CSO Mapping - DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE ...

CSO Mapping and Needs

Assessment

Contract Number: 72036718R00004

Activity Start Date and End Date: May 13, 2019 to May 12, 2025

Submitted: November 25, 2020

This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Abt Associates and do not necessarily

reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Sajhedari-Support to Federalism

USAID’s Sajhedari- Support to Federalism November 25, 2020 ▌i

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... v

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Scope and Objectives ....................................................................................... 7

2. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Research Questions and Preparatory Work...................................................... 8 2.2 Categorizing CSOs and CBOs .......................................................................... 8 2.3 Data Collection Tools and Forms ...................................................................... 9

2.4 Assessment Approach .................................................................................... 10 2.5 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 10

3. Civic Engagement Context .................................................................................. 10 3.1 Historical Context ............................................................................................ 10 3.2 Legal Context .................................................................................................. 11 3.3 Challenges ...................................................................................................... 12 3.4 Long-Term Trends .......................................................................................... 12

4. CSO and CBO Mapping ....................................................................................... 13 4.1 Profile of Participating Organizations .............................................................. 13 4.2 Overview of Mapping CBOs and CSOs .......................................................... 15 4.3 Mapping CBOs ................................................................................................ 15

4.4 Mapping CSOs ................................................................................................ 18

5. Needs and Gap Assessment ............................................................................... 21 5.1 Knowledge and Information ............................................................................ 21 5.2 Skills and Capacity .......................................................................................... 24

6. Assessment of CSO Priorities ............................................................................ 27 6.1 Priorities within Each Theme ........................................................................... 29

7. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................. 31 7.1 Types of CBOs and CSOs .............................................................................. 31 7.2 Inclusion and Diversity in Leadership Positions .............................................. 31

7.3 Citizen Engagement ........................................................................................ 31 7.4 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 33

Annex 1: Bibliography ................................................................................................ 35

Annex 2: CSO Mapping Form ..................................................................................... 36

Annex 3: CBO Mapping Form .................................................................................... 39

Annex 4: Needs Assessment Form ........................................................................... 41

Annex 5: FGD Checklist .............................................................................................. 43

USAID’s Sajhedari- Support to Federalism November 25, 2020 ▌ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: CBOs by Municipality, Impact Population, and Thematic Focus .................... 13

Figure 2: CSOs by District, Working Area, Impact Population, and Thematic Focus .... 14

Figure 3: Diversity and Inclusion within Organizations .................................................. 17

Figure 4: Diversity and Inclusion within CSOs ............................................................... 20

Figure 5: Constitutional Provisions and Laws to Implement Federalism ....................... 22

Figure 6: Institutions and Mechanisms to Implement Federalism .................................. 22

Figure 7: Civic Space in the Policy Deliberation Process .............................................. 23

Figure 8: Service and Entitlements................................................................................ 23

Figure 9: Civic Spaces for Governance, SA, and Oversight .......................................... 24

Figure 10: Access to Public Information ........................................................................ 25

Figure 11: Use and Reuse of Public Information ........................................................... 26

Figure 12: Influence Policy and Decision-Making Processes ........................................ 26

Figure 13: Use of SA Tools ........................................................................................... 27

Figure 14: Strengthen Collaboration and Networking .................................................... 27

Figure 15: Thematic Priorities in Knowledge and Information ....................................... 28

Figure 16: Thematic Priorities in Skills and Capacity..................................................... 28

Figure 17: Knowledge and Information Priorities ........................................................... 29

Figure 18: Skills and Capacity ....................................................................................... 30

USAID’s Sajhedari- Support to Federalism November 25, 2020 ▌iii

List of Tables

Table 1: Data Collection Tools and Forms ...................................................................... 9

Table 2: Institutional Governance .................................................................................. 15

Table 3: CBO Participation in the Local Governance Process ...................................... 16

Table 4: CBO Participation in SA and Citizen-Reporting Initiatives Organized by LGs . 16

Table 5: CBOs Facilitating and/or Organizing the Practice of SA Tools and Mechanisms ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 6: Institutional Governance .................................................................................. 18

Table 7: CSO Participation in the Local Governance Process ...................................... 19

Table 8: CSO Participation in SA and Citizen-Reporting Initiatives Organized by LGs . 19

Table 9: CSOs Facilitating and/or Organizing the Use of SA Tools and Mechanisms .. 20

Table 10: Themes and Parameters (tools/mechanisms) Used to Measure Needs and Gaps in CSOs’ Knowledge and Access to Information .................................................. 21

