee along with respectable persons in the locality and by following top down policy. Schemes/project were determined by considering priorities, choice of UZCC, UNO, project implementation officer and local MP. Participant of Five FGDs in project area as against three FGDs in control area told that people of the locality could know about schemes/projects from UP chairman participating UZP. FGD participants opined that public were not directly involved in listing and selecting schemes/project and some FGDs also told public were not involved. Participants of eleven FGDs in project area as against nine FGDs in control area told that women and marginalized group of people were not involved in selection and administration of schemes/project. Regarding quality of schemes/projects, some FGD participants told that quality of schemes/projects was good and some other FGD participants told that they were worse.

39.7% of the respondents in control area reported satis-faction on the implemented project. The second highest percentage of neutral (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) was expressed by 32.6% respondents in project area and much higher 51.4% respondents in control area. These two percentages together stood at 86.0% respondents in project area and 91.1% respondents in control area. Of the respondents, 12.4% in project area and of 6.2% in control area were highly satisfied. A very negligible 1.7% respondents in project area and 2.7% respondents in control area however, expressed dissat-isfaction about the quality of the implemented project in the survey.

Survey Findings

However, 12.9% respondents in project area and much higher 31.5% respondents in control area did not know about taking any project to improve the condition of the marginalized groups.

4.2.6.9 Evaluation of the effectiveness of schemes/projects

In evaluating the effectiveness of a project, the respondents (those who had knowledge about schemes/projects) had a wide range of opinion. Of the respondents, 44.4% voted for moderately effective option in the project area corresponding to 52.1% in control area. The second highest category was who thought the projects were effective and in percentage they were 37.1% in project area and 29.5% in control area. The group of respondents, who went for ‘very effective’, was 16.3% in project area and 15.8% in control area.

Satisfaction on the quality of implemented projectsFigure37

HighlySatisfied

Satisfied Neutral DissatisfiedDissatisfied

Highly

0.0%2.7%1.7%

51.4%

32.6%39.7%

53.4%

6.2%12.4%

0.0%

P a g e66

ControlProject

4.2.7 Annual Plan and Five Year Plan

Table 4.2.5: Schemes/Projects

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 Knowledge about the schemes/projects

Yes 178 10.6 146 8.7 No 1502 89.4 1533 91.3

2 Participation in scheme/project related meeting

Yes 102 57.3 52 35.6 No 76 42.7 94 64.4

3 Benefited by implemented scheme/project

Yes 150 84.3 97 66.4 No 22 12.4 49 33.6 Don’t Know 6 3.4 0 0.0

4 Considerations during schemes/projects taken (Multiple Response)

Overall Local Development 109 62.6 80 55.6 Development for poor and marginalized community

105 60.3 59 41.0

satisfy the political leader 7 4.0 11 7.6 personal benefit 6 3.4 4 2.8 Others 0 0.0 0 0.0

5 Selected process of schemes/projects (Multiple Response)

Participatory way 63 37.3 49 34.3 Chair & Member 95 56.2 74 51.7 Chair 36 21.3 17 11.9 Influential / Political persons 15 8.9 7 4.9 Others 0 0.0 0 0.0

6 Knowledge about MDG Yes 143 80.3 103 70.5 No 18 10.1 15 10.3 Don’t Know 17 9.6 28 19.2

7 Any projects have been taken to achieve MDG

Yes 128 89.5 76 73.8 No 5 3.5 5 4.9 Don’t Know 10 7.0 22 21.4

8 Any projects are taken to improve the socio-economic condition of marginalized/excluded community

Yes 145 81.5 87 59.6 No 10 5.6 13 8.9 Don’t Know 23 12.9 46 31.5

9 Evaluate the effectiveness of schemes/projects

Very Effective 29 16.3 23 15.8 Effective 66 37.1 43 29.5 Moderate 79 44.4 76 52.1 Ineffective 4 2.2 4 2.7 Very Ineffective 0 0.0 0 0.0

10 Satisfaction about the quality of implemented projects

Highly Satisfied 22 12.4 9 6.2 Satisfied 95 53.4 58 39.7 Satisfied Moderately 58 32.6 75 51.4 Dissatisfied 3 1.7 4 2.7 Highly Dissatisfied 0 0.0 0 0.0

Survey Findings

NoYes

19.6%13.9%

80.4% 86.1%

Knowledge about annual planning of UZPFigure38

4.2.7.1 Knowledge about annual planning of UZPPertaining to the knowledge about annual planning of UZP, 19.6% respondents in project area and 13.9% respondents in control area knew about annual plan of UZP. Thus 80.4% of the respondents in project area did not know about annual plan of UZP corresponding to 86.1% respondents in control area.

P a g e 67

ControlProject

The percentages were much lower in control area than those in project area.

4.2.7.2 Has UZP made annual plan

Among the respondents having who had knowledge about Annual Plan, 80.9% in project area and a much lower 63.2% in control area informed that UZP had annual plan. However, 16.1% respondents in project area and a much higher 32.5% respondents in control area did not know about the preparation of UZP annual plan. The percentage of respondents, who knew about making annual plan, was much lower in control area than that of project area.

4.2.7.4 Has a five year plan been taken up in your UZPOf the respondents who had knowledge about Five Year Plan, 74.6% in the project area had the information on whether their UZP has taken up a five year plan corresponding to 69.2% in control area. 8.3% respondents in project area and 10.8% respondents in control area replied in the negative. However, 17.1% respondents in project area and slightly higher 20.0% respondents in control area did not have any idea about it.

Of the total respondents, more than 50% in the project area was not aware of the five year plan of UZP compared to 28.7% respondents in control area. Only about one-tenth (10.8%) of the respondents in project and a lower 7.7% respondent of control area were aware of the Five year plan of UZP. However, 38.6% of the respondents in project area did not have any idea about the five year plan of UZP compared to 63.5% respondents in control area.

4.2.7.3 Knowledge about five year plan of UZP

Table 4.2.6: Annual Plan and Five Year Plan

Survey Findings

Knowledge about five year planFigure39

No Don’t knowYes

10.8%7.7%

50.6%

28.7%

38.6%

63.5%

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 Knowledge about annual planning of UZP

Yes 329 19.6 234 13.9 No 1351 80.4 1445 86.1 Don’t Know 0.0 0.0

2 Has UZP an Annual Plan Yes 266 80.9 148 63.2 No 10 3.0 10 4.3 Don’t Know 53 16.1 76 32.5

3 Knowledge about five year plan of UZP

Yes 181 10.8 130 7.7 No 850 50.6 482 28.7 Don’t Know 649 38.6 1067 63.5

4 Five Year Plan Yes 135 74.6 90 69.2 No 15 8.3 14 10.8 Don’t Know 31 17.1 26 20.0

00

P a g e68

ControlProject

4.2.8 Budget

4.2.8.2 Was there any budget session held in the last one year (2013-14)

Among the respondents having knowledge about UZP budget, 39.7% in the project area and 26.7% in control area informed that there was budget meeting during last one year (2013). The percentage of respondents, who replied in the negative, was 4.6% in project area compared to 1.8% in control area. Respondents, having no idea about this budget session, were 55.7% in project area compared to 71.5% in control area.

4.2.8.3 UZP budget preparation process

The study on UZP budget preparation process, shows that different respondents had different opinions. The percentage of respondents, based on their feedback, were organizing open budget meeting, based on opinion of chairman, based on opinion of member, based on opinion of influential persons of the locality, based on opinion of honorable member of parliament of the locality and others were 46.1%, 60.0%, 58.3%, 32.2%, 20.0% and 7.0% respectively in case of project area and 35.1%, 25.1%, 52.7%, 59.7%, 18.9% and 5.4% respectively in case of control area.

4.2.8.1 Knowledge about UZP budget

About the knowledge on budget of UZP, 19.3% of the respondents knew about budget of UZP in project area corresponding to 13.2% in control area. The percent-age of respondents without any knowledge about UZP budget was 80.7% in project area compared to 86.8% in control area.

Survey Findings

Knowledge about UZP annual budgetFigure40

YES NO

19.3% 13.2%

80.7%86.8%

ControlProject

UZP budget preparation process (Multiple Responses)Figure41

Budget session

Based on public opinion

Based on member’s opinion

Based on chairman’s opinion

Based on influential person’s opinion

Based on honorable MP’s opinion

46.1%35.1%

60.0%25.7%

58.3%52.7%

32.2%29.7%

7.0%

18.9%20.0%

5.4%

P a g e 69

ControlProject

project area and 38.6% in control area. The percentage of respondents, who were neither satisfied nor dissatis-fied, were 33.9% and 41.4% in case of project area and control area respectively. Percentage of respondents, who told that they were highly satisfied, were 12.2% and 12.9% in case of project area and control area respec-tively. The percentage of respondents who told they were dissatisfied were 0.9% and 5.7% in case of project area and control area respectively. A few people were highly dissatisfied in control area (1.4%) while no dissat-isfied people were found in the project area.

4.2.8.4 Satisfaction on the budget sessionIn reply to a query on the level of satisfaction of those who had knowledge about budget meeting, the respondents had a wide range of views. Most of the respondents voted for either ‘satisfied’ or ‘neutral’ (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) category. The percentage of respondents, who expressed that they were satisfied, was 53.0% in

FGD findings and KII findings validated the results of HH survey concerning preparation of budget by UZP. Participants of ten FGDs in project areas and nine FGDs in control area told that civil people opinion was not taken directly in preparation of budget. Participants of nine FGDs in project areas and nine FGDs in control areas told that annual budget of the parishad was disclosed. All KII respondents in both areas told that UZP had its own budget. Slightly less than half of the KII respondents of both areas told that the preparation of budget was participatory. Most respondents of project area and three/fourths respondents of control area told that open budget meetings were held. Three/fourths of respondents of both areas told that budget was disclosed through in open budget meetings, miking, bill board, web site, notice board, government gazette, local publicity etc. Three/fourths of respondents of project areas and a half of respondents of control area told that two mandatory public assemblies in a year were held and some respondents told they were implemented partially.

Table 4.2.7: Budget

# Particulars Response Project Control n % N %

1 Knowledge about UZP annual budget

Yes 325 19.3 221 13.2 No 1355 80.7 1458 86.8

2 Was there any budget session held in the last one year (2013-14)

Yes 129 39.7 59 26.7 No 15 4.6 4 1.8 Don’t Know 181 55.7 158 71.5

3 UZP budget preparation process (Multiple Response)

Budget session 53 46.1 26 35.1 Based on public opinion 69 60.0 19 25.7 Based on chairman’s opinion 67 58.3 39 52.7 Based on member’s opinion 37 32.2 22 29.7 Based on influential person’s opinion 23 20.0 14 18.9 Based on honorable MP’s opinion 8 7.0 4 5.4 Others 0 0.0 0 0.0

4 Satisfaction on the budget session

Highly Satisfied 14 12.2 9 12.9 Satisfied 61 53.0 27 38.6 Satisfied Moderately 39 33.9 29 41.4 Dissatisfied 1 .9 4 5.7 Highly Dissatisfied 0 0.0 1 1.4

Survey Findings

Satisfaction on the budget sessionFigure42

12.2% 12.9%

53.0%

38.6%

33.9%41.4%

.9%5.7%

0.0% 1.4%

HighlySatisfied

Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

P a g e70

ControlProject

4.2.9.2 Annual income and expenditure of UZP was publishedThe study on whether the annual income and expenditure of UZP was published by the UZP shows that 62.4% of the respondents (those who had knowledge about audit) were of the views that the annual income and expenditure of UZP were disclosed to the public for information in project area which was supported by a much lower 47.5% respondents of control area. The percentage of respondents who replied negatively were 24.7% of the respondents in project area and were much higher (38.8%) in control area. The percentage of respondents who did not have any idea about it was 12.9% in project area and almost similar percentage (13.8%) of respondents in control area.

4.2.9.1 Knowledge about income and expenditure of UZP

The study shows that only 5.5% of the respondents in project area knew about income and expenditure of UZP which is supported by slightly lower 4.8% respondents in control area. The majority of the respondents i.e. 94.5% in project area and 95.2% in control area did not have the knowledge about income and expenditure of UZP.

4.2.9 Income and Expenditure of UZP

4.2.10 Law and Order Situation

Table 4.2.8: Audit

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 Knowledge about income & expenditure of UZP

Yes 93 5.5 80 4.8 No 1587 94.5 1599 95.2

2 Annual income and expenditure published by UZP

Yes 58 62.4 38 47.5 No 23 24.7 31 38.8 Don’t Know 12 12.9 11 13.8

Survey Findings

Knowledge about income and expenditure of UZPFigure43

No Don’t KnowYes

5.5% 4.8%

94.5% 95.2%

0.0% 0.0%

4.2.10.1 UZP work to improve law and order situation in the UZP

Regarding the information related to law and order situation of the UZP, 78% of the respondents were of the views that UZP was active to improve law and order situation of the UZP in project area compared to 64.1% respondents in control area. Among the respondents, 16.8% in project area did not know about it compared to much higher 32.3% respondents in control area.

4.2.10.2 Law and order situation now compared to beforeRegarding the opinion on law and order situation, 59.2% of the respondents in project area had viewed the present situation as ‘good’ compared to 54.1% respondents in control area. Among the respondents, 27.4% in project area and 32.9% in control area opined that the situation was same as before. However, 13.5% respondents in project area and 13% respondents in control area opined that the situation was bad.

4.2.10.3 Satisfaction with the law and order situation

The level of satisfaction regarding the law and order situation, 49.5% of the respondents in project area reported that they were satisfied with the law and order situation which was supported by 33.1% respondents in control area.

P a g e 71

ControlProject

This was followed by the percentage of respondents who were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with law and order situation as stated by 31.4% respondents in project area and by 41.2% respondents in control area. About 10% of the respondents both in project area and control area were found highly satisfied. However, 6.8% of the respond-ents in project area and 9.7% of the respondents in control area were dissatisfied with the law and order situation along with a few highly dissatisfied respondents who were 3.7% in project area and 5.2% in control area.

4.2.11.1 Visiting UZP

Regarding visit to UZP during last one year, 27.1% of the respondents informed that they have visited UZP in project area compared to 21.1% respondents in control area. 72.9% respondents in project area and 78.9% respondents in control area did not visit UZP during last one year.

4.2.11.2 Satisfaction on services provided by UZP

The level of satisfaction regarding the respondents on services received from UZP office, 49.3% respondents were satisfied to receive services from UZP office in project area and a much lower 31.1% respondents in control area.

The findings, reflected in the discussion with KII, widen the views regarding service delivery of UZP as were reflected in HH survey. Almost all KII respondents told that implementation of Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) improved local governance and service delivery and enhanced basic service delivery capacities of UZP. Three-

4.2.11 Service Delivery

This was followed by 33.6% respondents who were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral) to receive services in project area and by a much higher 47.3% respondents in control area. Among the respondents, 8.2% in project area and 9.2% in control area were highly satisfied to receive services from UZP office. However, 7.7% respondents in project area and 11.2% respond-ents in control area were dissatisfied with the services while about 1% of the respondents both in project area and control area were found highly dissatisfied.

Table 4.2.9: Law and Order Situation

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 UZP work to improve law and order situation in the UZP

Yes 1310 78.0 1077 64.1 No 88 5.2 60 3.6 Don’t Know 282 16.8 542 32.3

2 Law and order situation now compared to before

Good 914 59.2 787 54.1 Same 423 27.4 479 32.9 Bad 208 13.5 190 13.0

3 Satisfaction with the Law and order situation

Highly Satisfied 123 8.6 144 10.8 Satisfied 708 49.5 442 33.1 Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied

448 31.4 550 41.2

Dissatisfied 97 6.8 129 9.7 Highly Dissatisfied 53 3.7 69 5.2

Survey Findings

Satisfaction on services provided by UZPFigure44

8.2% 9.2%

49.3%

31.1%33.6% 47.3%

7.7% 11.2%1.1% 1.2%

HighlySatisfied

Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

P a g e72

ControlProject

4.2.12.1 Coordination between UZP Officials and Elected Representatives

Regarding coordination between UZP official and elected representatives, the majority of the respondents replied positively. Below table summarizes the responses obtained in this regard:

4.2.12 Coordination

fourths of KII respondents told that UZP did publish citizen charter describing its services and some asserted it partially. Half of the respondents of both areas told that government system inhibits spread of information and trans-parency regarding ‘what services were available’ as it might be risky to share that. Three-fourths of the respondents of both areas told that lack of sufficient funding was limiting ability to expand current service delivery and implemen-tation of new necessary projects. Half of respondents of project areas and about one-third of the respondents of control area told that departments had complaint books. Most respondents of both areas told that major concern of service delivery was lack of transparency. Some respondents of both areas also opined that excessive bureaucracy, low capacity, limited authority, political interference and inadequate financial resources were the limiting factors. Half of the KII respondents told that UZP had been performing to maintaining law and order situation in the locality effectively.

Table 4.2.10: Service Delivery

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 Visited UZP in 2013 Yes 455 27.1 355 21.1 No 1225 72.9 1324 78.9

2 Satisfied on services provided by upazila parishad

Highly Satisfied 124 8.2 132 9.2 Satisfied 743 49.3 449 31.1 Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied

506 33.6 682 47.3

Dissatisfied 116 7.7 161 11.2 Highly Dissatisfied 17 1.1 18 1.2

Table 4.2.11: Coordination between UZP O�cials

Particulars Project Control Good/

Cooperative Bad/Non-

cooperative Don’t Know

Good/ Cooperative

Bad/Non-cooperative

Don’t Know

UZP Chair vs. UNO 63.0% 3.8% 33.3% 50.6% 1.8% 47.5%

UZP Chair vs. Vice-chair 66.5% 4.4% 29.0% 46.4% 7.3% 46.3%

UZP Vice Chairman & female

63.5% 7.1% 29.5% 44.1% 6.7% 49.3%

UZP Chair vs. Govt. Official (transferred)

50.1% 9.3% 40.5% 37.5% 10.1% 52.4%

UNO vs. Govt. Official (transferred)

52.1% 6.9% 41.0% 43.4% 6.9% 49.7%

UZP Chair vs. MP 43.9% 9.9% 46.1% 36.3% 9.1% 54.7%

MP vs. UNO 51.4% 7.0% 41.6% 40.4% 5.3% 54.3%

UZP Chair vs. UP Chair 61.3% 4.2% 34.5% 51.0% 5.2% 43.8%

Survey Findings

4.2.12.2 Access to UZP chairman, UNO, UZP Vice Chairman and Woman Vice Chairman

The sample respondents were asked if they could see separately each of UZP Chairman, UNO, Vice Chairman and Woman Vice Chairman when necessary. Percentage distribution between project area and control area is almost

P a g e 73

4.2.13.2 Opinion about accountability of UZP activities

With regard to accountability of UZP activities, 68% respondents considered the UZP activities as moderately accountable in project area which was supported by a much lower 48.5% respondents in control area. 17.3% of the respondents in project area and slightly higher 29.5% of the respondents in control area viewed UZP activities as low accountable (neither). Another 4.7% respondents considered UZP activities as fully accountable (very good) in project area and is supported by 6.7% respondents in control area. The percentage of respondents, having the views of ‘not at all accountable (very bad), was 6.5% in project area and 12.4% in control area.

respondents in project area which was supported by a higher 34.7% respondents in control area. The percentages of these three issues together are almost alike in project area and in control area. The views of ‘very little response (bad)’ were expressed by less than 3% respondents in both project area and control area. However, a few respond-ents voted for ‘not at all responsive’ (very bad) and they were 4.5% respondents in project area and a higher 11.2% respondents in control area.

4.2.13.1 Opinion about the transparency of UZP activities The study on the transparency of UZP activities shows that the highest 57.8% of the respondents had expressed UZP activities as moderately transparent (good) in project area which was supported by far lower 38.3% respond-ents in control area. This was followed by an opinion of a little transparency (neither good nor bad) by 27.2% respondents in project area compared to 37.5% respondents in control area.

Among the respondents, 5.2% in project area and 6.6% in control area opined that UZP activities had enough transparency. These three opinions of the respondents on transparency taken together (90.2%) provide a basis for considering UZP activities efficiently transparent. The percentages of respondents with the opinion of very little transparency are considerably low and below 8% in project area and control area. However, 3.1% respond-ents expressed that there were no transparency (very bad) in UZP activities in project area supported by a much higher 10% respondents in control area.

The study on the responsiveness of UZP activities reveals that the highest 67.1% respondents in project area expressed that moderate responsiveness (good) exists in UZP activities which was supported by a much lower (45.3%) of respondents in control area. Only 4.5% respondents in project area and 6.6% respondents in control area expressed that the UZP activities had enough responsiveness (very good). Views of little responsiveness were expressed by (neither) 21.4%

4.2.13 Overall UZP’s Performance involving representatives and Official

similar in this regard. About 40% of the respondents opined that they could easily meet those personnel both in project and control area. Another 40% respondents in project and as well as control area informed they could meet those personnel sometimes. Only a few respondents (less than 3%) told that they could not meet those personnel.

Survey Findings

Opinion about the overall transparency of UZP functionsFigure45

Enoughtransparency

Moderatetransparency

Littletransparency

Very littletransparency

Notransparency

5.2% 6.6%

57.8%

38.3%27.2%

37.5%

6.7% 7.5% 3.1% 10.0%

Enoughresponse

Moderateresponse

Littleresponse

Very littleresponse

Noresponse

4.5% 6.6%

67.1%45.3%

21.4%34.7%

2.6% 2.1% 4.5% 11.2%

Opinion on the responsiveness of UZPFigure46

4.2.13.3 Opinion on the responsiveness of UZP activities

P a g e74

ControlProject

ControlProject

4.2.13.4 Does UZP plan and projects consider interest of all people?The study on whether the UZP plans consider interest of all people, rich, poor and disadvantaged, reveals that more than three-fourths of the respondents (78.7%) opined that such plans were sometimes taken up in project area which is almost equally supported by 73.4% respondents in control area. The opinion that such plans are taken always is supported by 10.4% respondents in project area and by only 5% respondents in control area. These two categories together stood at 89.1% respondents in project area which was much higher than 78.4% respondents in control area. The opinion of never taking any such plan was expressed by around 10.9% respondents in project area and 21.6% respondents in control area.

4.2.13.5 UZP took up any activity to improve socio-economic condition of women during last one year

Regarding taking up any activity by UZP to improve socio-economic condition of women during last one year, 58.2% of the respondents informed that UZP had undertaken activities to improve socio-economic condition of women during last one year in project area which was shared by a much lower percent of respondents (36.4%) in control area. About 10% of the respondents both in project area and control area informed that UZP did not take up any activity to improve socio-economic condition of women during last year. Among the respondents, 29.3% in project area and 55.2% in control area did not know if any activity was taken up by UZP to improve socio-economic condi-tion of women during last one year.

4.2.13.6 Opinion about evaluating the UZP activities to improve the socio-economic con-dition of the poor people and women

The views of the respondents on the UZP activities to improve the socio-economic condition of the poor people and women were obtained during the study. The feedback of the respondents reflects that 70.1% of the respondents were of the average views in evaluating the improvement activities on the poor and women by the UZP in project area which was supported by 64.6% respondents in control area. The next highest views of ‘good activities’ was expressed by 13.7% respondents in project area and 14.5% respondents in control area. However, 10.3% of the respondents in project area termed those as ‘bad activities’ compared to 8.7% respondents in control area while some respondents termed the activities as ‘very bad’ who were 4.6% in project area and 9.5% in control area.