Table 11: Themes and Parameters (tools/mechanisms) Used to Measure Needs and Gaps in CSOs’ Skills and Capacity ............................................................................... 24

USAID’s Sajhedari- Support to Federalism November 25, 2020 ▌iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CBO Community-Based Organization

CRC Citizen Report Card

CSO Civil Society Organization

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GESI Gender Equity and Social Inclusion

GoN Government of Nepal

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

KII Key Informant Interview

LG Local Government

LGBTIQ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Questioning

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

NGO Fed Federation of Non-Government Organizations

PWD Persons with Disability

RTI Right to Information

SA Social Accountability

STF Support to Federalism

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USAID’s Sajhedari- Support to Federalism November 25, 2020 ▌v

Executive Summary

The United States Agency for International Development’s Nepal Sajhedari-Support to Federalism

(STF) project carried out an assessment of civil society organizations (CSOs) and community-

based organizations (CBOs). Conducted during February–May 2020, the assessment aimed to

deepen the project’s understanding of CSO and CBO needs, and suggest ways to promote

constructive citizen engagement in the local governance process. This assessment will support

Sajhedari-STF’s efforts to strengthen civil society and citizen participation in local decision-

making and oversight under its third objective.

METHODS

A total of 107 CBOs and 94 CSOs from 10 Sajhedari-STF working municipalities participated in

the assessment. The team collected and analyzed CSO and CBO responses to a series of questions

and forms (see Annexes 2–5) from district-level consultation workshops, focus group discussions,

and key informant interviews.

The team analyzed the data based on a series of broad themes (see Table 10 andTable 11),

including institutional governance; participation in the local governance process; social

accountability (SA) and citizen reporting; use of SA tools; and diversity and inclusion.

KEY FINDINGS

CBO/CSO sectors and target populations: CBOs are concentrated in the socioeconomic

development, awareness, capacity-building, and advocacy sectors; while CSOs are

concentrated in the human rights, social justice, inclusion, peace, awareness, capacity-building,

and advocacy sectors. Women and the Dalit community are the most common CSO target

populations, while women and children are the most common CBO target populations.

Diversity and inclusion: Members of marginalized groups are underrepresented in CSO and

CBO leadership positions. Women’s representation in leadership positions is better – due in

large part to mandatory female representation requirements for CSO executive boards – but

there is still a need to further empower female, civil society leaders.

Participation in local governance: CSOs and CBOs participate in various stages of the local

governance process. However, CBOs tend to only participate when invited by the government,

as opposed to providing policy inputs proactively. CSOs participate proactively more often

than CBOs, but significant room for improvement remains.

Use of SA tools: CSOs and CBOs also use a variety of SA tools, including public hearings and

social audits; and public audits at the ward, service center, and municipal levels. However,

some organizations say these tools exist mostly “on paper” to fulfill mandatory requirements.

Influence on local governments (LGs) largely depends on personal and political connections,

according to the stakeholders interviewed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Sajhedari-STF should focus on raising civic awareness at the community level, supporting civic

education to enhance the access of excluded groups to public services, and helping LGs protect

citizens’ rights. Additionally, all stakeholders should work together to:

Design interventions – Organize CBOs and CSOs at ward and municipal levels so that they

can engage in the policy process, and facilitate constructive citizen-state engagement.

USAID’s Sajhedari- Support to Federalism November 25, 2020 ▌vi

Implement interventions – Ensure CBOs and CSOs are included during the implementation

of interventions. Interventions should promote local organizations, markets, and economies;

and focus on women, youth, the poor, and excluded groups.

Coordinate and collaborate – Help build the relationship among CSOs, CBOs, and LGs;

institutionalize spaces for citizen engagement; and facilitate learning and knowledge sharing

among CSOs and CBOs. Additionally, stakeholders should explore opportunities for synergies

and avoid duplicating efforts.

USAID – Sajhedari-STF September 18, 2020 ▌7

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

In May 2019, Abt Associates was awarded the United States Agency for International

Development’s (USAID’s) Nepal Sajhedari-Support to Federalism (STF) project. The project,

valued at $14,576,381 over six years, aims to “provide primarily technical assistance to the

Government of Nepal (GoN) in transitioning from a unitary state to a federation of provinces with

more effective, accountable, responsive, and inclusive local governance.”