4.2.13.7 Anti-corruption strategy

Regarding the anti-corruption strategy of UZP, 7.0% of the respondents in project area and 5.1% respondents in control area had positive views. Only 11.8% respondents expressed negatively meaning that they had no plan to take action against corruption in project area and a similar percentage of respondents (12.4%) expressed the same way in control area. However, a significant number of people did not have any idea about it who were 81.1% respondents in project area compared to 82.5% respondents in control area.

4.2.13.8 Local MP involves himself in development activities of UZP

In response to the required information for determining the involvement of local MP in development activities of UZP, 57.0% respondents opined that the local MP involved himself sometimes in project area supported by a low 35.1% respondents in control area which is followed by another opinion of involving himself always as opined by 8.8% respondents in project and 9.2% respondents in control area. These two opinions together come to comprise views of 65.7% respondents in project area and far lower 44.4% respondents in control area. A significant 7.8% respond-ents expressed views of never involving a local MP in project area and a lower 4.7% respondents in control area. More than one-fourth (26.5%) of the respondents in project area and half of the respondents in control area did not know about the involvement of local MP.

Survey Findings

P a g e 75

4.2.13.9 Satisfaction on overall perfor-mance of UZP

During the study, question was asked about the degree of satisfaction of the respondents on the meeting activi-ties. The feedback reflects that a high 48.9% of respond-ents were satisfied on the activities performed by UZP in the project area which was however much lower (26.2%) in control area. The respondents, who were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the UZP activities, were 39.4% in project area and a higher 55.0% in control area. Respondents who expressed their dissatisfaction were 9.2% in project area against 12.5% in control area. Respondents who were highly dissatisfied were negligi-ble (less than 2%) in project area but were slightly higher (above 5%) in control area.

Survey Findings

Satisfaction on overall performance of UZPFigure47

Highly Satisfied Satisfied NeutralDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Highly

.8% .5%

48.9%

26.2%

39.4%

55.0%

9.2% 12.5%1.7% 5.8%

Table 4.2.12: Overall UZP’s Performance involving representatives and O�cial

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

1 Overall transparency of UZP functions

Very good 81 5.2 99 6.6 Good 902 57.8 576 38.3 Neither 424 27.2 564 37.5 Bad 105 6.7 113 7.5 Very Bad 48 3.1 150 10.0

2 Overall accountability of UZP Very good 73 4.7 100 6.7 Good 1051 68.0 729 48.5 Neither 267 17.3 443 29.5 Bad 55 3.6 44 2.9 Very Bad 100 6.5 187 12.4

3 Overall responsiveness of UZP Very good 68 4.5 99 6.6 Good 1023 67.1 674 45.3 Neither 327 21.4 517 34.7 Bad 39 2.6 32 2.1 Very Bad 68 4.5 167 11.2

4 UZP take any activities to improve the socio-economic condition of poor women in the last year

Yes 977 58.2 611 36.4 No 211 12.6 142 8.5 Don’t Know 492 29.3 926 55.2

5 Opinion about the UZP’s activities to improve the socio-economic condition of poor women

Very Good 19 1.3 35 2.7 Good 201 13.7 191 14.5 Average 1031 70.1 853 64.6

6 UZP has anti-corruption strategy Yes 118 7.0 86 5.1 No 199 11.8 208 12.4 Don’t Know 1363 81.1 1385 82.5

7 Local MP involves himself in development activities of UZP

Yes 1104 65.7 745 44.4 No 131 7.8 79 4.7 Don’t Know 445 26.5 855 50.9

P a g e76

ControlProject

4.2.14.1 Knowledge about WDF Regarding knowledge of respondents about WDF (women development forum), 59.7% of the respond-ents was aware of WDF in project area and a far lower 29.4% respondents in control area. The percentages in control area were much lower than those in project area. However, 40.3% respondents in project area and much higher 70.6% respondents in control area did not know about WDF.

Findings of FGD and KII widen the view that partici-pants have knowledge about Women Development Forum (WDF) and it was effective.

To a query about the activities of WDF, participants of eight FGDs in project areas compared to seven FGDs in control areas told that WDF was active and Women vice-chairman was the chairperson of WDF. Participants of six FGDs in project areas and seven FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this. In response to the query on whether WDF was effective three/fourths of respondents in project areas and half of respondents of control areas told that they had positive effects.

4.2.14 Women Development Forum (WDF)

# Particulars Response Project Control n % n %

Satisfied with the services specifically targeted by Upazilas through pro-poor and MDG-responsiveness

Highly Satisfied 23 1.5 16 1.1 Satisfied 772 51.2 442 29.8 Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied

579 38.4 777 52.4

Dissatisfied 119 7.9 172 11.6 Highly Dissatisfied 15 1.0 76 5.1

9

performance of UZP

Highly Satisfied 12 .8 8 .5 Satisfied 736 48.9 387 26.2 Neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied

592 39.4 813 55.0

Dissatisfied 138 9.2 185 12.5 Highly Dissatisfied 26 1.7 85 5.8

Table 4.2.13: Women Development Forum (WDF)Particulars Response Project Control

n % n % Knowledge about WDF Yes 1003 59.7 493 29.4

No 677 40.3 1186 70.6

Survey Findings

Knowledge about WDFFigure48

NOYES

59.7%

29.4%40.3%

70.6%

Satisfied with over the overall performance of UZP

9

8

P a g e 77

ControlProject

55

Institutional AssessmentMonthly Meeting - UPMonthly Meeting - UPMonthly Meeting - UP

5.1 Union Parishad Checklist

The information for institutional assessment was collected mainly from the UP chair, member, secretary as well as through reviewing the secondary documents including meeting minutes, planning book, budget etc. Similar group of people were interviewed for collecting information on UZP. Moreover, the views of UP chair, UP Vice Chair, Member and Secretary were also included.

The UP checklist was developed based on the information given by the UP Chair, Member and Secretary covering 85 project UPs and 81 control UPs. The findings of the study have been analyzed as below:

5.1.1.1 UP legislation Act 2009 All the UPs are to be operated under the UP Act 2009. From the checklist, it was found that the UP Act 2009 was available in 96.5% UP offices in project area and 92.6% UP offices in control area. On the other hand, 3.5% UP offices in project area and 7.4% UP offices in control area did not have it.

The awareness on Citizen Charter and Right to Information was significantly higher in project area compared to control area of UP. As per the checklist, among the UPs having Citizen Charter, 70.3% in project area and 29.7% in control area displayed the Citizen Charter in open place.

5.1.2.1 Person assigned to provide information to CitizenAccording to the guideline, each of the UPs is supposed to have a dedicated person for providing information to the citizen. The checklist shows that 89.4% UPs in project area and 79% UPs in control area assigned dedicated person to provide information to Citizen. On the other hand, No such person was assigned at 10.6% UPs in project area compared to 21% UPs in control area.

5.1.1 Status of Union Parishad

5.1.2 Citizen Charter and Right to Information

Table 5.1: Availability of Union Parishad Act 2009 in UP o�ce

Yes

No

82

3

96.5

3.5

75

6

92.6

7.4

Response in checklist Project Area

n n% UP %

Control Area

Table 5.2: Status of Citizen’s Charter

Citizen charter displayed in open place 71

6

Yes

No

70.3

17.1

30

29

29.7

82.9

Response in checklist Project Area

n n% UP %

Control Area

Table 5.3: UP assigned any person for providing information to Citizen

Yes

No

76

9

89.4

10.6

64

17

79.0

21.0

Response in checklist Project Area

n n% UP %

Control Area

5. Institutional Assessment

5. Institutional Assessment

P a g e 81

According to the UP legislation, all the UPs have to organize two Ward Shava every year. From the UP checklist, it was found that average 2 Ward Shava Meetings were held in every UP both in project area and in control area which meets 100% compliance in the year 2013.

5.1.3 Status of Ward Shava

5.1.4.1 Organizing monthly meetingIn compliance with UP’s legislation, the UP bodies are to organize one general meeting every month in every UP. The study shows that average 12 meetings were held in project area compared to average 11 meetings in control area in 2013.

5.1.4 UP’s Monthly Meetings

There is a provision in the UP act to form 13 standing committees in UP for effective functioning. All 13 (100%) Standing Committees have been formed by both project and control UPs up to December 2013.

On an average, 4 standing committee meetings were presided over by female chairperson in project area and 3 standing committee meetings were presided over by female chairperson in control area.

5.1.5 Standing Committees

According to the UP legislation, all the Union Parishads have to prepare their Annual and Five Year Development Plan. In this regard, it was noticed that 100% UPs of project area had their Annual Plan while the figure is 97.5% in the control area.

With regard to Five Year Development Plan, 92.9% UPs of project area compared to 81.5% UPs of control area were found having their plan.

5.1.6 UP Annual and Five year plan

Table 5.4: Ward Shava held in 2013

Ward Shava held 2 2

Particulars Project Area

Average Average

Control Area

Table 5.5: UP Monthly Meeting

Number of monthly general meetings were held last year (2013) 12 11

Particulars Project Area

Average Average

Control Area

Table 5.6: Standing Committees

Number of Standing Committees formed in this

UP up to December 2013Standing Committee meeting presided by

female chairperson

13

4

13

3

Particulars Project Area

Average Average

Control Area

Institutional Assessment

P a g e82

5.1.7.2 ‘Open Budget’ held at UPs To reflect people’s opinion in the annual budget, the UPs have to organize open budget meetings ensuring maxi-mum participation. The checklist records that open budget sessions were held in 92.9% UPs in project area and 93.8% UPs in control area. The percentage of UPs who did not organize such sessions were approximately 7% both in project area and control area.

5.1.7.3 Audit Regarding the audit of UP budget, the study shows that the budget of previous financial year (July 2012-June 2013) was audited in 65.9% UPs of project area and 70% UPs in control area. The audit was conducted by the Auditor appointed by the Govt. On the other hand, no Audit was done at 34.1% UPs in project area and 30% UPs in control area for the mentioned period.

5.1.7.1 UP Annual BudgetOn budget issue, the respondents were requested to go into the details on the prepared budget and state about the validity of the UP budget and the outcome of the operation. According to the checklist, 100% of the UPs both in project area and control area had their annual budget for the year 2013.

5.1.7 Budget, Audit and Tax

Table 5.7: Annual and Five Year Plan

UP prepare Annual Plan

UP prepare Five Year Plan

85

0

78

6

Yes

No

Yes

No

100.0

0.0

92.9

7.1

79

2

66

15

97.5

2.5

81.5

18.5

Response in the checklist Project Area

n n% UP %

Control Area

Table 5.8: Availability of Annual Budget

Yes

No

85

0

100.0

0.0

80

0

100.0

0.0

Response in checklist Project Area

n n% UP % UP

Control Area

Table 5.9: ‘Open Budget’ held at UPs

Yes

No

79

6

92.9

7.1

75

5

93.8

6.3

Response in checklist Project Area

n n% UP % UP

Control Area

Table 5.10: Audit of UPs

Was the budget of previous �nancial year (July 2012-June 2013�nancial year) audited by Auditors appointment by the Govt.?

56

29

Yes

No

65.9

34.1

56

24

70.0

30.0

Particulars Project Area

n n% UP %

Control Area

Institutional Assessment

P a g e 83

5.1.7.4 Payment of holding Tax: According to the checklist, the average number of “Holding Tax payer” was higher in the UPs of project area which is 5167 while the number is 4754 in control area. Moreover, the project area also shows better outcome in terms of maximum number of tax payers where 11,812 taxpayers were recorded against maximum 7812 persons in the control area.

Regarding the status of MDG for “Eradication of hunger and extreme poverty”, 96.5% UPs in project area and 81.9% UPs in control area had projects/scheme while 3.5% percentage in project area and 18.1% in control area did not have any.

With regard to the status of MDG for “Universal primary education”, it was found that 96.5% UPs in project area and 77.8% UPs in control area had their projects/scheme. On the other hand, no project/scheme was taken by 3.5% UPs in project area and 22.2% UPs in control area.

Pertaining to the status of MDG for “Women empowerment and equality between male and female”, 94.1% UPs in project area and 76.4% UPs in control area implemented projects/schemes. On the other hand, the feedback was negative in 5.9% UPs of project area and 23.6% UPs of control area.

The status of MDG for “Reduction of infant and maternal mortality” was found remarkable in the project area. 97.6% UPs in project area had taken projects/schemes on this compared to 83.3% UPs in control area. On the other hand, no such projects/schemes were found in 2.4% UPs of project area and 16.7% UPs of control area.

MDG for “Development of maternal health” also showed good result at project areas. Projects/ schemes were taken in 97.6% UPs of project area compared to 83.3% UPs of control area. Thus, the percentage of UPs not taking any project /scheme on this is 2.4% in project area and 16.7% in control area.

5.1.8 Status of MDG

Table 5.11: Holding Tax payer

Number of holding tax payers in UP? 5167 11812 4754 7812

Particulars Project Area

Average AverageMaximum Maximum

Control Area

Table 5.12: Projects/schemes under MDG

Eradication of hungry and extreme poverty

Universal primary education

Women empowerment and equality

between male and female

Reduction of infant and maternal mortality

Development of maternal health

82

82

80

83

83

96.5

96.5

94.1

97.6

97.6

3

3

5

2

2

3.5

3.5

5.9

2.4

2.4

59

56

55

60

60

81.9

77.8

76.4

83.3

83.3

13

16

17

12

1

2

18.1

22.2

23.6

16.7

16.7

Response in the checklist Project Area

Yes

n % UP n % UP n % UP n % UP

YesNo No

Control Area

Institutional Assessment

P a g e84

According to the UP Chair, Member and Secretary, UPGP has brought positive changes in the UPs in different aspects.

5.1.11 Improvement due to UPGP

According to the checklist, the number of schemes, implemented by UPs last year (2013), was average 40 in project area compared to average 35 in control area. Among those schemes, the number of schemes implemented for female was average 5 both in project area and control area. Of the total schemes, the number of schemes imple-mented for the marginalized people was average 9 in project area and average 7 in control area.

5.1.9 Schemes of UP in 2013

Regarding the status of MIS, 73.5% UPs of project area and 37.2% UPs of control area showed positive result. On the other hand, the response was negative for 26.5% UPs of project area and 62.8% UPs of control area.

5.1.10.1 Effectiveness of MISRegarding the effectiveness of MIS, 38.3% UPs of project area and 34.5%UPs of control area was found “Highly Effective”. In 46.7% UPs of project area and 24.1% UPs of control area MIS system was found “Moderately Effective”. However, there were a number of UPs where the MIS system was ‘low effective’ or ‘very poorly effective’ and in percentage those were 5% in project area compared to 24.1% in control area under ‘low effective’ category while 10% in project area and 17.2% in control area under “Very poorly effective’ category.

5.1.10 Management Information System (MIS) of UP

Table 5.13: Schemes of UPs

Number of schemes were implemented in

the last year (2013)?Number of scheme were implemented for

female of those schemes?

Number of scheme were implemented marginalized

people of those schemes?

40

5

9

35

5

7

Particulars Project Area

Average Average

Control Area

Yes

No

61

22

73.5

26.5

29

49

37.2

62.8

Response in checklist Project Area

n n% UP % UP

Control Area

Table 5.14: Status of MIS

Highly E�ective

Moderately E�ective

Low e�ective

Very poor e�ective

23

28

3

6

38.3

46.7

5.0

10.0

10

7

7

5

34.5

24.1

24.1

17.2

Response in the checklist Project Area

n n% UP % UP

Control Area

Table 5.15: E�ectiveness of UP’s MIS system

Institutional Assessment

P a g e 85

5.2 Upazila Parishad ChecklistThe checklist profiles were filled up largely by the UNOs or his assigned officials. Besides, Chairman and Vice Chairman of UZP provided their support to complete the checklist. Checklists were done based on the information of 14 project areas and 13 control areas.

According the checklist, Citizen Charter was available in 100% upazilas of project area and in 84.6% upazilas of control area. It was found that Citizen Charter was displayed in 100% of the upazilas in project area compared to 76.9% of the upazilas in control area.

All project UZPs took initiatives to comply with RTI Act while 92.3% control UZPs took such initiatives. As per the guideline, each of the UZPs has to have a dedicated person to provide information to the citizen. The checklist records that 71% of project UZPs assigned ‘Designated Officer’ for providing information to the citizen. Among the UZPs, 71.4% in control area fulfilled at least 90% provisions of RTI Act while the percentage was 69.2% in control area.

5.2.1 Citizen Charter and Right to Information

In compliance with UZP legislation, the UZP bodies are to organize at least one meeting every month in every UZP. The meeting is presided over by the UZP Chair.

5.2.2 UZP’s Monthly Meeting

Table 5.16: Status of Citizen Charter

Having Citizen Charter in UZP

Displayed Citizen Charter at UZP premises

14

14

100.0

100.0

11

10

84.6

76.9

Response in the checklist Project Area

n n% UP % UP

Control Area

Table 5.17: Status of RTI facilities at UZP

Took initiative to RTI Act compliance

Appointed /designated an o�cial for providing information

UZP that ful�ll at least 90% provisions of RTI Act

14

10

10

100.0

71

71.4

12

11

9

92.3

92

69.2

Particulars Project Area

n n% UZP % UZP

Control Area

Citizen has now access to information. They are aware of the roles and responsibilities of UPs through the billboards installed by UPGP. All meetings including Ward Shava, Parishad and Standing Committee and other Committees of UP are almost regularized as per rules and initiatives are taken to ensure democratic participation of voters and public representatives in the meetings.

Understanding of Plan has been improved. Significant improvement has been observed in preparing Annual Plan and Five Year Plan mainly due to the capacity development training under UPGP.

Monitoring and supervision has been increased from line ministry and projects. Consequently, quality of service delivery regarding project selection and implementation has also been improved. Newly implemented MIS system has been playing a great role to get updated information any time which gives the opportunity to take effective decision.

Through WDF, women have become more aware of their rights and other issues. They have got a platform to raise their voice and do not feel helpless any more.

Institutional Assessment

P a g e86

Regarding the invitation of the monthly meetings, multiple responses were found during the study. It shows that most of the meetings were called by the Chairman and in percentage it is 71% for the projects area compared to 62% in control area. 43% of meetings in project area and 38% of the meetings in control area were called by the UNO. In some cases, the Vice Chairman also called the meeting which is 7% in project area corresponding to 8% in control area.

The study shows that average 12 meetings were held both in project area and control area. Moreover, the presence of UZP Chairs in all the monthly meetings reflects good practice.

The checklist reveals that the respective Member of Parliament attended the UZP’s monthly meetings irregularly. In 2013, MPs attended the monthly meetings irregularly in 57.1% of project area and 61.5% in control area. On the contrary, the percentage of UZPs that never had any monthly meeting with MP is 42.9% in project area compared to 38.5% in control area.

There is provision in the UZP act to form 17 committees to support UZP for effective functioning. All 17 standing committees were formed in 85.7% of Project UZPs compared to 76.9% in control UZPs by December, 2013.

5.2.3 UZP’s Committees

Number of monthly Meetings in 2013

UZP Chair presence in the monthly meeting

12

12

12

12

Particulars Project Area

Average (UZP) Average (UZP)

Control Area

Table 5.18: UZP’ monthly meeting

Table 5.19: Invitation of monthly meeting

Chairman

UNO

Vice-chairman

10

6

1

71

43

7

8

5

1

62

38

8

Particulars Project Area

n n% UZP % UZP

Control Area

Table 5.20: Presence of Member of Parliament (MP) in the monthly meeting

Regular

Irregular

Never

0

8

6

0.0

57.1

42.9

0

8

5

0.0

61.5

38.5

Particulars Project Area

n n% UZP % UZP

Control Area

Institutional Assessment

P a g e 87

Eight Standing Committee meetings were chaired by 8 female members and Standing Committees were formed with 7 members each. Attendance of female members in these meetings was limited up to 2. Of all the meetings, Women and Children Development Committee meeting and Social Welfare Committee meeting had the highest representation of women as chairperson.

All UZP Committees had held 6 meetings in a year and minutes of the meetings were issued by 71% of project UZPs and 64% of control UZPs.

1 Note: Among the 14 UZPs of project area, 12 UZPs formed all 17 committees and the rest 2 UZPs formed 16 commit-tees. On the other, among the 13 UZPs of control area, 10 UZPs formed all 17 committees and the rest 3 UZPs formed 16 committees

Table 5.21: Formation of Upazila parishad’s committees in 2013 1

Law and peace

Communication and infrastructure development

Agriculture and irrigation

Secondary and madrasha education

Primary and mass education

Health and family welfare

Youth and sports

Women and children development

Social welfare

Freedom �ghter

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Particulars Project Area

Yes

n n n n

YesNo No

Control Area

% UZP % UZP % UZP % UZP

Fisheries and livestock

Rural development and cooperative

Cultural

Forest and environment

Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price

Finance, budget, planning and mobilization of local resources

Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drainage water

14

14

13

14

13

14

14

100.0

100.0

92.9

100.0

92.9

100.0

100.0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0.0

0.0

7.1

0.0

7.1

0.0

0.0

13

13

11

12

13

12

13

13

13

11

12

13

12

13

0

0

2

1

0

1

0

0.0

0.0

15.4

7.7

0.0

7.7

0.0

Institutional Assessment

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

P a g e88

Upazila Parishad has to prepare their respective yearly budget every year. For the year 2013-14, 100% upazilas of project area compared to 92.3% upazilas of control area prepared their budget. Regarding pre-budget session, 92.9% upazilas of project area organized their Budget session before preparing budget for 2013-14 while this percentage was 84.6% for the upazilas of control area. In 2013, 78.6% upazilas of project area and 84.6% upazilas of control area disclosed their budget to the Citizen. In the budget for 2013-14, MDG got priority in 57.1% of project upazilas and 46.2% of control upazilas.

5.2.4 Budget

Table 5.23: Gender of chairperson of the committees

Law and peaceCommunication and infrastructure developmentAgriculture and irrigationSecondary and madrasha educationPrimary and mass educationHealth and family welfareYouth and sportsWomen and children developmentSocial welfareFreedom �ghterFisheries and livestockRural development and cooperativeCultureForest and environmentObservation, monitoring and controlling of market priceFinance, budget, planning and mobilization of local resourcesPublic health, sanitation and supply of safe drainage water

8

9

9

7

7

3

8

0

0

6

2

2

4

8

7

8

3

66.7

81.8

81.8

63.6

63.6

27.3

72.7

0.0

0.0

54.5

18.2

18.2

36.4

72.7

70.0

72.7

27.3

4

2

2

4

4

8

3

11

11

5

9

9

7

3

3

3

8

33.3

18.2

18.2

36.4

36.4

72.7

27.3

100.0

100.0

45.5

81.8

81.8

63.6

27.3

30.0

27.3

72.7

13

9

12

11

9

7

10

2

5

12

7

6

6

8

11

9

7

100.0

75.0

92.3

91.7

69.2

58.3

83.3

15.4

41.7

100.0

58.3

50.0

54.5

72.7

91.7

81.8

58.3

0

3

1

1

4

5

2

11

7

0

5

6

5

3

1

2

5

0.0

25.0

7.7

8.3

30.8

41.7

16.7

84.6

58.3

0.0

41.7

50.0

45.5

27.3

8.3

18.2

41.7

Particulars Project Area

Male

n % UZP n % UZP n % UZP n % UZP

Female Male Female

Control Area

Institutional Assessment

Law and peace

Communication and infrastructure development

Agriculture and irrigation

Secondary and madrasha education

Primary and mass education

Health and family welfare

Youth and sports

Women and children development

Social welfare

Freedom �ghter

Fisheries and livestock

Rural development and cooperative

Culture

Forest and environment

Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price

Finance, budget, planning and mobilization of local resources

Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drainage water

6

6

7

5

6

7

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

6

7

7

5

5

5

6

5

4

5

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

5

Particulars Project Area

Average Average

Control Area

Table 5.22: Number of meeting held

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

P a g e 89

The checklist reflects that 57.1% UZPs of the project area and 69.2% UZPs of the control area had Annual Perfor-mance Report (APR) for their transferred officials. Thus the percentage of UZPs not having APR was 42.9% in project area and 30.8% in control area.

Regarding frequency of UZP Visit by Government officials, it was reported that 61.5% UZPs in project area compared to 37.5% UZPs in control area were visited by the DLG. Highest visit was paid by the DC and in percent-age it was 92.9% in project area compared to 72.7% in control area. Respective DDLG also visited the UZPs in 2013 as 71.4% in project area and 50% in control area.

5.2.7 Miscellaneous aspects of UZP

According to the Upazila legislation, all the Upazilas have to prepare their Annual and Five Year Development Plan. In this regard, it was noticed that 100% upazilas of project area had their annual development plans for the 2013-14 financial year while the percentage is significantly lower at 84.6% in the control area.

With regard to Five Year Development Plan, 57.1% upazilas of project area compared to 46.2% upazilas of control area were found having their plan.

5.2.5 Annual and Five Year Development Plan

According to the guideline, all the Upazilas have to make development plan for the local deprived and marginalized group. The study shows that, 85.7% UZPs of project area and 69.2% UZPs of control area had such development plan. On the contrary, 14.3% UZPs in project area did not have any development plan for local deprived and margin-alized group compared to 30.8% UZPs in control area.

5.2.6 Activities for disadvantaged people

Table 5.24: Status of budget preparation for 2013-14

Budget prepared

Budget session held before preparing budget

Disclosed budget to the citizen

MDG had given priority

14

13

11

8

100%

92.9

78.6

57.1

12

11

11

6

92.3

84.6

84.6

46.2

Particulars Project Area

n n% UZP % UZP

Control Area

Table 5.25: Status of Annual and Five Year Development Plan

Prepared Annual development plan

Prepared �ve year development plan

14

8

100.0

57.1

11

6

84.6

46.2

Particulars Project Area

n n% UZP % UZP

Control Area

Table 5.26: UZP activities for disadvantaged people

Development plan for local deprived and

marginalized group12 85.7 2 14.3 9 69.2 4 30.8

Particulars Project Area

Yes

n % UZP n % UZP n % UZP n % UZP

YesNo No

Control Area

Table 5.27: Status of Annual Performance Report (APR) for transferred o�cials

Yes

No

8

6

57.1

42.9

9

4

69.2

30.8

Response in the Checklist Project Area

n n% UZP % UZP

Control Area

Institutional Assessment

P a g e76 P a g e90

UZP representatives opined that the below areas were improved due to the interventions of UZGP:

1. Parishad ShavaMonthly meetings are being held regularly and decisions of the meeting are also being implemented. Parishad is now more aware about their roles and responsibilities. In the meeting, public demands and opinions are given more emphasis.

2. BudgetUZP has become aware of the different requirements of budget preparation. Improvement has been achieved in the preparation of budget following transparency and accountability in the process. Participation of civil people has been increased due to open budget meeting. People have become aware about budget. Proper planning and imple-mentation of budget has been possible. Participation of all groups and types of people of the society has made preparation of a meaningful budget possible.

3. PlanningUZP has become aware of the necessity of Annual and Five Year Plan. Capacity to prepare plan has been improved. Now, UZP can prepare their annual plan with minimum technical support.

4. Citizen Charter of RTI (Right to information)Billboards, containing the UZP’s roles and responsibility, have been installed by the project which gave the scope to the citizen to know about UZP. More people especially the educated people are now able to know the responsi-bilities of UZPs.

5. Women empowermentWomen participation in all meeting and workshops has increased.

6. Coordination of Transferred departmentsLine Department is the backbone of Upazila Parishad. Co-ordination of the line departments is the primary instru-ment to keep the Upazila Parishad Dynamic in its activities. Co-ordination has made these Departments possible to understand each other and work together. Presently, coordination among public representatives and government officials has been improved due to the training, motivation and monitoring under the project.

5.2.8 Improvement due to UZGP

Table 5.28: UZP visit by Government O�cials in 2013

DLG

DDLG

DC

8

10

13

61.5

71.4

92.9

3

5

8

37.5

50.0

72.7

O�cials Project Area

n n% UZP % UZP

Control Area

Institutional Assessment

P a g e 77P a g e 91

66

Qualitative Survey FindingsScheme - UPScheme - UP

6.1 Focus Group Discussion

Both quantitative and qualitative instruments have been used in the survey to measure people’s perception on local governance, democracy and public service delivery as well as to gauge efficiency and effectiveness of Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad that receive additional support from UZGP and UPGP. Besides, HH survey based on structured questionnaire, qualitative instruments such as Focus Group Discussions (FGD), Key Informants Inter-view (KII) and Case Studies (CS) have been used to supplement HH data. These instruments have been increas-ingly used to get clear insights into people’s perceptions and deeper understanding in the local context. They have been used in the survey primarily to collect in-depth/perceptual information regarding some key issues and indica-tors concerning the survey.

The analysis of data obtained from FGDs, KIIs and CSs are given in the following sections.

Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were organized in 14 Upazilas and 14 Unions. A common check list, containing queries relating to these Upazilas and Unions, has been used for this purpose. There were also facilitators to steer the discussions around key issues and indicators and probe into the issues to arrive at certain conclusions. The summary statements based on comments were recorded, tabulated and analyzed.

6.1.2 Part I: With Respect to Upazila Parishad

6. Qualitative Survey Findings

6.1.2.1 Opinion of the FGD respondents about UZP activities

During each FGD session, the discussion was initiated by asking the opinion of the participants on whether they knew about the activities of Upazila Parishad (UZP) or not. Among the participants, eleven FGDs in project areas and ten FGDs in control areas informed that they knew about the activities of Upazila Parishad. Respondents of three FGDs in project areas and four FGDs in control areas told that they knew somewhat about the activities of Upazila Parishad.

6.1.2.2 Selection and implementation of scheme /projectsThe participants of FGDs provided their views about the selection and implementation of scheme /projects of UZPs.

Preparation of list of schemes/projects of Upazila ParishadIn response to a query on how and who prepared the list of schemes/projects of Upazila Parishad, the participants of FGDs gave seven different responses after thorough discussion. Participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to one FGD in control areas told that Standing Committee prepared scheme/project list. Participants of other four FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that Chairman, members of Union Parishad prepared scheme/project list then sent to Upazila Parishad while sometimes local MP took the initiative. Participants of one FGD in project areas compared to one FGD in control areas told that Upazila Parishad Chair-man, Vice-Chairman prepared scheme/project list. Participants of one FGD in project areas told that Project Com-mittee along with respectable persons of the locality prepared the list. Participants of one FGD in control areas told that respectable persons of the locality prepared the list based on the demand of locality. Participants of one FGD in control areas told that ‘top down policy’ was followed to prepare the list. However, the participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that they have no clear idea about it.

Selection and determination of the scheme/projectsParticipants of FGDs expressed their views about how the schemes/projects of UZPs were selected and deter-mined. Participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas opined that the schemes/projects were selected and determined by considering budget priority and availability. Participants of three

P a g e 95

Irregularity or corruption in the implementation of schemes/projects and the quality of schemes/projects Participants of FGDs expressed their views about irregularity or corruption in the implementation of schemes/projects and the quality of schemes/projects of Upazila Parishad. Participants of seven FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas opined that the quality of implemented schemes/projects was fine and no irregularity or corruption was there. On the other hand, the participants of five FGDs in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas expressed that the quality of implemented schemes/projects was worse and irregular-ity or corruption was there. However, the participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that they have no clear idea about it. Participants of one FGD in control areas told that they had no comments.

6.1.2.3 Upazila Parishad MeetingGetting equal chances of talking in the Parishad meetingWith regard to equal chance of talking in the Parishad meeting, participants of nine FGDs in project areas as against seven FGDs in control areas opined that all got equal opportunity of expressing their views in the Parishad meeting. On the other hand, the participants of one FGD in project areas and one FGD in control areas expressed that all did not get equal chance of talking in the Parishad meeting. Participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

FGDs in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas informed that selection and determination of schemes/projects were made through Upazila Parishad coordination meeting. Participants of other two FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas informed that Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) and Project Implementation Officer selected and determined the schemes/projects. Participants of one FGD in project areas opined that schemes/projects were selected and determined as directed by local MP. However, the participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas told that they have no clear idea about it.

Ability of the local people to know about execution of the schemes/projects In response to the query whether the people of the locality had the ability to know which schemes/projects would be executed and what were their budgets, the respondents of the FGDs expressed three views. Participants of five FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas informed that people of the locality could know from all UP Chairmen attending upazila coordination meeting. Participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas informed that people could not know directly before finalization of selection of schemes /projects and their budget. However, the participants of other five FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that they have no clear idea about this.

Involvement of the public in listing and selecting schemes/projectsRegarding the involvement of public in listing and selecting schemes/projects, the respondents gave three types of opinions. Participants of eight FGDs in project areas compared to seven FGDs in control areas informed that public were not directly involved in listing and selecting schemes/projects. Participants of three FGDs in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas told that public were not directly involved in listing and selecting schemes/projects but elected public representatives were involved. On the other hand, participants of three FGDs in project areas and five FGDs in control areas told that they have no clear idea about this.

Involvement of women and marginalized groups of people in the selection and adminis-tration of schemes/projects

Concerning the involvement of women and marginalized groups of people in the selection and administration of schemes/projects, respondents of eleven FGDs in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas informed that women and marginalized groups of people were not involved in the selection and administration of schemes/projects. On the other hand, participants of three FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e96

Representation of the marginalized group in the Parishad meetingRegarding representation of the marginalized group in the Parishad meeting, participants of seven FGDs in project areas compared to ten FGDs in control areas informed that representation of the marginalized group were there. On the other hand, the participants of two FGDs in project areas stated that representation of the marginalized group were not there. However, the participants of five FGDs in project areas as against four FGDs in control areas told that they have no clear idea about this.

Whether UZP decisions were taken based on opinions of allIn response to a query whether UZP decisions were taken based on opinions of all, participants of nine FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas had positive views. They informed that all the participants participated in discussions and logical and acceptable decisions were taken. Participants of five FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas told that they have no clear idea about this.

Who takes the decisions of the ParishadAbout taking decision, the participants of four FGDs in project areas and four FGDs in control areas informed that all attendees participated in discussion and logical and acceptable decision are taken by the chair. Participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas told that UNO and Chairman took decisions considering majority opinions. Participants of three FGDs in project areas as against one FGD in control areas informed that Chairman took decisions. Participants of one FGD in project areas stated that local MP Influenced in taking decisions. Among the participants, respondents of four FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas did not have any clear idea about this.

6.1.2.4 About 17 committees of the ParishadAre all 17 committees in actionDuring the discussion on whether all 17 committees were in action, participants of five FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas informed that 17 committees of the Parishad were fully active and meet-ings were being held by every two months. Participants of two FGDs in project areas as against one FGD in control areas opined that 17 committees of the Parishad were somewhat active. On the other hand, the participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that committees of the Parishad were active by papers but actual situation were different. However, the participants of five FGDs in project areas as well as in control areas did not have any clear idea about it.

If not in action, what were the reasonsRegarding the reasons of committees not in action, participants of three FGDs in project areas compared to four FGDs in control areas opined that they were accountable to none. Participants of five FGDs in project areas and five FGDs in control areas did not have any clear idea about it. Participants of five FGDs in project areas as well as in control areas told that it was not applicable.

6.1.2.5 Planning and Budget of the Parishad

Knowledge about annual and five year plan of the ParishadRegarding knowledge about Annual and Five Year Plan of the Parishad, the participants of ten FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas informed that annual and five year plan had been done for their upazila. Participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas did not have any clear idea about this.

MDG getting priority in preparing annual and five year plan With regard to priority in preparing annual and five year plan, participants of nine FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas informed that MDG got priority in preparing annual and five year plan. Participants of five FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e 97

6.1.2.6 Information released/receiptAbout Citizen Charter (Civil right) in the ParishadQueries were made on whether there was any Citizen Charter (Civil right) in the Parishad and if so, where it was and whether it was visible to all. Participants of nine FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas informed that Citizen Charter (Civil right) were in front of the office and visible to all. On the other hand, the partici-pants of one FGD in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas told that no Citizen Charter (Civil right) were there in Upazila Parishad. Among the participants, respondents of four FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas did not have any clear idea about this.

Availability of information on activities of the Parishad as desiredRegarding the availability of information on the activities of the Parishad as desired, participants of seven FGDs in project areas compared to ten FGDs in control areas opined that desired information was available. However, the participants of one FGD in project areas told that if information was desired, in many cases they had to face harass-ment. Participants of four FGDs in project areas as well as in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

6.1.2.7 Women Development ForumKnowledge about the activities of women development forum (WDF)Pertaining to knowledge about the activities of women development forum (WDF), participants of eight FGDs in project areas compared to seven FGDs in control areas informed that Woman Development Forum (WDF) was active and women vice chairman was the chairperson of WDF. Participants of six FGDs in project areas compared to seven FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

Influence of WDF Regarding the influence of WDF, participants of eight FGDs in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas informed that WDF was working for welfare of woman and providing training for self-employment. On the other hand, the participants of one FGD in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas told that it was not appli-cable for them. Participants of five FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

Taking peoples’ opinion in preparing annual and five year plansDuring the discussion on whether peoples’ opinion was taken in preparing annual and five year plans, participants of ten FGDs in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas informed that peoples’ opinion was not taken directly in preparing annual and five year plans for Upazila Parishad. Participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

Taking civil peoples’ opinion in preparing annual budget of the ParishadIn response to a query on whether civil peoples’ opinion was taken in preparing annual budget of UZP, participants of ten FGDs in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas informed that civil peoples’ opinion was not taken directly in preparing annual budget for upazila parishad. Participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

Disclosure of the annual budget of the Parishad

To a query whether the annual budget of the Parishad was disclosed, participants of nine FGDs in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas informed that the annual budget of the Parishad was disclosed.Participants of five FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e98

Relationship between the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the UZPRegarding relationship between the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the UZP, the participants of twelve FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas opined that they were cooperative. However, the participants of one FGD in control areas expressed that they were badly cooperative or non-cooperative. Participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

Relationship between Upazila Chairmen and the Government officers at Upazila levelPertaining to a query on the relationship between Upazila Chairmen and the Government officers at Upazila level, the participants of ten FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas informed that they were coop-erative. On the other hand, the participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to one FGD in control areas told that they were badly cooperative or non-cooperative. Participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas informed that they had no clear idea about it.

6.1.2.8 Function of the ParishadSatisfaction on the activities of the ParishadPertaining to satisfaction on the activities of the Parishad, the participants of three FGDs in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas expressed that they were satisfied on activities of Upazila parishad. Participants of nine FGDs in project areas as against eight FGD in control areas told that they were moderately satisfied on activi-ties of Upazila parishad. However, the participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas expressed that they were dissatisfied on activities of Upazila parishad.

Taking steps in resolving the complains against Parishad in any respectRelating to a query on whether the Parishad took any steps in resolving the complains of any respect, participants of eight FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas opined that the Parishad took steps in resolving the complains of any respect. Participants of five FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

6.1.2.9 Co-ordination

Relationship among Member of the Parliament, UZP Chairman, U.N.O, Vice-Chairman and Union Parishad Chairman

Participants of FGDs expressed their views on the relationship among Member of the Parliament, UZP Chairman, U.N.O, Vice-Chairman and Union Parishad Chairman at the Upazila level regarding their cooperation. Participants of ten FGDs in project areas compared to five FGDs in control areas opined that they were cooperative. On the contrary, the participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas told that they were badly cooperative or non-cooperative. Participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

6.1.3.1 FGD respondents knowledge on UP activitiesPertaining to the knowledge on the activities of Union Parishad (UP), respondents of six FGDs in project areas and respondents of six FGDs in control areas informed that they knew about the activities of Upazila Parishad. Respondents of other eight FGDs in project areas and other eight FGDs in control areas told that they knew moder-ately about the activities of Union Parishad. This gives opinion of respondents of total fourteen FGDs (six FGDs at Upazila level and eight FGDs at Union level) in project areas and fourteen FGDs (six FGDs at Upazila level and eight FGDs at Union level) in control areas concerning the respondents’ knowledge on the activities of UZP.

6.1.3.2 Selection and implementation of scheme /projects

The participants of FGDs provided their views on the selection and implementation of scheme /projects of UPs.

6.1.3 Part II: With Respect to Union Parishad

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e 99

Local people’s ability to know about the execution of schemes/projects and budgetIn response to the query whether the people of the locality had the ability to know which schemes/projects would be executed and what were their budgets, the respondents of the FGDs expressed four views. Participants of twelve FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas informed that people of the locality knew which schemes would be executed and the budget for the schemes/projects. On the other hand, the participants of one FGD in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas informed that people of the locality could not know which schemes would be executed and how much its budget was. Participants of one FGD in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas opined that generally people of the locality could not know which schemes/projects would be executed and how much its budget was but if they were interested to know, they could know. Participants of two FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

Preparation of list of schemes/projects of Union ParishadIn response to a query about how and who prepared the list of schemes/projects of Union Parishad, the participants of eleven FGDs in project areas compared to one FGD in control areas informed that list of schemes/projects was prepared by Ward Shava. Participants of other three FGDs in project areas compared to thirteen FGDs in control areas stated that Chairman and members of Union Parishad took initiative for preparing the list of schemes/projects.Selection and determination of the scheme/projectsParticipants of FGDs expressed their views on how the schemes/projects of UZPs were selected and determined. Participants of nine FGDs in project areas compared to one FGD in control areas opined that the list of schemes/projects was prepared after selection and determination by Ward Shava, sent to respective sanding committee and finally approved by the union parishad meeting. Participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas stated that Chairman and members of the union parishad took initiative to select and determine the schemes/projects. Participants of one FGD in project areas and one FGD in control areas informed that Planning committee took initiative to select and determine the scheme/projects. Participants of three FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

Involvement of the public in listing and selecting schemes/projectsRegarding the involvement of public in listing and selecting schemes/projects, participants of ten FGDs in project areas compared to one FGD in control areas informed that people were involved in listing and selecting schemes/projects. On the contrary, the participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to twelve FGDs in control areas told that people were not involved in listing and selecting schemes/projects. Involvement of women and marginalized groups of people in the selection and adminis-tration of schemes/projectsIn response to a question whether women and marginalized groups of people were involved in the selection and administration of schemes/projects, respondents of eight FGDs in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas informed that women and marginalized groups of people were involved in the selection and administration of schemes/projects. On the contrary, the participants of six FGDs in project areas compared to twelve FGDs in control areas told that marginalized groups and women were not involved in selection and administration of schemes/projects but they had chance to have engaged as labour.Irregularity or corruption in the implementation of schemes/projects and the quality of schemes/projectsParticipants of FGDs expressed their views about irregularity or corruption in the implementation of schemes/projects and the quality of schemes/projects of Union Parishad. Participants of eight FGDs in project areas and eight FGDs in control areas opined that quality of implemented schemes/projects was good and there was no irregularity or corruption took place in the implementation of schemes/projects. On the other hand, the participants of three FGDs in project areas and three FGDs in control areas told that the quality of implemented schemes/projects was not good and irregularity or corruption was there. Participants of two FGDs in project areas and two FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it. However, the participants of one FGD in control areas did not make any comments in this regard

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e100

Whether UP decisions were taken based on opinions of allRelating to a query whether UP decisions were taken based on opinions of all, participants of thirteen FGDs in project areas compared to twelve FGDs in control areas informed that decisions were taken by discussion among the chairman, members and women members. Participants of one FGD in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas had no clear idea about it. Who takes the decisions of the ParishadAll of fourteen participants of FGDs in project areas and all of fourteen participants FGDs in control areas informed that Chairman took decisions by arranging meeting at Union Parishad.

6.1.3.4 About 13 committees of the Parishad

Are all 13 committees in action During the discussion on whether all 13 standing committees were in action, participants of ten FGDs in project areas compared to seven FGDs in control areas informed that 13 committees of the Parishad were active. Partici-pants of two FGDs in project areas and two FGDs in control areas told that 13 committees of the Parishad were somewhat active. However, the participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to four FGDs in control areas opined that the committees were formed but there were no activities. Participants of one FGD in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

If not in action, what were the reasonsAbout the reasons behind the committees not-in-action, participants of one FGD in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas opined that committee members were not conscious. Participants of three FGDs in project areas and five FGDs in control areas told that they did not know about terms of reference (TOR) of committees. Participants of ten FGDs in project areas and six FGDs in control areas told that it was not applicable to them.

6.1.3.5 Planning and Budget of the ParishadKnowledge about annual and five year plan of the ParishadParticipants of thirteen FGDs in project areas compared to seven FGDs in control areas informed that they knew about annual and five year plan of the Parishad. Participants of one FGD in project areas compared to four FGDs in control areas told that they knew that annual plan and five year plan were not done. Participants of three FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

MDG getting priority in preparing annual and five year plan In response to a query on the priority of MDG in preparing annual and five year plan, participants of eleven FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas opined that MDG got priority in preparing annual and five year plan. Participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to six FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

6.1.3.3 Union Parishad MeetingGetting equal chances of talking in the Parishad meetingRegarding equal chance of talking in the Parishad meeting, participants of thirteen FGDs in project areas as against fourteen FGDs in control areas opined that all got equal chance of talking in the Parishad meeting. Participants of one FGD in project areas told that they had no clear idea about it. Representation of the marginalized group in the Parishad meetingWith regard to representation of the marginalized group in the Parishad meeting, participants of six FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas informed that representation of the marginalized group were there. On the contrary, the participants of six FGDs in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas told that representation of the marginalized group was not there directly but in one sense through elected members they were represented. Participants of two FGDs in project areas and two FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about this.

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e 101

Taking peoples’ opinion in preparing annual and five year plansRegarding taking peoples’ opinion in preparing annual and five year plans, participants of twelve FGDs in project areas compared to four FGDs in control areas had positive views. They informed that peoples’ opinion was taken in preparing annual and five year plans of Union Parishad. On the contrary, the participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas told that people’s opinion was not taken in preparing annual and five year plans. Participants of two FGDs in control areas did not have any clear idea about it.Taking civil peoples’ opinion in preparing annual budget of the ParishadIn response to a query on whether civil peoples’ opinion was taken in preparing annual budget of UZP, participants of thirteen FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas informed that civil peoples’ opinion was taken in preparing annual budget for union parishad. On the other hand, the participants of one FGD in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas told that peoples’ opinion was not taken in preparing annual budget. Participants of two FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.Disclosure of the annual budget of the ParishadPertaining to a query on whether the annual budget of the Parishad was disclosed, participants of fourteen FGDs in project areas compared to twelve FGDs in control areas informed that annual budget of the Parishad was disclosed to the people. Participants of two FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

Influence of WDF Regarding the influence of WDF, participants of eleven FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas informed that WDF was working for welfare of woman and providing training for self-employment and women empowerment. Participants of three FGDs in project areas compared to ten FGDs in control areas had no clear idea about it.