The project, which is working in 10 municipalities across 5 districts in the 2 provinces of Province

Five and Sudur Paschim, has 3 specific objectives:

1. The GoN creates and implements sound policies and legislation that are informed by

evidence; and empower, finance, and regulate provincial and municipal governments.

2. The targeted provinces and selected municipal governments therein are more responsive,

inclusive, accountable, transparent, and effective in decision-making and delivering priority

services to fulfill core legal responsibilities.

3. Citizens and civil society organizations in targeted geographic areas, including the

historically marginalized, actively participate in local decision-making and oversight.

1.2 Scope and Objectives

To support Objective 3, the project carried out an assessment to map CSOs and identify capacity

gaps (related to knowledge, information, and skills) on demand-side governance and citizen-state

engagement. The study was conducted in February – May 2020.

Overall, the study aimed to map CSOs, assess their needs, and suggest potential structures and

areas of intervention to promote constructive, citizen-state engagement in the local governance

process. The assessment pursued this goal through the following specific objectives:

Explore both CSO-led and direct citizen engagement and feedback mechanisms for selected

provinces and municipalities.

Assess the needs and capacity gaps of demand-side governance, especially in local decision-

making, and citizen monitoring and oversight.

Determine how Sajhedari-STF should strengthen its citizen-state engagement interventions

and contribute to their baseline measurement.

Collect baseline data for indicators 18 and 21 of the project’s performance indicator tracking

(PITT) table.

2. Methodology

The assessment used a participatory social research methodology to engage concerned

stakeholders. The tools and methods were designed to ensure that gender equity and social

inclusion (GESI) were clearly reflected in the assessment process. The voices of women, ethnic

minorities, youth, and marginalized people are included in this assessment.

USAID’s Sajhedari- Support to Federalism November 25, 2020 ▌8

CSOs were selected from lists of participants in Sajhedari-STF’s provincial co-design workshops.

Other CSOs were selected because they were consulted during scoping visits to municipalities or

supported by USAID’s governance programs. CBOs were selected in consultation with their

respective municipalities and service centers.

The study team reached out to CSOs, community-based organizations (CBOs), and other

respondents through a one-day consultation workshop, CSO office visits, online correspondence,

focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews (KIIs), and telephone calls. The team

also collected quantitative data using several forms, which were developed to map CSOs and

CBOs. To gain a deeper understanding of the study context, a desk review was performed relating

to government policies and provisions, and other available information.

2.1 Research Questions and Preparatory Work

The study team prepared the following research questions:

1. What types of CSOs, including citizen interest groups, currently exist in wards,

municipalities, districts, and provinces?

2. To what extent are CSOs able to influence the local decision-making process, monitor the

delivery of public services, provide direct citizen feedback, practice civic oversight, and hold

their governments accountable? What spaces do they use? How are they performing? What

is the environment they operate in? What are their opportunities and challenges?

3. How should Sajhedari-STF approach interventions to strengthen constructive citizen-state

engagement?

At the start of the study, the team explored these research questions by researching secondary

sources of information; collecting literature for a desk review; developing data collection tools;

quantifying sample sizes for each tool; creating a list of potential stakeholders for consultation;

and developing a discussion checklist for FGDs, KIIs, and consultative workshops. Finally, the

study team prepared a qualitative and quantitative data collection plan.

2.2 Categorizing CSOs and CBOs

CSOs and CBOs were categorized into two groups on the basis of their target groups and working

area coverage, affiliation, and institutional governance status. The initial list of CSOs and CBOs

was prepared by citizen engagement coordinators from the list of CSOs that participated in the

provincial co-design workshop; and CSOs that were consulted during the municipal scoping visit,

and also by consulting with the Federation of Non-Government Organizations (NGO Fed) and

networks in districts and municipalities. Separate data collection tools were developed for profiling

district- and municipality-wide CSOs, CBOs, and community entities in the following

two categories:

Category A: More structured and actively engaged CSOs/nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) within and outside the district’s area of coverage. This category, hereinafter referred to as

CSOs, includes private-sector engagement and media organizations and entities, and cooperatives.

Category B: CBOs/CSOs/local NGOs, including community platforms (e.g., tole lane

organizations, mothers groups, local cooperatives, producer networks, and other youth- and

women-focused loose networks working in that particular municipality). This category is

hereinafter referred to as CBOs.