6.1.3.8 Function of the ParishadSatisfaction on the activities of the ParishadRegarding the satisfaction on the activities of the Parishad, the participants of five FGDs in project areas compared to one FGD in control areas expressed that they were highly satisfied on activities of Upazila parishad. Participants of eight FGDs in project areas compared to seven FGDs in control areas told that they were satisfied on activities of Upazila parishad. Participants of one FGD in project areas as against four FGDs in control areas told that they

6.1.3.6 Information released/receipt

About Citizen Charter (Civil right) in the ParishadQueries were made on whether there was any Citizen Charter (Civil right) in the Parishad and if so, where it was and whether it was visible to all. Participants of twelve FGDs in project areas compared to ten FGDs in control areas informed that Citizen Charter (Civil right) did exist in the Parishad and was visible to all. On the other hand, the participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to one FGD in control areas told that no Citizen Charter (Civil right) was there. Participants of three FGDs in control areas told that they were not aware of it.Availability of information on activities of the Parishad as desiredWith regard to the availability of information on activities of the Parishad, participants of three FGDs in control areas informed that desired information was available while the participants of fourteen FGDs in project areas compared to ten FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

6.1.3.7 Women Development Forum

Knowledge about the activities of women development forum (WDF)Pertaining to the activities of women development forum, the participants of eleven FGDs in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas informed that they know about the activities of Woman Development Forum (WDF) and its activities. Participants of three FGDsin project areas compared to eleven FGDs in control areas did not have any clear idea about it.

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e102

6.1.3.9 Co-ordination

Relationship among Member of the Parliament, UZP Chairman, U.N.O, Vice-Chairman and Union Parishad ChairmanParticipants of FGDs expressed their views on how was the relationship among Member of the Parliament, UZP Chairman, U.N.O, Vice-Chairman and Union Parishad Chairman and regarding their cooperation. Participants of one FGD in project areas compared to three FGDs in control areas opined that they were cooperative. On the contrary, the participants of one FGD in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas told that they were badly cooperative or non-cooperative. Participants of twelve FGDs in project areas compared to nine FGDs in control areas did not have any clear idea about it.Relationship between the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the UP

Concerning the relationship between the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the UP, participants of two FGDs in control areas opined that they were cooperative while the participants of three FGDs in project areas compared to four FGDs in control areas opposed that view. Participants of eleven FGDs in project areas compared to eight FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

Relationship between UP Chairmen and the Government officers at Union levelRegarding the relationship between UP Chairmen and the Government officers at Union level, participants of one FGD in control area opined that they were cooperative. On the other hand, the participants of three FGDs in project areas compared to two FGDs in control areas informed that they were badly cooperative or non-cooperative. Participants of eleven FGDs in project areas and eleven FGDs in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

6.1.3.10 Ward Shava

Intervals, Subjects and Presence in Ward ShavaParticipants of FGDs expressed their views about intervals of Ward Shava, who remained present and what subjects were discussed. Participants of twelve FGDs in project areas told that date of meeting was declared before 7 days through miking and meeting was held 2 times in a year at the convenient place within the ward which was participated by at least 5% voters including male and female. Participants of two FGDs in project areas compared to thirteen FGDs in control areas did not have any clear idea about it.

Whether the Budget, Work Plan and Audit Reports Discussed in Ward ShavaPertaining to a query on whether Budget, Work plan and Audit Reports were discussed in Ward Shava, participants of ten FGDs in project areas and one FGD in control areas informed that budget, work plan and audit reports were discussed in Ward Shava. On the other hand, the participants of four FGDs in project areas compared to thirteen FGDs in control areas told that budget, work plan and audit reports were not discussed in Ward Shava.

Presence of Women and Marginalized Group of People and Chance of Their Equal Par-ticipation in Ward ShavaRegarding the presence of women and marginalized group of people and getting equal chance to talk in Ward Shava, participants of fourteen FGDs in project areas and three FGDs in control areas informed that all participants had equal chance to talk and marginalized group of people and women remained present. Participants of eleven FGDs in in control areas told that they had no clear idea about it.

were moderately satisfied on activities of Upazila parishad. Participants of two FGDs in control areas did not make any comments in this regard. Taking steps in resolving the complains against Parishad in any respectRegarding taking steps in resolving the complaints, all fourteen participants of FGDs in project areas and all fourteen participants of FGDs in control areas opined that the Parishad took steps in resolving the complains in any respect.

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e 103

6.2 Key Informants Interview (KII)Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) are qualitative in-depth interviews of persons who have first-hand knowledge about the projects under study and can provide insights on the nature of problems and suggest solutions. Respondents of KIIs include various key personnel from various levels of administrative areas and units of LGIs that have concerns with UZGP and UPGP. The personnel, covered under this segment, are UP Chairman, UZP Chairman, UNO, Upazila Engineer, Upazila Women and Children Welfare Officer, DF, DLG and DDLG. Face-to-Face Interview technique has been used to conduct key informant interviews. To guide the discussion a questionnaire with open-ended questions have been designed and used. All together 118 KIIs have been conducted in 28 Upazilas of which 14 Upazilas are in project areas and 14 Upazilas are in control areas.

6.2.1.2 Disclosure of Citizen’s CharterPertaining to disclosure of citizen charter within the working jurisdiction of all UZPs and UPs, three-fourths of respondents of project areas compared to two-thirds respondents in control areas replied affirmatively. Some respondents of both areas and particularly in control areas told that Citizen’s Charter was published partially and not fully. Few respondents, however, gave negative answer and few others told that they either did not know or it was not applicable to them.

About the content of the citizen charter, three-fourths of the survey respondents of project areas compared to two-thirds of the respondents in control areas told that it contained all information needed for the citizens. Some respondents of both areas told that Citizen’s Charter contained information partially and not fully. Few respondents,

With regard to the obstacles for making existing laws and rules operational, one-third of the respondents of both project areas and control areas told that there were no obstacles and another one-third of the respondents of both project areas and control areas told there were obstacles from administration and higher authority with a view to protecting their self-interest. Some respondents of both the areas and particularly in project areas expressed that lack of clear conception, lack of trained manpower, lack of initiative to take decisions and lack of necessary imple-mentation were the obstacles for making existing laws and rules operational. Some respondents of both areas and project areas in particular, told that there were obstacles such as lack of experience, shortage of knowledge and skill, inadequate education and training, etc. to make the laws and rules operational in the offices.

The findings on ‘how existing laws, rules, etc. could be made fully operational’ reveal that about half of respondents of both project areas and control areas emphasized on the need for building awareness among the officials and making them accountable. About one-third of the respondents of both areas and particularly in control areas told that it needed proper guidelines from Ministries and Departments. Some respondents of both areas and particularly in project areas told that increase of rate of education, skilled manpower and monitoring might change the view. Some participants of both areas and particularly of project areas told that reduction of corruptions, self-interest and personal interest of officials might help in making existing rules, laws etc. operational.

6.2.1.1 Whether laws and rules were in operationDuring the study on whether activities of Upazila and Union offices (including various line departments) were oper-ating as per laws, rules etc., most of the respondents of both project areas and control areas opined that those offices were operating as per existing laws and rules. Some respondents of both project areas and control areas told that those offices were operating by laws and rules partially and not fully. Some respondents of both project areas and control areas also told that those offices were not operating as per laws and rules. Few respondents in control areas mentioned that public representatives did not follow the rules and regulations properly. Few respond-ents in project areas, however, mentioned that there were administrative and bureaucratic complications for use of laws and rules. Few respondents in control areas also told that they did not know about this.

6.2.1 Knowledge and Awareness of Citizens

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e104

however, gave negative answer and few others told that they either did not know or it was not applicable to them.

During the research on sharing necessary information with the citizens, half of the respondents in project areas and one-third of the respondents in control areas informed that the use of Bill board, Sign board, Notice board and Festoons had been increased. Some respondents of both areas and control areas in particular opined that neces-sary action had been taken based on reward and punishment through supervision and monitoring by UNO and Chairman.

About assigning ‘Designated Officer’ by UZP to deal with RTI, two-thirds of the respondents in project areas and half of the respondents in control areas responded positively while a number of respondents replied in the negative and some others told that they did not know. The respondents who gave negative answers had cited the reason for non-assignment of designated officer due to insufficient budget.

Respondents gave the reasons for the Standing Committees not playing active role. The respondents who did not answer were about one third in project areas and even more in control areas. The reasons noted by respondents of project areas were (a) lack of skill and training, (b) lack of awareness about responsibilities, (c) holding irregular meetings, (d) insufficient budget, (e) lack of willingness of public representatives to do duties and (f) lack of supervi-sion of Ministries. These reasons were also given by respondents of control areas but the number of respondents was less in control areas compared to that of project areas. Major reasons that were given by respondents of control areas were inadequate budget, lack of awareness about responsibilities and irregular meetings.

Concerning the Standing Committees, only half of the respondents of project areas told that they were holding regu-lar meetings while less than half of the respondents of control areas told that they were holding regular meetings. Slightly less than half of the respondents of both project areas and control areas could not give reasons of not holding regular meetings.

Some respondents of both areas told that the reasons for not holding regular meetings were lack of knowledge and training of officials, non-cooperation among the officials and public representatives, lack of adequate budget, lack of accountability and UNO, Secretary and members of committees were busy otherwise etc.

To a query whether decisions of standing committees had not been implemented and if not implemented then why, most of the respondents of both areas told that the decisions were either not implemented or implemented partially because of negligence of public representatives. About three-fourths of respondents of both areas mentioned that there was no significant role of the Standing Committees in taking and implementing decisions or overseeing the affairs of UZP and UP. Respondents provided several suggestions to make Standing Committees more effective. These were (i) adequate training, (ii) building awareness, (iii) increasing cooperation among officials and public representatives, (iv) increasing budget and manpower, (v) ensuring presence of Chairman and UNO in the meet-ings and (vi) ascertaining provisions of reward and punishment.

6.2.2.2 Departmental Committees

The study on whether every department had departmental committees other than standing committee to take and implement decisions, shows that three-fourths of the respondents of project areas and two-thirds of the respond-ents of control areas had positive views while some of the respondents of both areas opposed this view.

6. Qualitative Survey Findings

6.2.2.1 Standing CommitteesWith regard to queries on whether Standing Committees had been formed in all UZPs and UPs and whether partici-pation of women was ensured in the Standing Committees, almost all the respondents replied affirmatively. To another query whether all of the Standing Committees which had been formed were playing active role in carrying out departmental programs, two-thirds of the respondents of both project areas and control areas told affirmatively. Some respondents, however, opined that they were playing their active roles partially or negatively.

6.2.2 Committees

P a g e 105

Respondents of both areas told that UNO, Parishad Chairman and Vice-chairman, and departmental heads chaired those meetings. Half of the respondents of both areas agreed with the opinion that the decisions taken by own departmental committees got more priority than those of standing committee and some expressed negative views while some told that they got equal priority.

Pertaining to a query on if the conflicts between Departmental Committees and Standing Committees would under-mine the work environment of UZP and UP and how it could be overcome, two-thirds of the respondents of project areas and half of the respondents of control areas opined that it would undermine the work environment of UZP and UP and could be resolved through dialogue and cooperation. Similarly, regarding the conflicts between UNO and UZC, the respondents stated that it could undermine the work performance and could be overcome through dialogue, cooperation, awareness building and Chairman taking keen interest. Three-fourths of respondents of both areas asserted that transferred departments were not effective and everything of transferred departments was carried out as it was in the past and this could be overcome by increasing cooperation, trained manpower and willingness of transferred departments.

Less than half of the respondents of both areas expressed that there was lack of cooperation between officials of UZP and UP and those of transferred departments and the line departments and transferred departments worked solely as instructed by their parent ministries. Some of the respondents agreed to the view that conflict between officers of line departments and UZC had been created for getting undue privileges. To a query whether any circular from the Cabinet Division could improve the effectiveness of transferred departments at the local level, most of the respondents responded positively.

6.2.3.1 Planning (Annual and Five year Plans)A study on whether all UZPs and UPs had its Annual Plan and Five year Plan, three-fourths of respondents of project areas and half of respondents of control areas informed that they had Annual Plan and Five year Plan. Some respondents of both project areas and control areas were of the opinion that Annual Plan was made available but Five Year Plan was not.

In response to a query on whether all Annual Plan and Five year Plan had reflected provisions of MDGs, again three-fourths of respondents of project areas and half of respondents of control areas opined that they had and the rest told they did not have. The reasons of not reflecting MDGs in Annual Plan and Five Year Plan were insufficient budget, lack of knowledge to reflect them and ignorance about MDGs.

The findings on whether all Annual Plan and Five year Plan reflected provisions for women, poor, disadvantaged and marginalized groups of people, reveal that more than three-fourths of respondents of both areas had positive views. To another query whether elected representatives of UZP and UP were effectively participating in formula-tion, implementation and reviewing of Annual Plan and Five year Plan, more than three-fourths of respondents of both areas told affirmatively. To another query whether elected members of the various committees of UZP and UP were effectively participating in formulation, implementation and reviewing of Annual Plan and Five year Plan, again more than three-fourths of respondents of both areas told they did.

Regarding the guidelines for preparation of Annual Plan and Five year Plan, more than three-fourth of respondents of both areas informed that they had such guidelines. To another query whether UZP and UP had available resources and power to exercise the activities successfully, some respondents told that they had and some told that they had but they could not use it. Half of respondents of project areas and one-third of respondents of control areas opined that there were resource shortages.

Among the survey respondents, more than half of the respondents of both areas had the opinion that central government continued to exercise control over local governments and starved those agencies of resources. Some

6.2.3 Budget, Planning and Programs

6. Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e106

respondents of both areas told that they did that partially and some told they did not do that. More than half of the respondents of both areas told that sufficient trained personnel for preparing development plans were not there and some expressed their views that the manpower was there but they needed training.

6.2.3.2 Schemes/projects

Pertaining to the process of preparation of development schemes/projects, two-thirds of the respondents of both areas told that the process was according to the best practices and some informed that the best practices were followed partially. Some respondents of both areas told that it was not according to the best practices.

Most of the respondents of both areas told that there were guidelines for preparation of development schemes/projects and guidelines were properly followed. Some respondents of both areas, however, mentioned that there were no guidelines. Two-thirds of the respondents of project areas and three-fourths of the respondents of control areas told that elected representatives, officials and members of various committees participated effec-tively in the preparation of development schemes/projects. Some respondents of both areas told that they partici-pated casually and not regularly. Three-fourths of the respondents of project areas and two-thirds of the respond-ents of control areas told that the information of schemes/project were available, schemes were developed on the basis of people’s need and the schemes addressed the poor women and disadvantaged community.

A study on effectiveness of the schemes reveals that three-fourths of the respondents of both areas had positive views. They told that UZP and UP PIO, UPZ Engineer selected the schemes/ projects on the basis of local demand, need of marginalized community/poor women and priorities concerning development of socio-economic sectors such as education, health, agriculture etc. Half of the respondents of project areas and one-fourth of the respond-ents of control areas told that schemes/projects were developed and financed by the Block Grants of UZGP and UPGP and there was positive impact on socio-economic condition through development of trade, communication, health, food, services, sanitation, training etc. that got sufficient attention.

6.2.3.3 BudgetAll respondents of both areas asserted that all UZPs and UPs had its own budget. Slightly less than half of the respondents of both areas told that UPZ and UP prepared their budgets and they were participatory. Some respond-ents of both areas told that they did not know about that. Most of the respondents of project areas and three-fourths of the respondents of control areas expressed that budget preparation shava of UPZ and UP open budget meetings were held. Three-fourths of the respondents of both areas informed that UZP and UP budgets were disclosed and they were disclosed through open budget meeting, miking, bill board, web site, notice board, government gazette, local publicity, etc.

In response to a query on how effectively transparency and accountability in planning and budgeting have been improved through social mobilization, public score cards, complaint books, open budget meetings, and ward-level bottom-up planning and budgeting, respondents of both areas expressed different opinions . Most of them told that the process of planning and budgeting could be improved through active participation, organizing open budget meetings, considering sectoral demand and ensuring proper monitoring and auditing.

A study on whether the provision of conducting two mandatory public assemblies in a year in each ward had been implemented properly reveals that three-fourths of the respondents of project areas and half of the respondents of control areas had positive views. Some respondents of both areas told they were partially implemented. However, some respondents of both areas told that they did not know about that.

6.2.3.4 Taxes, fees, charges etc.Regarding the need for further decentralization of fiscal power to the UZP and UP, most of the respondents of project areas and about three-fourths of the respondents of control areas responded affirmatively. Some respond-ents of both areas told that they did not know about that.

In response to a query on whether own sources of revenue of UZP and UP in the form of taxation, fees, charges etc. could be increased and if so then how, most of the respondents of both areas told affirmatively that own sources

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e 107

A study on whether all UZPs and UPs had published Citizen Charter within their premises to let people know about the services it provided, reveals that more than three-fourths of the respondents of project areas had positive views while some respondents of project areas had the opposite view. However, a number of respondents asserted that it was done partially. As compared to that half of the respondents of control areas told affirmatively and some respondents responded negatively while some other respondents informed that it was done partially.

With regard to any instances of corruptions in the form of misinformation, money, time (delay) and harassment with respect to the delivery of services, half of the respondents of project areas and three-fourths of the respondents of control areas answered either negatively or told that they did not know. About one-third of the respondents of project areas responded positively. To another query half of the respondents of both areas told that corruption in the government system inhibits the spread of information and transparency regarding what services were available to citizens as it might be risky to share that. Others told that they did not know about it or replied negatively.

Three-fourths of the respondents of both areas asserted that lack of sufficient funding to UZPs and UPs were limiting the ability to expand current service delivery and implement new projects to meet their citizens’ demands. The rest of the respondents either replied negatively or informed that they did not know. To another query about half of the respondents of both areas told that the service recipients were satisfied with the services of the departments and one-third of the respondents of both areas told that they were partially satisfied. The rest of the respondents replied either negatively or informed that they did not know.

Question was asked whether the departments had complaints books/box. Half of the respondents of project areas and about one-third the respondents of control areas told affirmatively and about one-third of the respondents of both areas replied negatively. The rest of the respondents either informed that they did not know or told that it was not applicable for them. To a query on how fast the complaints were attended, the respondents of both areas either told they did not know or told that it required 3-7 days to meet the complaint.

Most of the respondents of both project areas and control areas told that they agreed with the view that major concerns of service delivery UZPs and UPs was lack of transparency. Some respondents of both areas agreed with the view of excessive bureaucracy and some with low capacity. Some respondents of project areas mentioned limited authority. Some respondents of control areas told about political interference and weak financial resources.

Regarding the effectiveness of UPs and UZPs performance to maintain law and order situation in the locality, half of the respondents of both areas had positive views while the other half opposed it.

of revenues of UZP and UP were to be increased through measures such as encouraging public to pay more taxes, payment of taxes regularly, introducing tax fairs, finding out new sources of taxes, etc.

6.2.4.1 Service DeliveryAlmost all the respondents of project areas told that there was improvement of local governance and local service delivery system due to implementation of Union Parishad Governance Project and Upazila Governance Project in the selected (piloted) areas and those projects had given the chance for their replication in other areas. About half of the respondents of control areas asserted that there was an improvement and the projects might be replicated elsewhere. One-fourth of the respondents of control areas, however, told that they did not know about that.

In response to a query on whether there was any noticeable enhancement in the basic service delivery capacities of UZPs and UPs after the implementation of Union Parishad Governance project and Upazila Governance Project in the selected (piloted) areas, two-thirds of the respondents of project areas and one-third of the respondents of control areas replied affirmatively. One-fifth of the respondents of project areas told that there was partial enhance-ment of basic service delivery capacities and about half of the respondents of control areas replied that they did not know about it.

6.2.4 Services of UZP and UP

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e108

6.2.5.2 By Laws/Rules etc.

Pertaining to the need for further by-laws, rules, notifications, circulars, guidelines etc. for strengthening the partici-patory governance in planning, budgeting and service delivery of UZP and UP, two-thirds of the respondents of project areas and three-fourths of the respondents of control areas replied affirmatively. Some respondents of both areas replied either negatively or told that they did not know.

6.2.5.1 Training/ResearchWith regard to scope for further training in the area of development of LGIs, almost all the respondents of both areas responded affirmatively. They also mentioned some specific topics such as rules and regulation, RTI, office man-agement, project preparation, project implementation monitoring, budgeting and taxation, skill training on different types of occupations e.g. cottage industry, health, education, mother and child care etc. Almost all the respondents of project areas and most of the respondents of control areas told that there was scope for further research in the area of development of LGIs. However, some respondents of control areas told that they did not know about it.

6.2.5 Strengthening

6.2.6.1 Association of UP Chairmen and Association of UZP ChairmenIn response to a query on whether the Association of Union Parishad Chairmen and the Association of Upazila Chairmen provided support to the chairpersons of union parishads and upazila parishads regarding the rights and privileges associated with their positions and how far it was effective to improve the condition of the chairmen to carry out their due responsibilities, one-third of the respondents of both areas informed that they did support and it was effective. Some of the respondents of both areas told that they did not know about it.

6.2.6.2 Women Development Forum (WDF)Regarding the effectiveness and impact of Women Development Forum (WDF), three-fourths of the respondents of project areas and half of the respondents of control areas had positive views. According to them it had positive effects and impacts in the form of (i) building awareness against child marriage, dowry and violence on women, (ii) promoting female empowerment, female participation in meeting/procession/rally/ training and (iii) ensuring occu-pational training on mother health care, education, agriculture, livestock, socio-economic development etc. and (iv) arranging maternity and old age allowances.

With regard to WDF, respondents of both areas gave suggestions such as (i) build awareness, (ii) undertake women development program, (iii) ensure female financial empowerment, (iv) increase involvement of women in all committees, (v) enhance women education, (vi) give priorities on mobilization of women etc.

6.2.6.3 Resource CornerPertaining to the effectiveness and impacts of the Resource Corners established at districts level, more than half of the respondents of project areas and about one-fifth of the respondent of control areas expressed that these were effective as well as had a number of positive impacts. The rest of the respondents of both areas either responded negatively or informed that they did not know about it. The respondents told that Government officers, semi-government officers, lawyers and citizens were benefited from Resource Corners. The respondents gave sugges-tions about Resource Corner such as (i) Resource Corners had to be established in each UZP and UP, (ii) Resource Corners were to be modernized and expanded and (iii) manpower of Resource Corner was to be increased and skill development trainings were to be given to them.

6.2.6 Miscellaneous

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e 109

6.2.6.4 Impact of UZGP and UPGP

During the study on the impact of UZGP and UPGP regarding strengthening of UP and UZP, functions of UZGP and UPGP, and socio-economic condition of the locality, most of the respondents of both areas opined that they had facilitated preparation and implementation of budget, increased budget amount, enhanced public participation, increased transparency and accountability, strengthened administrative and financial management and initiated the tasks of publication and circulation of documents.

6.2.6.5 Suggestions for Strengthening

The respondents of both the areas proposed a good number of suggestions for strengthening UZPs and UPs in carrying out its due responsibilities to prepare plans and budgets as well as deliver services to the citizens. The suggestions are mentioned below in a nutshell:

1. Ensuring transparency and accountability,

2. Managing different types of training for socio-economic development,

3. Building capacity of public representatives and departmental officers,

4. Making Parishads free from political influence,

5. Simplifying of service delivery,

6. Increasing honorarium of public representatives,

7. Increasing budget allocation

8. Providing required orientation trainings,

9. Increasing budget for infra-structure development,

10. Increasing public participation in the meetings,

11. All the department’s officers and staff should be placed under parishads (UZP and UP),

12. Responsibility of project implementation and monitoring should be vested to the Parishads.

13. Public representatives should have minimum level of educational qualification,

14. Members of standing committee and others should have more effective roles,

15. Public representatives should be sincere and committed towards their responsibilities and duties.

Qualitative Survey Findings

P a g e110

77

C a s e S t u d yBillboard - UZPBillboard - UZP

To understand the problems and positive changes that occurred during the year 2013 with respect to budgeting, spending and prioritization of development activities/projects, total eight case studies have been considered. The synopses of the stories are given below:

Sulla upazila is a remote and interior area under Sunamgonj district. Being a hard-to-reach area, the service holders consider it as a punishment posting area. Once upon a time, if someone was posted or transferred to Sulla, he would have been told the hearsay that “If posting is in Sulla, all depends on Allah”. Communication is extremely difficult not only with the district headquarter but also internally with the nearby unions and villages. In rainy season boat/engine boats are only transport for the people and in winter season there is no way except walking on the borderline of the paddy fields. Village people go to upazila headquarter once in a week for buying their family needs. Level of education and socio-economic condition is low. People always keep distance with the local administrative persons. They were not conscious about their rights and duties.

The Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) and Upazila Governance Project (UPZP) are being implemented by the UNDP Bangladesh within the timeframe from 2011 to 2016. The key objective of both the projects is to strengthen technical capacity of local government

Local government officials and public representatives are jointly committed to make the project agenda success and proceed on. The Upazila Chairman, Mr. Oboni Mohon Das said on previous days that earlier Upazila parishad was in statue shape, now it is active and capable of performing its functions properly. We try to enhance people’s participation in all activities and ensure transparency and accountability. We have formed 17 Standing Committees during 2013 with close cooperation of Mr. Mohiuddin, Upazlia Nirbahi Officer (UNO). Detailed information about Standing Committees, collected from the official records, is given in the table below:

division for effective policy review, monitoring, lesson learning and capacity development of LGIs for improving local governance. Fourteen Upazilas have been selected spread over all the seven divisions of the country. Sulla is one of them under Sylhet division.

Previously Upazila parishad was in statue shape, now it is active and capable of perform-ing its functions properly. People’s participation

is increased in all activities and ensurestransparency and accountability.

7.1 Success in Activating Standing Committees at Sulla

7. Case Study

P a g e 113

The story of activating Standing Committees does not end here. There are four Union Parishads under Sulla Upazila. In three unions 13 Standing Committees have been formed. In another one there are 14 Standing Commit-tees including Disable Welfare Committee. All committees are formed with participation of men and women. Meet-ings are being held in every two months regularly based on the set agenda. Every participant has equal chance to talk in the meeting. Issues related to welfare of women and disadvantaged people are included in the discussions. It depicts a tremendous success of activating Standing Committees of Sulla under the guidance of UZPGP and UPGP.

Table 7.1: Standing Committee (Sulla UZP)Sl. Name of the

committees Date of

formation No.

Meeting held in 2013

No. of decisions

taken

No. of decisions

implemented

Gender of Chairperso

ns M-1F-2

No. of committe

e members

No. of female

member in the

committee 01 Law and peace 11.12.13 12 12 12 1 31 6 02 Communication and

infrastructure development

11.12.13 12 37 36 1 20 4

03 Agriculture and irrigation 10.12.13 16 16 14 1 25 5 04 Secondary and

madrasha education 14.11.13 16 12 8 1 25 7

05 Primary and mass education

06.09.13 10 11 9 1 29 4

06 Health and family welfare 16.05.13 12 12 9 1 25 8 07 Youth and sports 12.11.13 5 4 3 1 25 5 08 Women and children

development 02.05.13 10 16 14 2 31 2

09 Social welfare 06.05.13 5 5 3 2 27 6 10 Freedom fighter 26.05.13 6 2 1 1 29 0 11 Fisheries and livestock 3004.13 7 19 18 1 30 2 12 Rural development and

cooperative 02.09.13 8 10 8 1 26 5

13 Culture 02.09.13 4 2 2 2 25 2 14 Forest and environment 06.10.13 3 6 6 2 20 4 15 Observation, monitoring

and controlling of market price

02.10.13 2 6 6 1 31 5

16 Finance, budget, planning and mobilization of local resources

06.05.13 12 16 14 1 30 8

17 Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drainage water

01.02.13 12 12 8 1 29 5

Case Study

P a g e114

Gourichanna Union Parishad is situated at the north side of Barguna sadar Upazila of Barguna district. Once upon a time the Khakdonriver divided Gourichanna Union from Barguna, Burirchar and Keorabunina Union. Now the Khakdon is a dead river and is connected by many bridges. Tempu, auto Rickshaw, rickshaw van, bicycle and other

Ramkrishnopur is a union of Ullapara Upazila of Sirajgonj District. It is 35 Kilomiters away from Ullapara. Since it is far away from Upazila headquarter, it is usual that the tide of information technology (IT) will reach it late. But actual matter is different. The existing Chairman of UP, Mr. Mohammad Abu Baker Pramanik has gone ahead. He is encouraged by inclusion of the Union in UPGP sponsored by UNDP in 2011-12. It appears to him that

down up to knee if anyone tries to walk through this. Some highly enthusiastic students go to school with extra set of dress in their bags and change it at the school while most of the students do not go to school. The cultivators are in trouble to harvest paddy and carry it to home and market.

The katcha road is mainly used by the inhabitants of ward No. 7 and 8 of Gourichanna Union. During 2013, they kept agenda in Ward Shava of both wards. The Ward Shava decided to propose a brick soling road. UP secretary attended the Ward Shava, Union Development Coordination Committee considered the matter and sent to the council meeting. UP Chairman, all members and women members gave their positive consent on it. Due to the shortage of development fund of UP, it was decided to finance from UPGP block grant.

For quality assurance, 7 members of Scheme Supervision Committee (SSC) took the responsibility. Two female members were also included.The scheme was completed on Dec 30, 2013. UP Chairman called a meeting on that road to declare it open. People including male and female gathered and expressed their happiness. On this occasion, the Head teacher of Dupoti Monosatali School made a comment, “Seasonal students of two villages are now regular students”

7.2 Seasonal Students of Dupoti Monosatoli School Became Regular Students

7.3 Ramkrishnopur Union is Regenerated with Continuous Flow of Information

vehicles are used to communicate with Barguna town and markets. Some areas are covered by electricity. But the villagers of Uttar Monosatoli and Dakshin Monosatoli are still in misery. Two pacca roads have gone through the west and east sides of the village but inhabitants of those villages have to use connecting katcha road which is the only way to reach hat, bazar, school and other places. About 250/300 students attend Dupoti Monashatoli School but in the rainy season it becomes difficult for them to attend school regularly. During this season,the soil changes into semi-liquid paste and the legs go

The beneficiaries of the katcha road are the inhabitants of ward No. 7 and 8 of Gourichanna

Union. During 2013 they kept this agenda in Ward Shava of both wards. The Ward Shava

took decision to make brick soling of this katcha road. UP secretary attended the Ward

Shava, Union Development Coordination Committee considered the matter and sent to the council meeting. UP Chairman, all mem-

bers and women members gave their positive consent on this matter.

Case Study

P a g e 115

of UP but it is their right to get services. So, the Chairman decides to publish ‘Citizen Charter` to inform the public about what services to be provided by UP, the condition of services and what time is needed for receiving the services.The ‘Citizen Charter’ istoinclude the following:

The matter comes to UP meeting as an agenda and after discussion in the meeting it is unanimously decided that ten ‘Citizen Charters’ with dimension of 5′.5″ long and 4′.5″ breadth (One in the premise of UP and 9 in public places of 9 Wards) will be displayed. Accordingly, people are informed about all activities of UP. Besides, ‘Citizen Charters’ Union Information Service Centre (UISC) has been established with a view to disclosing information to people and making information flow improved and speedy. There are provisions of 29 types of government and 29 types of non- government services in the Union. Since there is no provision of appointing Information Officer, Secretary of UP is directed to work as the Information Officer. A complain box has been set up in the office premises of UP. One elected women member of reserve seats has been given the charge of monitoring. Now, the people of this union have enough knowledge on the functions of UP.

One of the key components of UPGP is participatory planning. Survey conducted by SRS shows that annual planning of 2013-14 of Purnimargati Union parishad under Ullapara Upazila of Sirajgonj district got importance. The UP Chairman, Mr. Robiul Karim (Salim) agreed to give an interview accompanied by Mr. Toffazal Hossain Buhiayn, UP secretary as requested by SRS research team. Research Investigator (RI) requested him to tell about the system of planning and budget.

Then he wanted to be clear about planning and budgeting because planning and budget are two different issues but co-related, and asked RI which one he wants to know. RI requested him to tell about planning process of his Union.

For efficient management of Union Parishad, good and acceptable plan is highly needed. If the plan is made consid

7.4 Participatory Planning of Purnimagatti UP

general people of the Union do not know about their due services from UP and the way of delivering those services to them. They accept the deliv-ered services as kindness of UP. But they should know that this is not a matter of kindness

People did not know about the services that UP is mandated to deliver. They also did not know how to receive tha

services. They used to come to UP office and seek services in a manner as if they were asking for kindness of UP. After-setting UP of “Citizen Charter” they became well-informed

about UP’s service provision.

1. Detailed description of services2. Fees to be paid for services 3. Condition of getting services and benefits out of expected services4. Fixed time limits of providing services5. Responsibilities of citizen concerning services6. Certainty of providing services7. Resolution of complains regarding services, and8. Consequences of breaking conditions described in ‘Citizen Charter’

Case Study

P a g e116

7.5 Providing Training to School Management Committee (SMC) Add a New DimensionVarious initiatives have been taken from government and non-government level for improving education and educa-tional institutions. Expected outcome in providing training of School Management Committees (SMCs) and distribu-tion of education materials funded by the Upazila Governance Project of B.Baria Sadar Upazila add a new dimension.

society member were present at that meeting. In that meeting education and agriculture sectors were given priority. Primary and Mass Education Standing Committee was assigned to propose scheme, on education. Chairman of the Standing Committee called a meeting on this issue. Above 80% members attended the meeting and each of them had equal chance to talk. Various proposals were discussed there regarding dress, tiffin etc. Though all those proposals were logical, finally the decision was taken to train the members of School Management Committees and teachers who are responsible forgiving primary education as they thought that a well-built foundation is needed. They have to know about their roles and duties and how it would be applied. There are many primary schools in B.Baria Sadar Upazila and all of them could not be engaged at a time. Due to shortage of budget, decision was taken that 25 primary schools will be selected initially. Assistant Education Officer selected 25 schools for training considering the weak management committees within 10 unions. 10 trainees includ-ing Head Teacher were selected from each school. Thus total 250 trainees were selected including 92 female participants. They were divided into 5 batches. Each batch containing 50 trainees (5 school x 10 persons) received training, in five days course. Training included the following topics:

Considering the MDG related issues Purnimargati Union developed the Five Year Plan on Dec 20, 2013. The Five Year Plan has been coordinated with Annual Plan. The process of preparing the Annual Plan is described below:

Initially a committee was formed at ward level. The Committee collected data measuring local needs by social map-ping, direct observation and discussion. Then Ward Shava meeting was held based on the primary information of local needs. The meeting was chaired by the respective ward member. All participants had equal chance to talk about their needs. Decision was taken at ward level through open discussion, and then it was placed to Union Development Coordination Committee (UDCC). Accumulating the demands of 9 wards, UDCC made a recommen-dation and sent to the Standing Committee. Finally, it was approved in the UP meeting and copy was sent to the Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO). One copy was fixed to the UP notice board in open place. Thus it can be said that the plan was fully participatory containing transparency.

priority needs of the people, availability of fund, technical effort and other related issues then the plan will be acceptable. In Purnimargati Union annual plans are made before beginning of the financial year and implemented properly.

There is need of good and acceptable plan considering the priority needs of the people, availability of fund, technical

skills and other related issues then the plan. In Purnimargati Union annual plans are prepared before beginning of the

financial year and implemented properly.

B.Baria Sadar Upazila is under Upazila Governance Project initiated by the UNDP. On getting block grant, a coordina-tion meeting was held to select projects. Government Officer, public and representatives civil

Primary education is the foundation of total education and for making this foundation strong there is a need to train the members of School Management Committees and teachers,

who are responsible for giving primary education.

Case Study

P a g e 117

7.6 Single Crop Kanchonpur Beel Changed into Triple Crops Paddy Land

7.7 Divorced, poor Gulbahar become self-reliant through tailoring by WDF

In addition, 250 benches have been provided to 15 primary schools for 1000 students. School bag, pen, pencil, scale and water pot have been distributed among 750 poor talented students. As the students were encouraged, the attendance in school also increased significantly.

Machihata Union is situated near Sadar Dakshin Paurashava of B. Baria district.Due to the effect of idiosyncratic behavior of the Titas river, about 700 kani (33 decimal=1 kani) paddy land of Kanchonpur marsh is considered as single crop land of this union. The farmers have to depend only on rain water for harvesting. The owners of this marshy land are the inhabitants of Kanchonpur village as well as other nearby villagers and more than five hundred family’s interest are associated with this.

Full Mia, member of the union, took initiative to irrigate the marshy land under irrigation project. In dry season, the water of the Titas riveris used to produce crops. People were eager to work. But the project failed because of long katcha drains there.

(specially invited for this) attended Ward Shava. Although attendance of minimum 5% voters of the ward was the condition to fulfill quorum, people attended spontaneously more than requirement. Participation of female members was noteworthy. In the near past the one portion was completed by LGSP fund, rest of the portion will have to be completed now. The decision of Ward Shava was sent to relevant Standing Committee and it was included as a scheme. The scheme was implemented with the block grant of Upazila Governance Project. At present in dry season two kinds of paddy named IRRI 26, IRRI 28 are being produced with the help of irrigation from the Titas river. People of the locality are happy with their crops.

Gulbahar lived in a village named Balbal under Jagonnathpur Upazila of Sunamgonj district. Her father died when she was 6 years of age. She was living with her widow mother and was growing up in a miserable life. She started her study at the village primary school. After passing class III, she had to leave school. Before exceeding adoles-cence, her attracted appearance drew the attention of a Moulovi. He did not face any trouble to marry the poor girl. But unfortunately within a year her husband’s attraction started decreasing. By this time a daughter was born named Khadija. Gulbahar was neglected day by day and lastly the marriage was broken. She started a new way of life with her old mother and little child.

The people of the locality thought to make pacca drain. They decided to include in next Ward Shava agenda. The UP secretary and women members, members of other wards

Implementing the pacca drain scheme through block grant provided by the UPGP, Kanchonpur beel has been trans-formed into triple crop paddy land which was a single crop

land before.

• Duties and responsibilities of School Management Committees.• How to prepare annual budget and planning for school.• Conduct and behavior related to improve children’s mental display.• How to increase the efficiency of students.• Beneficiary selection procedures for UP-scholarship.

Case Study

P a g e118

7.8 Boat Ambulance Scheme of KeorjoreUP Remains Hanging

to reserve passenger engine boats. Even if someone has the ability to reserve, adequate engine boats are not avail-able there. Considering these, the present UP Chairman, Mr. Aftabuddin Buhiyan came up with the concept of boat ambulance. He takes initiative to prepare the scheme for a boat ambulance under Union Parishad Governance Project and the scheme has been approved. But it faces problem to implement the project. The amount of Tk. 262000/- allocated from block grants is not enough because the boat ambulance costs Tk. 400000/-. Up to time of this report Tk. 35000/- has been managed.On the other hand people are eager to know from the Chairman when the ambulance will be made available. Chair-man feels embarrassed.

She started earning her livelihood doing the household work at other people’s house. She was shocked by her husband’s negligence and decided to educate her Khadija to ensure a better life than her own life. Though she was determined, she was worried about if she could do it successfully. In the mean time she came to know that tailoring training would be given to the vulnerable women initiated by the Women Development Forum (WDF). She went to

Project and beneficiary selection was done by Upazila Women Welfare Department including WDF. They selected the beneficiaries neutrally from among the poor and vulnerable women. After receiving successful training during two months, she was given a sewing machine on April 08, 2012. As she could not afford to rent a shop at market, she started working at home and earned considerable reputation. Madam Hazera Bari became happy and she encouraged the tailors of the market to engage Gubahar to support them in tailoring job.Now Gulbahar is receiving lot of orders and also engaged two assistants to assist her. She has not forgotten her past. She learnt from the past and became self- reliant. Now her daughter is in class x and goes to school like other students wearing nice dresses. Her old mother is also getting medicine properly.

The name of the Union is Keorjore under Kishoregonj sadar Upazila of Kishoregonj district. It is situated in the north-east corner of Upazila headquarter. To provide health service for the village people, Government Union Health Complex is there but it is now not in operation. No doctor is available there. Doctors do not want to stay there as it is a hard to reach area. If any doctor is posted there, he leaves within a few days by managing posting at a

only boats/engine boats are available. In dry season some parts of the road become muddy where people have to travel on foot and also have to use engine boat or trawler to reach the Upazila Health Complex. Life becomes more challenging if there is any serious patient, delivery cases or any emergency needs for hospital services. People cannot afford

Mrs. Hazera Bari, Vice - Chair-man of WDF. Mrs. Hazera Bari selected her as trainee with confidence that Gulbahar would be able to utilize the training properly. Mainly, the training was funded by Upazila Governance

After receiving successful training for two months a sewing machine was given to Gulbahar on 08/04/2012. She started working at home and gained considerable reputation. She

learnt from the past and became self- reliant.

better place. Except Upazila Health Complex there is no other way to get health service. One has to go to Upazila Health Complex, where doctor is avail-able but reaching there is a tough job due to poor communi-cation system. In rainy season

Sometimes when the situation is abnormal, life becomes challenging so that serious patient, delivery cases or any

emergency needs for hospital services are not met hurriedly. They face limitation, because engine boat is not available for all time. Considering these, concept of boat ambulance

came out from the head of the present UP Chairman.

Case Study

P a g e 119

88

C o m p a r i s o n w i t hB a s e l i n e S t u d y

Budget Session - UZPBudget Session - UZP

8.1 Union ParishadA comparative study on some of the indicators of baseline survey and Citizen Perception Survey may help to under-stand the outcome of the activities carried out under UPGP. Comparison was mainly done on the project area of the two studies.

Transparency is one of major indicators of good governance while Citizen Charter works as an important tool of transparency. The CPS study reveals that there has been significant improvement in terms of awareness on Citizen Charter. Pertaining to the availability of Citizen Charter, the baseline survey shows that only 58% of UPs had Citizen Charter in the UP offices while according to CPS, Citizen Charter was available in more than 70% UP offices.

Remarkable improvement has also been noticed in the number of people having seen the Citizen Charter. Accord-ing to baseline study, only 40% of the respondents (HH) saw the Citizen Charter in the UP office premises while the CPS study found 75.7% respondents under this category.

8.1.1 Citizen Charter

Remarkable improvement has been observed regarding the awareness about standing committee among the people. As indicated by baseline survey, only 9% were aware of SC while as per CPS the awareness is 20.4% in 2013.

As found in baseline survey, average 3 SC meetings were headed by female member while in CPS the number of such meetings is average 4.

8.1.3 Standing Committee

As per the CPS, 13.9% of the survey respondents (HH) participated in Ward Shava in 2013 while during the base-line survey it was 8.0%. During the baseline survey, 9% of the respondents were highly satisfied on Ward Shava while 9.5% of the respond-ents were highly satisfied according to CPS. Regarding the participation in Open Budget, 52% of the respondents participated in open budget sessions as per baseline survey compared to 21.3% participation in 2013 as per CPS.

8.1.2 Ward Shava and Open Budget

Table 8.1: Status of Citizen Charter in the UPs (Project Area)

Particulars Baseline CPS Having Citizen Charter in the Project UPs (% UP) 58% 70.3% Citizen Saw Citizen Charter in the UPs’ premises (% HH) 40% 75.7%

Table 8.2: Status of Ward Shava in the UPs (Project Area)

Particulars Baseline CPS Participated in Ward Shava (% HH) 8.0% 13.9% Highly Satisfied on Ward Shava (% HH) 9.0% 9.5% Participated in Open Budget (% HH) 52% 21.3%

8. Comparison with Baseline Study

P a g e 123

In CPS, improvement has been noticed in almost all the indicators with regard to Planning and Budgeting. Pertaining to the awareness about Annual Development Plan, 13% of the respondents in the baseline survey was aware of it compared to 16.4% respondents in CPS. Among the respondents, 7% were aware about Annual Development Plan as per baseline survey while CPS found 9.9% respondents in 2013 under this category. According to CPS the number of people aware about Annual Budget has become almost double in 2013 as per CPS compared to the baseline survey. 26.9% of the respondents were found aware of Annual Budget in CPS while it was only 14% in baseline survey. According to the study, the progress regarding the availability of Annual Development Plan is also significant. While 90% of the UPs in baseline survey had their Annual Development Plan, it has reached to 100% in 2013 as per CPS. Similar improvement has been noticed pertaining to the availability of Five Year Development Plan in UPs. CPS found 92.9% UPs having their Five Year Development Plan while in baseline it was only 71% UPs.Regarding the availability of Annual Budget in UPs, Annual Budget was available in 100% UPs both in baseline survey and CPS study.

8.1.4 Planning and Budget

According to the study, the Number of schemes implemented (average) during the baseline survey was 38 while in CPS the number is 40.

8.1.5 Status of Schemes implemented

Outstanding improvement has been seen in auditing budget. While the baseline survey reflects that no budget audit was conducted in any of the UPs during the fiscal year 2011-12, the CPS study reflects that budget was audited by the Government’s appointed auditors in approximately 66% of the UPs.

8.1.6 Status of Audit

Table 8.4: Awareness on Annual Plan, Five-Year Plan and BudgetParticulars Baseline CPS Aware about Annual Development Plan (% HH) 13% 16.4% Aware about Annual Development Plan (% HH) 7% 9.9% Aware about Annual Budget (% HH) 14% 26.9% Availability of Annual Development Plan in UPs (% UP) 90% 100% Availability of Five Year Development Plan in UPs (% UP) 71% 92.9% Availability of Annual Budget in UPs (% UP) 100% 100%

Table 8.3: Awareness on Standing Committees (Project Area)

Particulars Baseline CPS Aware about standing committees 9.0% 20.4% Standing Committee headed by Female member (average) 3 4

Table 8.5: Status of Schemes implementedParticulars Baseline CPS Number of schemes implemented (average) 38 40

Table 8.6 Status of audit by the government’s appointed auditors Particulars Baseline

[audit period 2011-12] CPS [audit period 2012-13]

Audited UP’s budget by the government’s appointed auditors (% UP)

0 65.9%

Comparison with Baseline Study

P a g e124

Comparison of indicators between the Baseline Survey on Upazila governance in Bangladesh and the 2013 Citizen Perception Survey on Upazila Governance Project:

A comparative study on some of the indicators of baseline survey and Citizen Perception Survey may help to under-stand the outcome of the activities carried out under UZGP. Comparison was mainly done on the project area between two studies.