2.3 Data Collection Tools and Forms

The study collected data through a number of tools and forms, which are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Data Collection Tools and Forms

Data Collection Tools and Forms Purpose

CSO/CBO contact details Identify district- and municipality-level potential CBOs/CSOs to contact

Information grid for CSO/CBO data collection Profile CSOs/NGOs/CBOs and community entities

Capacity needs assessment instrument Identify district-level CSO/NGO existing governance capacity and desired (gap analysis) needs

FGD checklist Organize FGDs and compile discussion notes

Key KII checklist Organize KII, compile discussion notes, and cross-check with other datasets

Checklist for consultation meetings Lead discussion and take notes

Orientation for Citizen Engagement Coordinators on Methodology and Tools

The Sajhedari-STF Objective Three team, including citizen engagement coordinators and GESI

officers, were provided with a one-and-a-half day orientation in Dhangadhi during the last week

of February 2020. The training covered the assessment’s scope of work, methodology, and data

collection tools and procedures. This was followed by the preparation of an action plan to move

forward to collecting data in the field.

Potential CSO/CBO List

A list of potential CSOs/CBOs was created during the first week of February 2020. The list

included contact details, and was used to inform and engage CSOs/CBOs in district-level

consultation workshops and FGDs.

District-Level Consultation Workshops

A total of four, one-day consultation workshops were organized, one each in the Kanchanpur,

Kailali, Doti, and Dang districts; while individual CSOs were consulted in the Bajhang District. A

total of 103 participants, including 70 men and 31 women representing 95 organizations, were

consulted. After a detailed orientation was given on themes and tools mentioned in the needs

assessment form, three major data collection tasks [environmental scanning (discussion on current

practices, opportunities, and challenges), mapping CSOs, and performing a needs assessment]

were carried out using separate sets of forms, which were filled out by participating CSO

representatives.

FGDs

A total of 10 FGDs were conducted during February and March 2020 in each municipality.

Altogether, 104 participants (60 men and 44 women) representing 87 local NGOs, CBOs, and

community entities shared their views. This was an opportunity to collect qualitative data and

build an understanding of citizen engagement and social accountability (SA), as it included an

orientation on themes and tools mentioned in the assessment.

KIIs

Ten KIIs were conducted with local government (LG) authorities of Sajhedari-STF’s working

municipalities. The mayor/chairperson, the vice chair, chief administrative officers, and concerned

unit heads participated in these discussions. LG perspectives on CSO performance, spaces


provided to CSOs by the municipality, CSO performance and capacity, and opportunities and

challenges for LGs in mobilizing CSOs were major discussion points during these interviews. The

outcomes helped the study team cross-verify the information collected from other sources.

Consultation Meetings

Brief consultation meetings were also held with provincial-level stakeholders and selected

municipalities to apprise them of the process, and also to obtain their perspectives.

Ten consultation meetings were held with the Provincial Ministry of Social Development,

municipalities, the Provincial Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and

the Provincial Committee of the NGO Fed and Journalists. The discussions were guided by the

assessment’s three main research questions.

2.4 Assessment Approach

Previous demand-side governance interventions have largely focused on the creation of semi-

representative, voice mechanisms, especially to maintain participatory planning and SA

mechanisms in the absence of locally elected bodies. With the re-establishment of local democratic

institutions, Sajhedari-STF has to support the adaption of CSOs’ and CBOs’ efforts to the new

decentralized governance structure. Sajhedari-STF also needs to develop new mechanisms to

amplify citizen voices and engagement through direct citizen feedback mechanisms.

The assessment attempted to explore the current status of CSOs and CBOs, existing spaces, and

the practice of citizen engagement in the local decision-making process. Likewise, aspects such as

the direct citizen-feedback mechanism; participatory monitoring of public services; and civic

oversight at selected provinces, districts, and municipal and ward levels were also identified. The

assessment’s findings will provide guidance on how Sajhedari-STF should structure its

interventions under Objective Three and provide baseline measurements.

2.5 Limitations

The assessment had several limitations:

The study only examined Sajhedari-STF’s working districts and municipalities, and its

findings should not be generalized to the larger Nepali context.

While the study team aimed to collect information from diverse stakeholders, the findings of

the study are based on the subjective perceptions of participants

Due to the COVID-19 lockdown and travel restrictions, the study team had to rely on online

tools to verify and validate the data.

3. Civic Engagement Context

3.1 Historical Context

Civil society is comprised of citizens and groups in the public arena working outside the

government and market. CSOs include informal organizations, and nonprofit and voluntary

groups. Nepal has a long history of incorporating non-state actors into civil coordination and social

organization. Non-state actors have played an important role in promoting civic engagement and

directly serving both governments and communities. CSOs have helped drive social

transformation in Nepal. They have enabled and supported democratization, the rule of law,

governance, and public service delivery to deprived and marginalized communities.