In the Institutional Checklist, 14 UZPs for project areas and 13 UZPs for pilot areas were covered.

Citizens visit UZP for many purposes. The baseline survey (2012) shows that, 59.4% of the respondents visited UZP while CPS reports that 27.1% of the respondent visited UZPs in 2013. The number of visit to UZP has decreased in 2013 compared to 2012. The reason behind this may be upcoming UZP election or may be people do not need to visit the UZP office many times for single services which used to happen earlier.

Remarkable improvement has been seen in people’s knowledge on the functions of UZPs. While only 33.2% of the respondents in baseline survey had knowledge on the functions of UZPs, the figure increased to 77.5% in CPS.

The study shows that 64.2% UZPs had appointed ‘Designated Officer’ for providing information to the citizen in the baseline survey while the figure is 71% in CPS which indicates 7% increase.

As per CPS study, the initiative on making citizen charter available at the UZPs has shown outstanding improve-ment. 100% of the project UZPs, had Citizen Charter while baseline survey shows that Citizen Charter was found at only 85.7% UZPs. The baseline study shows that only 5.05% of the respondents (HH) had seen Citizen Charter in the UZPs premises while in CPS it is 30.8% which is 25% higher than that of baseline survey.

8.2.1 Awareness on the functions of UZPs

8.2.2 Citizen Charter

Remarkable achievement has been observed in CPS in terms of citizen’s satisfaction. While in baseline survey only 23% advocated for ‘very satisfied’ and ‘satisfied’ on performance of UPs, in CPS it reached to 67.6% which is almost 3 times of baseline indicator. The number of people having negative views on UPs performance has decreased notably. While in baseline survey, 16% of the respondents were not satisfied, the figure is only 7.3% in CPS survey.

8.1.7 Citizen’s Satisfaction on overall performance of UPs

Table 8.7: Citizen’s satisfaction on overall performance of UPs

Particulars Baseline CPS Very Satisfied and Satisfied 23% 67.6% Moderate 61% 25.1% Not Satisfied 16% 7.3%

Table 8.8: Awareness on the functions of UZPsParticulars Baseline CPS Visited UZP during last one year (%HH) 59.4% 27.1% Knowledge of the functions of UZPs (% HH) 33.2% 77.5% Appointed ‘Designated Officer’ for providing information to the citizen (% UZP)

64.2% 71%

Comparison with Baseline Study

8.2 Upazila Parishad

P a g e 125

Regarding organizing Monthly meeting, 100% of UZPs were found compliant in both baseline study and CPS study which means monthly meetings were held regularly in all the UZPs.

Regarding meeting invitation, CPS shows that meetings were invited by Chair in 71.0% of UZPs in 2013 compared to 57.1% UZPs in baseline study.

The baseline survey reported that respective MP regularly attended the UZP Meeting in 9.09% UZPs while CPS reflects that no MP attended the meeting regularly.

8.2.3 UZP’s monthly meeting

The project UZPs has shown remarkable improvement in terms of formation of committees. In baseline survey, only 35% UZPs were found to have all the committees while CPS survey shows that 85.7% UZPs formed all the commit-tees in 2013.

CPS reveals that, significant progress has been made in almost all the indicators related to Planning and Budgeting.

Pertaining to the awareness about Annual Development Plan, the respondents having awareness on Annual Devel-opment Plan was 10.1% according to the baseline survey whereas CPS found 19.6% respondents in this category.

Among the respondents of baseline survey, only 2.3% were aware about Five Year Development Plan while CPS found 10.8% respondents in 2013 under this category.

According to the study, the improvement regarding the availability of Annual Development Plan is highly significant. While only 42.8% of the UZPs in baseline survey had their Annual Development Plan, it reached to 100% in CPS which shows 58% increase.

Outstanding improvement has been noticed pertaining to the availability of Five Year Development Plan in UZPs. While baseline survey found no UZPs having their Five Year Development Plan, as per CPS, the plan was available in 57.1% UZPs.

Regarding the availability of Annual Budget in UZPs, it was found available in 100% UZPs during CPS study while during baseline survey it was only 57.1%.

8.2.4 UZP’s Committees

8.2.5 Planning and Budget

Table 8.9: Status of Citizen Charter in the UZPs (Project Area)Particulars Baseline CPS Having Citizen Charter in the Project UZPs (% UZP) 85.7% 100% Citizen Saw Citizen Charter in the UZPs’ premises (% HH) 5.05% 30.8%

Table 8.10: Status of monthly meetingParticulars Baseline CPS Meeting held regularly (% UZP) 100% 100% Meeting invited by Chair (% UZP) 57.1% 71.0% MP regularly attended in the UZP Meeting (% UZP) 9.09% 0%

Table 8.11: Status of UZP’s committeesParticulars Baseline CPS All committees formed (% UZP) 35% 85.7%

Comparison with Baseline Study

P a g e126

The baseline survey reported that only 0.9% of the respondents had knowledge about scheme selection while in CPS it has been increased to 10.6%.

8.2.6 Knowledge about scheme selection

Remarkable achievement has been observed in CPS in terms of citizen’s satisfaction. While in baseline survey, only 12.9% respondents were found satisfied on UZPs activities, in CPS it reached to 57.5% which is almost 5 times higher than that of baseline survey.

8.2.7 Citizen’s Satisfaction on the activities of UZPs

Table 8.12: Awareness on Annual Plan, Five-Year Plan and Budget

Particulars Baseline CPS Aware about Annual Development Plan (% HH) 10.1% 19.6% Aware about Five Year Development Plan (% HH) 2.3% 10.8% Availability of Annual Development Plan in UZPs (% UZP) 42.8% 100% Availability of Five Year Development Plan in UZPs (% UZP) 0% 57.1% Availability of Annual Budget in UZPs (% UZP) 57.1% 100%

Table 8.13: Knowledge about scheme selection

Particulars Baseline CPS Knowledge about scheme selection (%HH) 0.9% 10.6%

Table 8.14: Citizen’s satisfaction on UZPs Activities

Particulars Baseline CPS Satisfied 12.9% 57.5%

Comparison with Baseline Study

P a g e 127

99Conclusion and

RecommendationPlanning and Busgeting - UPPlanning and Busgeting - UP

9.1 ConclusionThe study, “Citizen Perception Survey on Services Provided by Local Government Institutions as well as Assess-ment of Results Achieved by UZGP and UPGP” has been conducted to find out how citizens perceive and value services made available by Local Government Institutions and to assess the results achieved so far by UZGP and UPGP against their respective annul work plan.The survey covers different categories of stakeholders of which households, FGD and KII have been considered as the major tools while the institutional assessment helped view the outcome from a different angle. The data, used in the survey, have been collected through HH survey with structured questionnaire, structured checklists of UP and UZP, FGD with guidelines, KII with semi-structured questionnaire and case studies. With a view to comparing the outcomes, the data have been collected both from the project areas and the control areas.

From the reported results, it appears that there was improvement in the knowledge and awareness of the citizens regarding the activities of UP and UZP particularly since the introduction of UZGP and UPGP that brought signifi-cant positive changes. Besides, the quality of meeting, planning and budget preparation has been improved. The improvements and changes are perceptible both in project areas and control areas but they are more pronounced in case of project areas as against control areas.

The knowledge and awareness of the citizens about composition of UP and UZP and their roles and responsibilities have increased significantly. More citizens are now receiving services from UP and UZP with satisfaction. There has been perceptible improvement in the dissemination of information (quantitative and qualitative) at both UP and UZP levels. Many people are now aware of their right to information. More people are receiving required information from the offices of UP and UZP. Majority of the people are now aware of the Citizen Charter as well as obtaining informa-tion from the UP and UZP and bill boards. Majority of the people are now aware of Union Information Service Centre (UISC) from where they are receiving information with satisfaction.

The perception on Ward Shava, Parishad meetings, Standing Committee meetings and other committee meetings of UP and UZP, reflected in HH survey and validated by FGDs, KII and Case Studies, has been improved. However, a significant number of the HH respondents opined that they did not know about the meetings. Despite this fact, the situation is much improved from that of baseline (2011) level. Majority of the respondents informed that they attended these meetings. Most of the respondents expressed that the participants in the meetings had equal oppor-tunity of expressing their views. In terms of satisfaction level, the survey reveals that most of respondents were satisfied or moderately satisfied. The participation in Ward Shava and other meetings is also encouraging as the number of attendees and the participation of women and marginalized people increased. Majority of the people opined that the schemes, development plan and budget are presented in Ward Shava. Regarding the frequency of meetings, it was found that 12 Parishad meetings 11 standing committee meetings were held in 2013.

There have been improvements in people’s perception regarding formulation, implementation and review of schemes/projects of UP and UZP. Four-fifths of the respondents in household survey knew about schemes/projects of UP and one-third of the respondents participated in the formulation, implementation and review of schemes/projects and half of them were benefited out of the implementation of the schemes/projects. However, the survey reflects that about 90% respondents did not know about the schemes/projects of UZP. About two-thirds of them, who knew, participated in formulation of schemes/projects and four-fifths of them opined that they got benefit out of these schemes/projects. Most of the respondents informed that the schemes/projects were selected by Chairman and members and also in participatory way. During the preparation of schemes/projects, the issues related to MDG, women and marginalized people in the community were considered. Majority of the respondents

9. Conclusion and Recommendation

P a g e 131

had the opinion that the schemes/projects were effective and moderately effective both in UP and UZP. Regarding satisfaction level of participants most of them expressed that they were either satisfied or moderately satisfied though there were a number of people who were dissatisfied even a few people were highly dissatisfied.

The awareness of respondents about Annual Plan and Five Year Plan has been found very low i.e. about one-fifth in case of Annual Plan and one-tenth in case of Five Year Plan in both UP and UZP. This situation, however, is better than that of baseline survey. The participation in meetings of Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan is also on the increasing trend. These agenda were also discussed in the Ward Shava meetings. According to the respond-ents, effective discussions were held on the issues regarding women and marginalized group of people, MDG etc.

Even though most UP and UZP prepared budget, knowledge about annual budget of UP and UZP among the respondents of household survey is low. Respondents expressed that the processes of preparing budget in UP and UZP were open budget session, based on public (influential persons) opinion, based on Chairman’s opinion, based on opinion of members and based on opinion of honorable MP in the locality. It was also found that open budget session was held during last one year. It was found that effective communication was also made to invite the participants to the budget session. Most of the concerned respondents informed that they attended budget session. The survey reveals a good number of participation in the budget sessions.

The study shows that the involvement of general citizen had increased in both UP open budget session and UZP budget session where the views of women, poor and disadvantaged/marginalized group of people had also been considered. According to the concerned respondents, there was public involvement in auditing at UP level and there was audit at UZP level which shows a positive change. The data say that the payment of taxes and other fees of UP and UZP has also increased and if services were extended, the respondents would be willing to pay more tax. Regarding the satisfaction level, majority of the respondents were found satisfied/moderately satisfied with UP tax assessment and collection process along with a highly satisfied group though a number of people were there who were still dissatisfied. Regarding the services provided by UP and UZP, most of the respondents received their desired services from the offices of UP and UZP with satisfaction or moderate satisfaction though a number of people showed their dissatisfac-tion about the services. Most of the respondents opined that they got desired services from the offices of UP and UZP. Some of them opined that they got the services easily as usual while some of them informed that they got the desired services after the timeline. Among the respondents, majority of them opined that UP village police/ village defense force and UZP (police) were active in improving the law and order situation in the locality. Most of the respondents had the opinion that law and order situation of their locality was excellent/good. Majority of respondents told that they used village court (UP) and UZP for resolution of family disputes. Majority of the respondents of UP level told that they were satisfied/moderately satisfied rather than dissatisfied and highly dissatisfied with the services provided by village courts. Most of the respondents of UZP level expressed that they were satisfied/moderately satisfied with the law and order situation at UZP level rather than dissatisfied and highly dissatisfied.

Regarding overall performance of UP and UZP, perception of respondents is moderate. Majority of respondents expressed that both UP and UZP were considerably and moderately responsive. Majority of respondents opined that both UP and UZP activities were directed to improve Socio-Economic condition of women, poor and marginal-ized people. The satisfaction level of most of the respondents in both UP level and UZP level were either satisfied or moderately satisfied while there were also dissatisfied and highly dissatisfied people. The awareness of WDF among the respondents was good and most of them were either satisfied or moderately satisfied with their activities alongside a highly satisfied group. However, there were also dissatisfied and even highly dissatisfied people among the respondents.

Conclusion and Recommendation

P a g e132

9.2. RecommendationsThe recommendations have been put forward based on the interpretation and extract of the study findings elaborated in the foregone chapters. Below are the major recommendations for necessary implementation to achieve the targeted outputs of UZGP and UPGP.

Access to information:

Information dissemination by UP and UZP is to be made more effective to provide complete information to the people both quantitatively and qualitatively and citizen charter is to be made present at the premises of all UP and UZP with more realistic information. The authorities of UP and UZP are needed to be more cooperative in disseminating information to general public.

1.

The Union Information Service Centre (UISC) needs to be strengthened to increase its coverage of providing information. To encourage general public to get basic information from UISC, concerned authority should promote their initiatives through circulation of leaflets, booklets etc. as well as organizing seminars, work-shops, fairs etc.

2.

Meetings and agenda:

Ward Shavas are represented by the voters of the Wards of UP. All Ward Shavas are to be made fully partici-patory. The discussion and decisions in Ward Shavas are not to be dominated by Chairman or members or any outsiders. All participants must have equal opportunity to express their views and decisions are to be made through vote of the participants.

3.

The area specific concerned parts of UZP activities, schemes/projects and services are to be discussed in Ward Shava. This will help in providing recommendation of Ward Shava to UZP through the Chairman of UP.

4.

Discussion regarding issues about schemes/projects, development plans and budget during formulation, implementation and review/audit stages are needed to be ensured in all Ward Shava.

5.

To ensure democratic participation of voters and public representatives, all meetings of Ward Shava, Council, Standing Committee and other Committees of UP and UZP are needed to be regularized as per rules which includes regularization of methods of invitation, time of notification, fixing of agenda, dates of meetings and so on.

6.

The representation of women and marginalized group of people is to be ensured where feasible in meetings of Ward Shava, Council, Standing Committee and other Committees of UP and UZP.

7.

Working environment:

The prevailing deteriorated working environment in certain UP and UZP due to conflict between activities of Departmental Committees and Standing Committees are needed to be resolved through cooperation and dialogue. Where necessary the resolutions of Departmental Committee meetings are to be vetted by Chair-man of the Parishad.

8.

Continuous dialogue and cooperation is necessary to resolve any conflict between UP/UZP and line/transferred departments. The line/transferred departments need to work as directed by UP/UZP in affairs/matter concerning of UP/UZP.

9.

The officials of transferred departments are needed to be fully transferred to and accommodated within the premises of UP/UZP. If needed, a notification from Cabinet Division might be issued in this respect.

10.

Conclusion and Recommendation

P a g e 133

Guidelines and regulations:

Scheme/project selection criteria are needed to be followed properly for selection and prioritizations of schemes/projects. Formal comprehensive guidelines are needed to be prepared and implemented towards this end.

13.

The existing published documents of Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan do not contain information regarding basic and socio-economic condition of the locality, activities, development schemes/project/ programmes of UP and UZP. The reporting gaps (including those in the web-site) are needed to be removed and the documents of Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan are needed to be published by all UPs and UZPs in the project area.

14.

The existing guidelines for preparing development plans/programmes (Annual and Five year) are needed to be followed properly.

15.

Necessary rules and regulations, not yet in place, are to be made in support of Union Parishad Act 2009, Upazila Parishad Act 2009 and Upazila Parishad (Revised) Act 2011 and put in action.

16.

Planning and budgeting:

Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan of all UPs and UZPs within UZGP and UPGP are needed to spell out properly including the allocation for achieving MDGs.

17.

The preparation, implementation and monitoring/reviewing of schemes/projects, Annual Development Plan and Five Year Plan are needed to be made more participatory with voters’ participation besides public repre-sentatives. With this end in view, adequate number of seminars, workshops etc. are needed to be organized to ensure participation of voters particularly at the upazila level.

18.

The budget sessions are needed to be regularized in all UPs and UZPs within the coverage of UZGP and UPGP. Budget sessions are to be organized according to the rules. All the participants are needed to be informed about budget session in time and participation of women and marginalized group of people are to be ensured and each participant must get equal chance to talk.

19.

Budget preparation process needs to be made more participatory through organizing budget sessions at UP level and UZP level and must not be decisive with the opinion of Chairman, member, outsiders/influential people and honorable MPs.

20.

The interest of women, poor and marginalized groups of people are needed to be ensured in the preparation and implementation of annual budget of all UPs and UZPs under UZGP and UPGP.

21.

Budget of both UP and UZP are needed to have provisions for adequate funding. Besides, increase of govern-ment and donor grants, it needs restructuring of its tax base and coverage and rescheduling of tax, fees etc. rates based on local needs and according to the ability and willingness of people to pay tax. This will increase efficiency in taxation system.

22.

The authorities of UP and UZP need to ensure all time easy availability of services to the citizens. With a view to achieving this, sufficient funding is needed to be made available to UP and UZP to expand current service delivery and implement new project to meet citizens’ demands.

23.

Work performance might be improved by overcoming the conflict between UZC and UNO, which prevail in some UZP, by dialogue, cooperation, awareness building and the Chairman taking keen interest.

11.

The governance/oversight of local honorable MP in local affairs is desirable to be kept within the limit as per law.

12.

Conclusion and Recommendation

P a g e134

References

The problems of lack of transparency/accountability and excessive bureaucracy that hamper efficient service delivery are needed to be overcome through proper supervision and inspection from the concerned Ministries.

Service quality:

24.

The instances of corruption in the form of misinformation, money, time (delay) and harassment with respect to delivery of services are needed to be reduced through applying the method of reward and punishment.

25.

Each department must introduce complain book/box. Hearings on major complains are to be arranged regularly by the concerned authority and action should be taken according to rules.

26.

The existing joint venture programme of UZGP and UPGP for formulation and activation of women Develop-ment Forum (WDF) at UZP level needs to be continued and ensure complete coverage within jurisdiction of UZGP and UPGP. Women empowerment is needed to be advocated by organizing seminars, workshops etc. and publishing leaflets, booklets and encouraging participation of women in various activities at UP level and UZP level.

WDF:

27.

The existing training programme on planning and budgeting, leadership/team building and management, financial management and public procurement rules, retreat training workshop, refreshers training, review workshop, report writing etc. are to be continued in more effective ways. Training programme on laws, rules and regulation including RTI needed to be organized as and when required. The training programmes are to cover public representations, voters/citizens as members of Ward Shava and official/staff of UP and UZP.

The Citizen Perception Survey provides a high level idea about the performance of selected UP and UZP but in-depth research is required to capture the Governance and democracy issues comprehensively though some of the Governance issues have been recorded in this report. According to the statement of the survey respondents, the status of governance indicators such as transparency, accountability, responsiveness is showing improvement, however, in-depth research along with follow-up research would help ensure continuous improvement and thus achieve the targets.

Training and development:

28.

Continuous monitoring of UZP and UP is needed to be done particularly from the offices of, DLG and DDLG on the basis of identified and specific indicators to ensure Governance.

Monitoring:

29.

Ahmed, N., Ahmed, T., Faizulah, Md. (2010) Working of Upazila Parishad in Bangladesh: A Study of Twelve Upazilas, UNDP

1.

Ahmed, T (2012) Decentralisation and The Local State: A Study on the Political Economy of Local Govern-ment in Bangladesh, Dhaka, Agamee Prokashani.

2.

Ahmed, T, Ahmed, S and Kabir, H (2011), Background, perceptions and performance of UZPs in Bangladesh: A Study on Chairs and Vice-chairs, UNDP, Dhaka (unpublished, available on web: tofailahmed.wordpress.com)

3.

Conclusion and Recommendation

P a g e 135

“Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey-2011” published by National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT)-Dhaka Bangladesh, Mitra and Associates-Dhaka Bangladesh, MEASURE DHS-ICF International- Calverton, Maryland USA, April 2012.

4.

Community Report: Borguna Zila, Chittagong Zila, Kishorgonj Zila, Khulna Zila, Sirajganj Zila, Rangpur Zila, Sunamganj Zila, Patuakhali Zila, Comilla Zila, Netrokona Zila, Jessore Zila, Pabna Zila, Gaibandha Zila, Hobigonj Zila, Population and Housing Census 2011- Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS).

5.

Hossain, Monzur, Sen, B. (2011) “Assessment of Performance of Union Facilitation Team (UFT) in LGSP-LIC Union Parishads” (Local govt. units), December-January, 2011-12, BIDS Study, Unpublished

6.

Karim, M. A. Upazila System in Bangladesh,(Dhaka, NILG, 1991)7.

Lessons Learned and Challenges for Improving Service Delivery of Union Parishad (UP), Local Government and Development in Bangladesh, by Dr. Salahuddin M Aminuzzaman, Professor, Department of Public Administration, University of Dhaka, January 2010).

8.

Livelihood Adaptation of Disadvantaged People of Bangladesh to Economic Volatility and Other Shocks, Final Report PR #4/08, December 2010, National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Program).

9.

Local Government (Union Parishads) Act, 2009 (in Bangla)- Bangladesh Code. Ministry of Law, Government of Bangladesh.

10.

Mozumder, A. K. and Haque, M. A. A Study of the Savar Upazila Parishad: Legal Mandate and Reality (Final Report) (Dhaka, UNDP, 2010).

11.

National Consultation on Dalit and Socially Excluded Communities: Problems and Possible Way Forward, April 20-22, 2008, WVA auditorium, Dhanmondi, Dhaka, Organised by: Bangladesh Dalit Human Rights & Nagorik Uddyog;

12.

Selim, M. and Ahmed, S. Working of Upazila System: A Case Study of umarkhali Upazila (Final Report) (Dhaka, UNDP, 2010)

13.

Sen, Binayak, Hossain, M. and Chowdhury, T.T. (2011). Impact Assessment of Supplementary Block Grants provided to Union Parishads (Local govt. units) under LGSP-LIC”, December-February, 2011-12, BIDS Study, Unpublished

14.

Terms of Reference, Baseline Study: Union Parishad Governance Project, UNDP, Dhaka, Bangladesh.15.

Upazila Five Year Plan, Pirganj Upazila Parishad16.

Upazila Five Year Plan, Sulla Upazila Parishad17.

Upazila Five Year Plan, Ulla Para Upazila Parishad18.

Upazila Parishad Manual, 2010, Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives Ministry 19.

Various Circulars, Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives Ministry20.

Conclusion and Recommendation

P a g e136

A N N E X

Household Questionnaire

CITIZEN’S PERCEPTION SURVEY ON SERVICESPROVIDED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS 2013.

Name

DivisionDistrictUpazila/ ThanaUnion/ WardVillage/ Mohalla

Experimental -1

Control - 2

Code Categoty InterviewNo.

Location

Code Date of interview SignautreName

Enumerator

Supervisor

Checking Information:

Is this Checked? Yes No .

.

.If Yes, Who Checked?

Method of Checking: Spot Check - Back Check - Through Mobile/Phone – Others (specify)

Supervisor - Head Quarter team - Project Authority - UNDP Authority- 5

5

3

3

2

2

21

1

1 ;;

ANNEX

P a g e 139

Socio - economic condition and General information of the respondent.

1.1 Name of the Respondent’s Name:………………….………..

Relation with head of household (code)

Male = 1 Female = 2

Age Occupation (code)

Education (code)

Religion (code)

Ethnic? Y-1 N-2

Father's name:…………..…

Mobile number:…………….

Codes:Relationship with H.H: Self = 01; Wife/husband = 02; Son-daughter = 03; Father/mother-04 Others = 05Educational qualification: Never attended school = 0; Passed up to class v = 01; Passed up to class ix =2SSC passed =3 HSC Passed = 4 Graduate = 5 Graduate and above = 6Occupation: Agriculture = 1; Business -2; Service- 3; Day labour/ Rickshaw/van/pushcart puller -4;Housewife-5; Student-6; Unemployed – 7 Other -8Religious code: Muslim -1 Hindu -2 Christian 3 Buddhist 4 Others 5

1.4. If yes, how was engaged?

2. Socio economic condition of the respondent:

3. Whether the HH belongs to Marginalized community?

4. .If Yes, what kind of profession?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

Ans: As a Chairman/ Member of UP/UZP-1 . Service related -2 Business related – 3 Others (Specify....) 4

Ans: Fisherman-1, poor widow-2, Day labourer 3, Carpenter 4, Cleaner 5, Cobbler 6, Barber 7, others (specify) 85. Monthly household income:Ans: Tk........................................ Code ........................... .

Code: Below Tk 5,000 = 1; Tk 5,001 - 10,000 = 2; Tk 10,001 - 20,000 = 3; Tk 20,001 - 30,000 = 4; Tk 30,001 - 50,000 = 5; Tk 50,001 and above = 6

Column:1 code : Pacca 1, Semipacca -2, Katcha -3, Jupri 4, Column:2, code : Tape 1, Tub-well 2 Pond/Ditch -3, River/ cannel - 4, others 5Column:3 code : Sanitary (water sealed) 1, Sanitary (non water sealed) 2, Non Sanitary 3, Katcha -4, Others 5Column:4 code: Gas -1, Bamboo/ Wood 2, Leaf/Bushi 3, Others 4Column:5 code: Electricity 1, Kerosone / Kupi 2, others 3

1.3. Whether you or any member of family was engaged with upazila / union parishad within last five years?

1.2 Total Number of household members (including respondent) Male Female Total

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

Category of Residence (Code)

Source of drinking water (Code) Toilet facility (Code)

Source of fueling (Code) Lighting facility (Code)

1 2 3 4 5

ANNEX

P a g e140

Section - 1Information about Union Parishad

01. Did you see citizen charter at the premises of Union Parishad?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 > Go to Q.0302. If Yes, Do you think that the information in the citizen charter are realistic?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 03. Have you knowledge about Union Information and Service Centre (UISC)?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 04. If Yes , Whether you seek any information from USIC during last one year (2013)?

Ans: (Circle only one)

05. Did you get any services from UISC during last one year ?

06. How much you are satisfied with the services you received from UISC?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2

Module - 01. Knowledge and awareness .

Module 2. Committees

B. Right to information

A. Parishad meeting

B. Ward Shava

.

.

09. Do you know about the Union Parishad council meeting?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

14. In your knowledge, was the meeting participatory (equal chance to talk ) ?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .15. Did Development Plan discussion took place in the Ward Shava?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

10. In your knowledge any council meeting was held during last one year (2013)?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 3 .

11. Do you know about the ward shava ?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

12. In your knowledge any ward shava meeting was held during last one year(2013)?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 3 .13. In your knowledge whether you/ any member of your family attended shava meeting during lastone year (2013)? Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 3 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 3 .

.

.

07. Did you see the description of scheme that are being implemented/was implemented by UPduringlast one year (2013) ?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .08.In your opinion, what sorts of willingness do the Union Parishad have to inform the people ?

Ans. Very much willing - 1 Somewhat willing - 2 Not at all willing 3 ..

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

ANNEX

P a g e 141

.

.

.

Module- 3: Schemes/Project

C. Standing committee meeting

D. Union Development Coordination Committee

E. Project Implementation Committee(PIC)

16. Was the priority of schemes discussion took place in the Ward Shava?Ans: Yes 1 No 2

19. Do you know about the standing committee?

20. In your knowledge any Standing Committee meeting was held during last one year (2013)?

21. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of Standing Committees?Ans: (Circle only one)

Ans: Yes 1 No 2

22. Do you know about the union development coordination committee (UDCC) ?Ans: Yes 1 No 2

.23.Do you know about the project implementation committee(PIC) ?

24. How much you are satisfied with the activities of project implementation committee(PIC)?Ans: (Circle only one)

Ans: Yes 1 No 2

.25. Do you have any idea of the schemes/projects undertaken by UP?Ans: Yes 1 No 2

.

26. If the answer to the above question is yes, do you have any participation in any scheme/projectrelated meeting?

28. What are the considerations taken during schemes/projects development?Ans: (Circle only one)

29. How the schemes/projects are being selected?Ans: (Circle only one)

27. Are you a beneficiary of any implemented project?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2

17. Budget of UP discussion held in the Ward Shava?

18. How much you are satisfied with the activities of shava?Ans: (Circle only one)

Ans: Yes 1 No 2

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 3 .

. Very Effective Effective Neutral Ineffective Very Ineffective 1 2 3 4 5

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know-

Overall Local Development

Development for poor and marginalized community

Satisfy the political leader

Personal benefit of influential

Others

1 2 3 4 5

Participatory way Chairman Chair & Member Influential Person Political leader Other(specify 1 2 3 4 5 6

ANNEX

P a g e142

.

.

Module – 4: Planning, Budget, Audit & TaxA. Annual Plan

B. Five Year Plan

C. Budget

30. Do you know what is MDG?Ans: Yes 1 No 2

33. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of schemes/projects?Ans: (Circle only one)

34. How do you report your satisfaction about the quality of implemented projects?Ans: (Circle only one)

35. Do you know about annual planning of UP?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 36. Has your UP an Annual Plan?

37. Do you know about five year plan?

38. Has your UP a Five Year Plan?

.39. Do you know about UP annual budget?Ans: Yes 1 No 2

40. How the UP budget is prepared?Ans: Circle on appropriate answer.

31. Do you know if any projects have been taken to achieve MDG?

32. Do you know any projects are taken to improve the socio-economic conditions of marginalized/excluded community?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know-

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know-

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know-

41. Do you know about open budget meeting?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2

42. Was any open budget session held in the last one year (2013-14)?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2

.Ans: Yes 1 No 2

43.. In your knowledge whether you/ any member of your family attended in budget meeting during lastone year (2013)?

.Ans: Yes 1 No 2 44. In your knowledge, was the meeting participatory (equal chance to talk ) ?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know-

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know-

Very Effective Effective Neither effective nor ineffective Ineffective Very Ineffective 1 2 3 4 5

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Open budget session

Based on chairman’s opinion

Based on member’s opinion

Based on influential person’s opinion

Based on honorable MP’s opinion

Other(specify

1 2 3 4 5 6

ANNEX

P a g e 143

.Ans: Yes 1 No 2

D. Audit

E. Taxes fees service charges in the budget

F. Law and order

45. How do you evaluate open budget meeting?

48. In your opinion the involvement of general people has increased in budget preparation now thanearlier period?

49. In your opinion whether the facility of women and poor class people are considered in preparing thebudget?

50. How much you are satisfied with budget preparation system? (circle appropriate answer)Ans: (Circle only one)

51. Do you know about audit of union parishad?

.Ans: Yes 1 No 2 52. Are the people made known about the annual income and expenditure of UP?

.Ans: Yes 1 No 2

55. Do think that the people are paying tax regularly than before?

.Ans: Yes 1 No 2

.Ans: Good 1 Moderate 2 . Bad 3 .

56. If services is extended by UP, will you agree to pay more tax than this?

.a. Fees Yes 1 No 2. .

b. Tools Yes 1 No 2 .

c. Others Yes 1 No 2 .

57. Did you pay any fees other than holding tax described below?

58. How far you are satisfied on union parishad tax assessment and collection Ans: (Circle only one)

59. How is the law and order situation in your union parishad?

.Ans: Good 1 Moderate 2 . Bad 3 .

60. What are the roles of village police and village defense force to improve the law and order situationin your UP?

53. Do you pay holding tax regularly?

47. How much you are satisfied on the open budget session?Ans: (Circle only one)

Ans: Increased - 1 Not increased - 2 Don’t know 3 .

Ans: Increased - 1 Not increased - 2 Don’t know 99 .

.Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Not applicable 88

54. Do you think that present tax assessment system is appropriate?

.Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Not applicable 88

Excellent Good Moderate Bad Very Bad 1 2 3 4 5

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

ANNEX

P a g e144

Module - 5: Service delivery

Module – 6: Overall UP’s Performance of UP representatives and Official

.Ans: Yes 1 No 2

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know-

61. Is the village court activating in your union parishad?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

63 During last one year you /any of your household member went to the UP office for getting anyservices?

64. If yes, did you receive the services provided by the union parishad ?

65. How satisfied you are with services provided by union parishad? Ans: (Circle only one)

67. How do you report about the overall transparency of UP functions?Ans: (Circle only one)

68.How do you report about the overall accountability of UP?Ans: (Circle only one)

69. How do you report about the overall responsiveness of UP?Ans: (Circle only one)

70. Did UP take any activities to improve the socio-economic conditions of poor women in the last year?

71. How do you report about the UP’s activities to improve the socio-economic conditions ofpoor women?Ans: (Circle only one)

72. How much you are satisfied with overall performance of UPAns: (Circle only one)

66. Is it possible to meet UP representatives and official, if necessary? Ans code: When we need, can meet easily 1 It is possible to meat sometimes 2 Difficult to meet 3 Not possible to meet 4

No comments 5

Ans: (Appropriate answer code put into the each column )

62. In your knowledge you /your family/neighbor member went to the village court for any disputeresolution?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 (card type 5.1 will be used to note the services).

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Chairman Member Women Member (Reserve Seat) UP Secretary

Very transparent Transparent Low transparent very Low transparent Not at all 1 2 3 4 5

Very accountable Accountable Low accountable Very Low accountable Not at all 1 2 3 4 5

Very Responsive Responsive Low Responsive Very Low Responsive Not at all 1 2 3 4 5

Very Good Good Average Bad Very Bad 1 2 3 4 5

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

ANNEX

P a g e 145

Section - 2Information about Upazila Parishad

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

A. Knowledge about UZP

B. Right to information (RTI)

A. Parishad meeting

B. Upazila Parishad Standing Committee

C. Project Implementation Committee(PIC)

1.2. Do you know about the activities and responsibilities of Upazila Parishad?(Note: Data collector will keep a list of UZP’s functions in card type 1.3 and will check whilerespondent responding)Ans. Yes-1 No-2

01. Did you see citizen charter at the premises of Upazila Parishad?

02. If Yes, Do you think that the information in the citizen charter is realistic?

03. Did you see bill board of UZP’s functions?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

04. Do you think that this will be helpful for transparency ?

05. In your opinion, is upazila parishad willing to give information to the people ?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .06. Do you know about the upazila parishad meeting ?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .08.Do you know about the Upazila Parishad Standing committee?

09. How much are you satisfied with the activities of standing committees?Ans: (Circle only one)

07. How much are you satisfied with the activities of upazila parishad meeting?Ans: (Circle only one)

Module - 1. Knowledge and awareness about the Upazila Parishad

Module 2. Participatory Democratic Governance

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

10.Do you know about the upazila parishad project implementation committee(PIC) ?

11. How much are you satisfied with the activities of project implementation committee(PIC)?Ans: (Circle only one)

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

ANNEX

P a g e146

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

Ans: Yes 1 No 2

A. Annual Planning

B. Five Year Plan

14 Are you a beneficiary of any implemented Upazila project?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .18. Do you know what is Millennium Development goal (MDG)?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .19. Has any projects been taken to achieve MDG goals?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

20. Do you know if any projects are taken to improve the socio-economic conditions ofmarginalized/excluded community?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .23. Do you know about annual planning of UZP?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .24. Has your UZP an Annual Plan?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .25. Do you know about Upazila Parishad five year plan?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .26. Has your Upazila a Five Year Plan?

21. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of schemes/projects?Ans: (Circle only one)

22. How do you report your satisfaction about the quality of implemented projects?Ans: (Circle only one)

15 What are the considerations taken during implementation of schemes/projects development? Ans: (Multiple ans.)

16. How the schemes/projects are being selected?Ans: (Circle only one)

17. Who evaluates the schemes/ projects implement?Ans: (Circle only one)

12 Do you have any idea of the schemes/projects undertaken by Upazila Parashed ?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

.13. If yes, whether you have any participation of implementing any project during last one year (2013)?

Module- 3: Schemes/Projects

Module – 4: Planning, Budget, Audit & Tax

Over all local Development

Development for poor and marginalized community

Satisfaction of the political leaders

Personal benefit influential

Others (Specify)-

1 2 3 4 5

Participatory way

Decisions of Chair & Member

Decision of Chair Decision of Influential Persons

Decision of Political leaders

Other(specify

1 2 3 4 5 6

Scheme Supervision committee Chairmen himself UP Chairmen UNO/Representatives Nobody Don’t Know 1 2 3 4 5 99

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Very Effective Effective Neither effective nor ineffective Ineffective Very Ineffective 1 2 3 4 5

ANNEX

P a g e 147

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .28. Was budget session held during last one year (2013)?

29. How the Upazila annual budget is prepared as per your understanding? Ans:

30. How much are you satisfied with the effectiveness of annual upazila budget session?Ans: (Circle only one)

Module - 5: Perception about service delivery

C. Budget

D. Audit

F. Law and order situation

A. Service:

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 27. Do you know about annual budget?

.

Budget Session 1 According to the public opinion 2 As per decision of chairman 3 As per decision of members 4 According to the opinion of the influential persons of the locality 5 According to the opinion of MP 6 Others (specify)……… 7

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .32. Does UZP disclose their annual income and expenditure for the citizen?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .33. Does UZP work to improve the law and order situation?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .34. How is the law and order situation now compared to past?

35. How much you are satisfied with law and order situation? (Circle appropriate answer)Ans: (Circle only one)

36. During last one year You / any of your household member went to the UZP office for getting any service?

37. How much satisfied you are with the services of upazila parishad?Ans: (Circle only one)

31. Do you know the annual income and expenditure of UZP?Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

ANNEX

P a g e148

38. What kind of coordination relationship exists between the following upazila parishad members?

Module – 6: Coordination

Module – 7: Overall UZP’s Performanceof UZP representatives and Official

39. How do you report about the overall transparency of UZP functions?Ans: (Circle only one)

Individual (representatives and Govt. Officials)

UZP Chair vs. UNO UZP Chair vs. Vice-chair UZP Vice Chairman & female UZP Chair vs. Govt. Official (transferred) UNO vs. Govt. Official (transferred) UZP Chair vs. MP MP vs. UNO UZP Chair vs. UP Chair

Very Good Good Neither good nor bad Bad Very Bad 1 2 3 4 5

40. How do you report about the overall accountability of UZP activities?Ans: (Circle only one)

Very Good Good Neither good nor bad Bad Very Bad 1 2 3 4 5

41. How do you report about the overall responsiveness of UZP activities?Ans: (Circle only one)

42. Does UP take any activity to improve the socio-economic conditions of poor, women, disadvantagedin the last one year?

43. How do you evaluate about the UZP’s activities to improve the socio-economic conditions ofMarginalized/ excluded community?Ans: (Circle only one)

46. How much you are satisfied with the services specifically targeted by Upazilas through pro-poor andMDG-responsiveness?Ans: (Circle only one)

Very Good Good Neither good nor bad Bad Very Bad 1 2 3 4 5

Very Good Good Average Bad Very Bad 1 2 3 4 5

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 3 .

44. Does UZP has any mechanism to prevent corruption of UP’s functions?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

45.. Does local MP involve himself in the functions of UZP?

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know- 99 .

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Code: Good/ Cooperative-1, Bad/Non-cooperative-2,Don’t Know-99

ANNEX

P a g e 149

Common for UP and UZP

A. Women Development Forum (WDF):

Thank you

47. How much you are satisfied with the overall performance of Upazila parishad?Ans: (Circle only one)

48. Do you know about women development forum (WDF)?

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5

Ans: Yes 1 No 2 .

ANNEX

P a g e150

Checklist on Key Informants Interview

Location

21 January 2014

CITIZEN’S PERCEPTION SURVEY ON SERVICES PROVIDED BYLOCAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS 2013.

Name CodeCategory

Project -1

Control - 2

InterviewNo.

DivisionDistrictUpazila/ ThanaUnion/ Ward

Village/Mohalla

Name Code Date of interview Signature

EnumeratorSupervisor

Checking Information:

Is this Checked? Yes -1 No -2

If Yes, Who Checked? Supervisor - 1 Head Quarter team - 2 Project Authority - 3 UNDP Authority- 4

Method of Checking: Spot Check – 1; Back Check - 2; Through Mobile/Phone – 3, Others – 4 (specify)

ANNEX

P a g e 151

Educational qualification: Never attended school = 0; Passed up to class v = 01; Passed up to class x =2 SSC passed =3 HSC Passed = 4 Graduate = 5 Graduate and above = 6

Key Informants Interview Indicators (KII)

A: Knowledge and Awareness of Citizens

DraftRespondent Pro�le:

1.1 Respondent's Name Designation Male = 01Female = 02

Age Occupation(code)

Education(code)

AnnualIncome of HH:

Address:Mobile number:

Codes:

Monthly Income code : Below 5000 Tk : 01, 5000Tk - 10000Tk : 02, 10001Tk-20000Tk :03 20001Tk-30000Tk :04, 30001Tk-500000Tk :05, 50000Tk and above,

Occupation: Agriculture = 1; Business -2; Service- 3; Day labour/ Rickshaw/van/pushcart puller -4; Housewife-5; Student-6; Unemployed – 6 Other -7

Citizens Perception Survey on Services Provided by Local Government Institutions as well as Assessment of Results Achieved by Governance Project UZGP and UPGP (UNDP)

1. Whether, in your practical experience, activities of Upazila and Union offices (including various line departments) are operating as per laws, rules etc.?Comments :2 . What are the obstacles for making existing laws, rules, etc. operational?Comments :

3. How existing laws, rules, etc. can be made fully operational?Comments :4. Whether, in your knowledge, all UZPs and UPs within your working jurisdiction have published citizen charter?Comments :5. Does the citizen charter contain all information needed for the citizens?Comments :6. What measures have been taken to enforce placement of citizen charter in all UZP and UP that contain all neces-sary information?Comments :7. Does the UZP assign ‘Designated Officer’? If not, why?Comments :

ANNEX

P a g e152

B: Committees

B.2 Departmental Committees

B.1 Standing Committees

15 • What are the reasons for the standing committees not holding regular meetings activating?Comments :16 • Whether decisions of standing committees have not been implemented and, if not, then why?Comments :17 • Do you think that there is no significant role of the standing committees in taking and implementing decisions or overseeing the affairs of UZP and UP?Comments :18 • How the standing committees could be made more effective?Comments :18 • How the standing committees could be made more effective?Comments :

19 • Whether every department has departmental committee other than standing committee in order to take and implement decisions?Comments :20 • Who chairs the departmental committees?Comments :21 • Do you agree with the opinion that the decisions taken by own departmental committee get more priority rather those of standing committee?Comments :22 • Do you think the conflicts between departmental committee and standing committee will undermine the work environment of UZP and UP? How it could be overcome?Comments :23 • Do you think the conflict between UNO and UZC can undermine the work performance? How it could be over-come?Comments :

8 • Whether Standing Committees have been formed of all UZP and UP?Comments :9 • What are the reasons for not forming the standing committees?Comments :10 • Whether participation of women is ensured in the standing committees?Comments :11 • Whether all of the Standing Committees which have been formed are playing active role in carrying out depart-mental programs?Comments :

12 • What are the reasons for the standing committees not playing active role?Comments :

13 • Whether the Standing Committees which have been formed held regular meetings?Comments

14 • If the Standing Committees which have been formed have not held regular meetings, then what is rate (%) of defaulters? Comments :

ANNEX

P a g e 153

B.3 Transferred Departments

24 • Are the transferred departments not effective and everything of transferred departments is carried out as was in the past?Comments :

32 • Do you think the elected members of the various committees of UZP and UP are effectively participating in formulation, implementation and reviewing of Annual Plan and Five year Plan?Comments :33 • Whether there are guidelines for preparation of Annual Plan and Five year Plan?Comments :

34 • Do you think that UZP and UP often do not have de facto authority or the resources available to successfully meet the needs of its localities?Comments :35 • Do you think that UZP and UP have available resources & authority to exercise the activities successfully Comments :36 • Do you think that the central government continues to exercise control over local governments and starve these agencies of resources?Comments :

37 • Whether there is sufficient trained personal engaged in preparing development plans?Comments :37 • Whether there is sufficient trained personal engaged in preparing development plans?Comments :

25 • Do you think there is lack of cooperation between officials of UZP and UP and those of transferred departments and the line departments work solely as instructed by their parent ministries?Comments :26 • Do you think conflict between officers of line department and UZC have been created for getting undue privilege?Comments :27 • Do you think that any circular from the Cabinet Division could improve the effectiveness of transferred depart-ments at the local level?Comments :

C: Budget, Planning and Programs

C.1 Planning (Annual and Five year Plans)28 • Whether all UZP and UP have its Annual Plan and Five year Plan? If not, what is the percentages of UZP and UP that have no Annual Plan and Five Year Plan with reasons of not having one?Comments :

29 • Whether all Annual Plan and Five year Plan have reflected provisions of MDGs? If not what are the reasons of not reflecting provisions of MDGs?Comments :30 • Whether all Annual Plan and Five year Plan reflect provisions for women, poor, disadvantaged and marginal-ized groups of people?Comments :31• Do you think the elected representatives of UZP and UP are effectively participating in formulation, implementa-tion and reviewing of Annual Plan and Five year Plan?Comments :

ANNEX

P a g e154

C.2 Schemes/projects (development related questions)

38 • Whether process of preparation of development schemes/projects is according to best practices?Comments :

C.3 Budget

44 • Do you think all UZP and UP have its own budget?Comments :45 • How UPZ & UP prepare the budget? Is it participatory ? Comments :46 • Whether the budget preparation meeting for UPZ was held ? Whether the UP budget shava held the open meeting in the citizen ? Comments :47. Whether the UPZ & UP disclosed the budget? How was it disclosed ?Comments :

39 • Whether there are guidelines for preparation of development schemes/projects? Whether guidelines are prop-erly followed?Comments :40 • Whether elected representatives, officials and members of various committees participate effectively in the preparation of development schemes/projects?Comments :

C.4 Taxation, fees, service charges etc.50 • Do you think that there is need for further decentralization of fiscal power to the UZP and UP?Comments :51 • Whether UZP and Up own sources of revenue in the form of taxation, fees, service charges etc. could be increased? If so, how?Comments :

41 • Whether the information of schemes/project are available? Whether schemes are developed on the basis of people’s need? Whether the schemes address the poor women and disadvantaged community?Comments :

48. How effectively transparency and accountability in planning and budgeting have been improved through social mobilization, public score cards, complaint books, open budget meetings, and ward-level bottom-up planning and budgeting.Comments :49 • Whether the provision of conducting two mandatory public assemblies a year in each ward has been imple-mented properly? If not what is the rate of defaulters?Comments :

42 • Whether the schemes are effectiveness ? Who select the schemes? What are the considerations of developing schemes? Comments :43 • What is the status of schemes developed by the Block Grant of UZGP and UPGP? What are quality of the schemes? Is there any impact of improving socio-economic conditions? Explain with examples.Comments :43 • What is the status of schemes developed by the Block Grant of UZGP and UPGP? What are quality of the schemes? Is there any impact of improving socio-economic conditions? Explain with examples.Comments :

ANNEX

P a g e 155

D: Service Delivery

52 • Do you think there was an improvement of local governance and local service delivery system due to imple-mentation of Union Parishad Governance Project and Upazila Governance Project in the selected (piloted) areas? What is the chance for their replication in other areas? Comments :

53 • Do you notice any enhancement in the basic service delivery capacities of UZP and UP after the implementa-tion of Union Parishad Governance Project and Upazila Governance Project in the selected (piloted) areas?Comments :

54 • Whether all UZPs and Ups within your working environment have published Citizen Charter to describe the services it provides.Comments :

62 • Do you agree with the major concerns of service delivery UZPs and UPs are:

55 • What is the frequency of citizens to make visit to the departments in order to receive services in every day (put in approximate numbers by departments)?Comments :

56 • Do you think there are instances of corruptions in the form of misinformation, money, time (delay) and harass-ment with respect to the delivery of services? If yes, how those could be uprooted?Comments :

57 • Do you think that corruption in the government system inhibits the spread of information and transparency regarding what services are available to citizens as it may be risky to share this information?Comments :

58• Do you think that lack of sufficient funding to UZP and UP are limiting ability to expand current service delivery and implement new projects to meet their citizens’ demands?Comments :

59 • Whether the service recipients are satisfied with the services of the departments? If not satisfied, then why?Comments :

60 • Whether the departments have complaints books/box? If not, why? Comments :61 How fast the complaints are attended?Comments :

(a) lack of transparency;

(b) low capacity;

(c) excessive bureaucracy;

(d) political interference;

(e) limited authority;

(f) lack of accountability of service providers;

(g) weak financial resources; and

(h) limited orientation toward local communities.

ANNEX

P a g e156

64 • Do you think there is scope for further training in the area of development of LGIs? Who will be the participants on what subjects?Comments :65 • Do you think there is scope for further research in the area of development of LGIs?Comments :

66 • Do you think there is any need for further bye-laws, rules, notifications, circulars, guidelines etc. for strengthen-ing the participatory governance in planning, budgeting and service delivery of UZP and UP? If yes, please mention specifically.Comments :

67 • Whether the Association of Union Parishads and the Association of Upazila Chairmen, provide support to the chairpersons of union parishads and upazila parishads regarding the rights and privileges associated with their positions? How far it is effective to improve the conditions of the chairmen to discharge their due responsibilities?Comments :

71. • Please tell about the impact of UZGP and UPGP regarding strengthening of UP and UZP, function of UZGP and UPGP, and socio-economic conditions of the locality.Comments :

72 • Please give your suggestion for strengthening UZP and UP in discharging its due responsibilities to prepare plans and budgets and delivery services to the citizens.Comments :

69 • Do you have any suggestion about WDF?Comments :

68 • Whether WDF is effective and could provide impact to the society? Explain with example if there is any benefit from WDF? Comments :

70.1 How much the Govt./Semi-govt. Officers/Lawyers & citizens were benefited from Resource Corner?Comments :

70.2. How they were benefited from Resource Corner?Comments :

70.3 Do you have any suggestion about Resource Corner? Comments :

70 Whether the Resource Corner are effective and have impact on the society? Explain with example if there is any benefit from Resource Corner?Comments :

ANNEX

********* Thank you *********

P a g e 157

E. Training/Research

F. Bye Laws/Rules etc.

G. Others

H. WDF

I. Resource Corner

J. Impact of UZGP and UPGP

K. Suggestions for Strengthening

Recording sheet for FGD participants Profile:

CITIZEN’S PERCEPTION SURVEY ON SERVICESPROVIDED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

2013.

Local Government DivisionMinistry of Local Government, Rural Development and

Cooperatives

Place of meeting Union Upazila District

Date ofMeeting: ..................................

Time Meetingstarted: ..................................

Time Meetingended: ..................................

Name of the contract person of the locality Name of the ModeratorName of the Record KeeperName of the Facilitator

Mr/Ms. :…………………….Mr/Ms. :…………………….Mr/Ms. :…………………….Mr/Ms. :…………………….

ANNEX

P a g e158

1. Information about FGD participants

SL

12345678910

Name Age Sex Education Occupation

Income Mobile Signature

Educational qualification: Never attended school = 0; Passed up to class v = 01; Passed up to class x =2 SSC passed =3 HSC Passed = 4 Graduate = 5 Graduate and above = 6

Occupation: Agriculture = 1; Business -2; Service- 3; Day labour/Rickshaw/van/pushcart puller -4; Housewife-5; Student-6; Unemployed – 6 Other -7

Codes:

Focus Group Discussion (FGD)(In respect of Upazila Parishad)

Monthly Income code : Below 5000 Tk = 01, 5000Tk - 10000Tk = 02, 10001Tk-20000Tk = 03, 20001Tk-30000Tk = 04, 30001Tk-500000Tk =05, 50000Tk and above = 6,

1. Introductory question : Do you know about the activities of Upazila Parishad?

2. Selection and implementation of scheme /projects:

3. Upazila Parished Meeting:

• How and who prepared the schemes/projects of Upazila Parishad?

• How and who select and determine the scheme/projects ?

• Can the people of the locality know which schemes will be executed? Can they know the budget for the schemes/projects?

• Do the general public involve in listing and selecting schemes/projects?

• Do the marginalized groups involve in the selection and administration of schemes/projects? Do the Women get involved?

• What is the standard of implemented schemes/projects? Any irregularity or corruption take place in the implementation of schemes/projects?

• All get equal chance of talking in the Parished meeting?

• Is there any representation of the marginalized group?

ANNEX

P a g e 159

********* Thank you *********

5. Planning and Budget of the Parishad

• Do you know any thing about annual and five year plan of the Parishad?

• Does MDG get priority in preparing annual and five year plan? (Moderator will explain what is MDG. )

• Civil peoples’ opinion are taken in preparing annual and five year plans?

• Civil peoples’ opinion is taken in preparing annual budget of the Parishad?

• Is the annual budget of the Parishad disclosed?

6. Information released/receipt

• Is there any Citizen Charter (Civil right) in the Parishad? If so, where it is, is it on public view?• If information on activities of the Parishad is desired, is it available? If not, why not?

7. Women Development Forum

• Do you know any thing about the activities of women development forum? What does it do?

• What sorts of influence WDF have ? As far as you know have any of you got any benefit of it?

8. Function of the Parishad

• How much of satisfaction you have on the activities of the Parishad?• Does the Parishad take any steps in removing the complains in any respect?

4. 17 committees of the Parishad

• Are all 17 committees in action ?• If not active, what are the reasons?

• How the Parishad decisions are taken? (Taken care of opinions of all?)

• Who takes the decisions of the Parishad?

9. Co-ordination

• How is the relationship among Member of the Parliament, UZP Chairman, U.N.O, Vice-Chairman and Union Parishad Chairman? Is it cooperative or non-cooperative?

• How is the relationship between the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the UZP?

• How is the relationship between Upazila Chairmen and the Government o�cers at Upazila level?

ANNEX

P a g e160

Focus group of Discussion (FGD)(In respect of Union Parishad)

1. Introductory question : Do you know about the activities of Union Parishad?

2. Selection and implementation of scheme /projects:

• How and who prepared the schemes/projects of Union Parishad?

• ow and who select and determine the scheme/projects ?

• Can the people of the locality know which schemes will be executed? Can they know the budget for the schemes/projects?

• Do the general public involve in listing and selecting schemes/projects?

• Do the marginalized groups involve in the selection and administration of schemes/projects? Do the Women get involved?

• What is the standard of implemented schemes/projects? Any irregularity or corruption take place in the implementation of schemes/projects?

3. Union Parished Meeting:

• All get equal chance of talking in the Parished meeting?

• Is there any representation of the marginalized group?

• How the Parishad decisions are taken? (Taken care of opinions of all?)

• Who takes the decisions of the Parishad?

4. 13 committees of the Parishad

• Are all 13 committees in action ?

• If not active, what are the reasons?

5. Planning and Budget of the Parishad

• Do you know any thing about annual and five year plan of the Parishad?

• Does MDG get priority in preparing annual and five year plan? (Moderator will explain what is MDG. )

• Civil peoples’ opinion are taken in preparing annual and five year plans?

• Civil peoples’ opinion is taken in preparing annual budget of the Parishad?

• Is the annual budget of the Parishad disclosed?

ANNEX

P a g e 161

6. Information released/receipt

• Is there any Citizen Charter (Civil right) in the Parishad? If so, where it is, is it on public view?

• If information on activities of the Parishad is desired, is it available? If not, why not?

7. Women Development Forum

• Do you know any thing about the activities of women development forum? What does it do?• What sorts of influence WDF have ? As far as you know have any of you got any benefit of it?

8. Function of the Parishad

• How much of satisfaction you have on the activities of the Parishad?• Does the Parishad take any steps in removing the complains in any respect?

9. Co-ordination

• How is the relationship among Member of the Parliament, UZP Chairman, U.N.O, Vice-Chairman and Union Parishad Chairman? Is it cooperative or non-cooperative?

• How is the relationship between the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the UP?

• How is the relationship between Union Chairmen and the Government officers at Union level?

ANNEX

********* Thank you *********

10. Ward Shava

• Ward Shava meetings are held at what intervals? Who remain present? What subjects are discussed?

• whether the Budget, Work plan and audit reports are discussed?

• Have all participants equal chance to talk? Do the members of marginalized group remain present? Do the Women remain present?

P a g e162

Checklist on Upazila Parishad / Upazila Profile

CITIZEN’S PERCEPTION SURVEY ON SERVICESPROVIDED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

2013.

Location

Name Code Category

Project -1

Control - 2

InterviewNo.

DivisionDistrictUpazila/ ThanaUnion/ Ward

Village/Mohalla

Name Code Date of interview Signature

EnumeratorSupervisor

Checking Information:

• Is this Checked? Yes -1 No -2

• If Yes, Who Checked? Supervisor - 1 Head Quarter team - 2 Project Authority - 3 UNDP Authority- 4

• Method of Checking: Spot Check – 1; Back Check - 2; Through Mobile/Phone – 3, Others – 4 (specify)

ANNEX

P a g e 163

Name of Upazila Parishad --------------------------------------------------

Type of Upazila Parishad: 1. Treatment 2. Control

District: ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Data Collection ---------/---------/---------

1. Which of the required secondary legislation instruments are available in Upazila Parishad?(Data collector will check the availability by observation)

2.1. How many standing committees have been formed by December, 2013? Ans. ………..

2.2. Please provide information about the following committees

1. Upazila Parishad Manual2. UZP Acts3. Seven Rules of UZPs4. Charter of Duties5. Revenue Guidelines6. ADB Guidelines7. Hat Bazar Policy8. RTI Act 20099. Tendering guideline10. Guideline for procurement (PPR)11. Plan book12. Others (please specify) -------------------

1) Name and designation of information providers:

Section 1: Upazila Parishad Law /Manual / By-Laws

Sl.No

1.

2.3. 4.

Name Sex 1. Male

2. Female

Designation

Upazila Chairman

UNOVice -Chairman

Women ViceChairman(Reserved)

Mobile No

Section 2: Standing Committee and e�ectiveness

ANNEX

P a g e164

A. Annual Development Planning

3.1 Has the Upazila Parishad a citizen’s Charter? Yes-1 : No-2 (if yes, data collector will observe whether it is displayed)3.2 Is Citizen Charter displayed at UZP premises? Yes-1 : No-2 (if yes, data collector will observe whetherit is displayed and report accordingly)

Section 3: Citizens’ Charter / Anti-corruption strategy

4.1 Does the Upazila Parishad (UZP) prepare budget for 2013-14? Yes-1 : No-2

4.2. Has the budget session been held? Yes-1 : No-2

4.3. Whether UZP disclosed their Annual Budget to the citizen? Yes-1 : No-2

4.4. Whether MDGs have been given the priority in the budget Yes-1 : No-2

Section 4: Budget

5.1 Whether there is any Annual Development Plan for 2013-14; Yes-1 : No-2 (Data collector will verify byobservation whether Annual Development Plan is available)

B. Five Year Plan

5.1 Whether there is any Annual Development Plan for 2013-14; Yes-1 : No-2 (Data collector will verify byobservation whether Annual Development Plan is available)

5.2. Whether Five Year plan was prepared Yes-1 : No-2

Section 5: Development Planning

Sl.No

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

1 2 3 4 5Law and peace

Communication and infrastructure development

Agriculture and irrigation

Secondary and madrasha education

Primary and mass education

Health and family welfare

Youth and sports

Women and children development

Social welfare

Freedom fighter

Fisheries and livestock

Rural development and cooperative

Culture

Forest and environment

Observation, monitoring and controlling of market price

Finance, budget, planning and mobilization of local resources

Public health, sanitation and supply of safe drainage water

Others (Please specify)

Average

Name of Committee Whetherformed 1. Yes 2. No

How manymeeting held duringthe last one year(2012-13)

Identity ofthe chairperson of thecommittees (1.Male, 2.Female)

ANNEX

P a g e 165

6.4. Whether UZP compliant at least 90% of provision of RTI Act? Yes/No (If designated officer was recruited, information are proactively disclosed, Properly responding to the RTI Application, Preparing Annual

7.4. Whether all the UZP members could participate effectively in the debate in the parishad meeting. Yes 1 No 2

7.5. Whether all the UZP members could influence the decision making of UZP? Yes 1 No 27.6. Whether Women Vice Chair could participate effectively in the debate in the parishad meeting. Yes 1 No 2

1. Appointed /designated an o�cial for providing information2. Detailed addresses of the o�cers were sent to information commission within 15 days of his / her appointment3. Applicants receive information duly4. If any information cannot be provided applicants are informed within 10 days5. Others (please specify)

Ans: Through UZP meeting UPZ Chair UPZ Vice Chair UNOOthers (specify)

Section 6: Right to Information (RTI) Act

6.1. Is there any provision for Right to Information Act? Yes-1 : No-26.2. If yes, what measures are taken?

1. Local Member of Parliament2. Chairman3. UNO4. Vice-chairman5. Female Vice-chairman6. Others (please specify)

7.2. Who does call the meeting of the parishad?

7.3 Does the Member of Parliament (MP) attend the parishad meeting? Regular 1, Irregular 2, No 3

6.3 If yes, who appointed Designated Officer of UZP?

7.1. Please provide answers to the following questions (see the document)

Type of meetingNumber ofMeetings in 2013

How many timesUZP Chair present

How many timesUNO present

How many timesMP Present

ANNEX

5.3. Whether UZP produced development plans responding to local MDG? Yes-1 : No-2

5.4. Whether any development plan has been prepared incorporating the needs of local deprived andmarginalized group (Dalit /Diener /Morgue sta�, sweeper, persons with disability, etc? Yes-1 : No-2

8.1. Has the Annual Performance Report for transferred officials been prepared? Yes 1 No 2

Section 8: Gender Balance

P a g e166

Impact of Upazila Governance Project (UZGP) for UZPs (only applicable for selected UZPs)8.3. Do you think that the following activities were improved due to UZGP? Why and How? Please collect example.

Upazila Parishad Visit by Government O�cials

- Parishad MeetingHow improved How far improvedExample

- Budget PreparationHow improved How far improvedExample

- PlanningHow improved How far improvedExample

- Citizen Charter & Right to InformationHow improved How far improvedExample

- Women RightsHow improved How far improvedExample

- Cooperation of Transferred DepartmentHow improved How far improvedExample

- Others (specify)

Name and code of Interviewer ............................................................ Name and code of Supervisor ............................................................

8.2. Whether DLG/DDLG/DC visited UZP in the last year 2013

#

1

2

3

DLG

DDLG

DC

O�cial Visited in 2013

(Yes/No)

********* Thank you *********

ANNEX

P a g e 167

Checklist on Union Parishad / Union Profile

CITIZEN’S PERCEPTION SURVEY ON SERVICESPROVIDED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

2013.

Location

21 January 2014

Name Code Category

Project -1

Control - 2

InterviewNo.

DivisionDistrictUpazila/ ThanaUnion/ Ward

Village/Mohalla

Name Code Date of interview Signature

EnumeratorSupervisor

Checking Information:

• Is this Checked? Yes -1 No -2

• If Yes, Who Checked? Supervisor - 1 Head Quarter team - 2 Project Authority - 3 UNDP Authority- 4

• Method of Checking: Spot Check – 1; Back Check - 2; Through Mobile/Phone – 3, Others – 4 (specify)

ANNEX

P a g e168

Section 1: General Information of Union Parishad / Union Pro�le

Section 2: UP General Meeting (review the documents and record the information)

Name :

Age :

Male/Female :

Occupation :

Address

Mobile No.

Personal information of the respondent.

1. Name of Union Parishad ..................... Name of Upazila .................... District ......................

2. s there a copy of the Union Parishad Act of 2009 in the UP o�ce? 1. Yes 2. No

3. Have the UP Chairman, Members and Secretary received training on their roles and responsibilities? 1. Yes 2. No

4. Are the committees mentioned below there in UP?

5. Did UP organize any awareness campaign last year? 1. Yes 2. No

6. How many registers are maintained by UP? ....................

7. Does the UP prepare any report? 1. Yes 2. No

7.1. If yes, what types of reports? 1. Quarterly report 2. Half yearly 3. Yearly

8.1. In how many monthly general meeting of UP resolution were recorded? Ans: ......... nos.

8.2. No. of monthly general UP meetings with quorum? Ans:.................. nos.

8.3. No of UP General meetings where all women members (3) participated? Ans:.......... nos.

8.4. How many persons were participated in the last UP general meeting?

Total: ........... Male: .............. Female .............

8.5. How many decisions taken in the UP general meeting in the last financial year Ans:....... nos.

10.1. No. of requests for information: Ans: ..............................Nos.

10.2. No. of requests have been addressed: Ans: ..............................Nos.

8. How many UP monthly general meetings were held last year (2013): Ans: ................... nos.

9. Has UP assigned a person for providing information to public? 1. Yes 2. No 10. Has any one applied to UP for any information in last financial year (July 2012 June 2013)?

11. Is there any Citizen’s Charter in the UP? (Data collector will verify) 1. Yes 2. No

11.2. Is there any citizen charter displayed in open place? 1. Yes 2. No

12. Have the following UP information been disclosed in the public? (check the notice board andcircle the appropriate code)

4.1. Ward development committees

4.2. UP planning committees

1. Yes 2. No

1. Yes 2. No

ANNEX

P a g e 169

Section 3: Ward Shava (review the documents and record the information)

Section 4: Standing Committees (review the documents and record the information)

14. Number of Standing Committees formed in this UP upto December 2013: Ans: ......................Nos.

14.1. Check the documents and record the name of the committees and their functioning status:

13. Information about Ward Shava (2013).

1

2

3

4

5

6

Annual plan posted on board

5-Year-plan posted on board

Annual budget posted on board

Last audit report

Annual Scheme list posted on board

Annual Income & Expenditure posted on board

1. Yes 2. No 1. Yes 2. No

Ans. of Q.15.

Subject#

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

No. of wards

No. of WardShava heldduring thelast year(2013)

Q.15

1. Finance & establishment

2. Audit & accounts

3.Tax assessments & collection

4. Education, health & family planning

5. Agriculture, fisheries & livestock

6. Rural infrastructure development/maintenance

7. Maintenance of law & order

8. Birth and death registration

9. Water, sanitation & drainage

10. Social welfare & disaster management

11. Environment protection and plantation

12. Family, women & children a�airs

13. Culture & sports

Formed Yes/NoStanding Committees

ANNEX

P a g e170

Section 3: Ward Shava (review the documents and record the information)

Section 5: Annual and Five years Plan of Union Parishad Plans:

16. No. of Standing Committee meeting presided by female chairperson Ans: .............................Nos.

17. Does UP prepare Annual Plan? Yes/No

18. Does UP prepare Five Year Plan? Yes/No

19. Components of the MDG (MGD related programs or scheme) please review the plans and put ticked marked and give the comments:

20. How many schemes were implemented in the last year (2013)? Ans.......................... nos.

20.1. How many scheme were implemented for female of those schemes? Ans........................ nos

20.2. How many scheme were implemented marginalized people of those schemes? Ans............... nos

21. Please review and see the copies of Annual budget and put tick mark and give the comments:a. Availability of Annual Budget: 1.Yes 2. No

22. Total holding tax payers in UP? HH: .........23. Was the budget presented openly to the people of the UP? 1. Yes 2. No

24. Was the budget of previous financial year (July 2012-June 2013 financial year) audited byAuditors appointment by the Govt.? 1. Yes 2. No

25. Have the UP Chairman, Members and Secretary received training on the following topics:

26. Have UPZ any MIS system? (Yes/No)27. If Yes, is it found e�ective? (Very high, high, Neutral, low, very low)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Eradication of hungry and extreme poverty

Universal primary education

Women empowerment and equality between male and female

Reduction of infant and maternal mortality

Development of maternal health

Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other disease

Sustainable development

Global partnership for development

MDGs1.yes 2. No If No, Write reasonsSl. No

1

2

3

4

Mandatory activity of Union Parishad Act 2009

Financial management including Tax calculation & collection

Open Budget sharing

Local resource mobilization & utilization

Training Courseyes-1,No-2 If yes, how many times

ANNEX

P a g e 171

- 28.1. Ward Shav aHow improved How far improvedExample

- 28.2. Standing Comittee How improved How far improvedExample

- 28.3. Parishad MeetingHow improved How far improvedExample

- 28.4. Rendered Services by UPHow improved How far improvedExample

- 28.5. Tax & Revenue collectionHow improved How far improvedExample

- 28.6. Budget PreparationHow improved How far improvedExample

- 28.7. Annual & five year planning How improved How far improvedExample

- 28.8. UP scheme to achieve MDG goolsHow improved How far improvedExample

- 28.9. Citizen Charter & Right to InformationHow improved How far improvedExample

- 28.10. Women Rights developmentHow improved How far improvedExample

- 28.11. Other (specify)

28. Impact of Union Parishad Governance Project (UPGP) for UPs (only applicable for selected UPs)

Do you think that the following activities improved due to UPGP? Why and How? Please collect example

********* Thank you *********

ANNEX

P a g e172