Nepal witnessed the emergence and development of CSOs after the democratic movement of the

1990s. These were predominantly in the form of NGOs and interest-based networks. CSOs played

a substantial role in reinstating democracy in the country. A conducive policy environment enabled

NGOs and CBOs to develop and simplify the establishment of interest-based networks. The

subsequent people’s movement in 1996 created a suitable atmosphere for identity-based

associations and networks. Similarly, during the people’s movement in 2006, Nepal’s civil society

played an important role in protecting democracy and human rights. The NGO Fed; human rights

organizations; natural resource management networks; as well as women, indigenous people, and

other marginalized groups bridged gaps in the country-wide democratic movement.

Almost four years have passed since the promulgation of the new constitution. However, people

at the grassroots level are not yet aware of their political rights. It is anticipated that CSOs will

play a key role in making people aware of their rights and responsibilities, and keep a watchful

eye to ensure LGs use their authority properly (Sapkota, 2020). In this context, it is essential to

create policies that allow CSOs to build democratic leadership, deliberation, and participation in

the public realm. It is equally important that these organizations engage critically with the state.

3.2 Legal Context

Nepali CSOs are governed by several legal and policy documents, including:

The Constitution

International treaties and covenants

The National Directorate Act

The Association Registration Act

The Social Welfare Act

The Good Governance Act

The Local Self-Governance Act.

The Constitution of Nepal reflects the country’s commitment to uphold all international treaties,

covenants, and guarantees for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and respect for the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The international treaties and covenants signed by Nepal

guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and respect for the Institute for Development

and Human Rights. The Constitution also lays the foundation for systems for judicial remedy,

defines the state’s responsibilities for human rights protection and promotion, and establishes

independent national human rights institutions.

Most of Nepal’s legal and policy documents take a positive stance toward civil society, which

reflects the generally pro-civil society’s propensity of Nepal’s political parties. However,

provisions and contradictions still exist in the legal framework, which carry forward the legacy of

control from earlier autocratic regimes (Uprety, 2011). A legal framework is imperative to address

internal governance, accountability, and politics within CSOs. Recent steps from government

authorities suggest Nepal’s intention to move in this direction. There is increasing apprehension

among CSOs and the public regarding the future of democracy, governance, and the rule of law in

promoting a conducive environment for CSOs. CSOs have consistently requested restructuring

aspects of the legal framework that limit their ability to meaningfully participate in public affairs.


3.3 Challenges

Despite the important role played by CSOs in Nepal’s democratization, public sentiment on them

is mixed, driven by perceptions that some CSOs are unaccountable to governments, and that

leaders are motivated by self-interest. CSO leaders are often seen as politically influenced activists

who pressure the government on policy matters. Additionally, CSO contributions are perceived to

be a corrupting influence, leading some to label CSOs as “cons” or “dollar harvesters.” While

some of these criticisms have an element of truth—CSOs have not always been transparent,

impartial, and inclusive—much it is driven by the media. CSO affiliates are hesitant to present

themselves as associated members, as they are frequently criticized for being non-transparent,

donor-driven, and unreliable. The negative public perception of CSOs provides ammunition for

political actors pushing to limit CSO development

CSOs lack adequate financial resources, in part because privately funded and managed public

interest organizations are a relatively new concept in Nepal, and corporate social responsibility is

still in its early stages. Tax exemption tied to civic engagement is not guaranteed, and existing

laws provide inadequate incentives for corporate donations. Additionally, mixed public sentiment

on CSOs and the perception that they receive sufficient international donor support results in

limited local contributions.

Although some government mandates are supportive of CSOs, the GoN’s overall position on CSOs

remains unclear. Political parties are often derided for promoting their political agenda through

CSOs. However, the parties themselves also condemn CSOs as “anti-people” or “supporters of

elite interests” when CSOs oppose party ideology or interests. There are numerous instances where

CSOs are held responsible for political activities targeting the government. CSOs are also

portrayed as catering to donors’ needs rather than the Nepali people during political discourse.

Although government mandates are meant to provide support for CSOs, government involvement

with CSOs is frequently driven by politics. It is also difficult to manage CSOs because they are

diverse in nature and operate in numerous sectors. Although the number of CSOs has greatly

expanded since Nepal’s democratization, there are still relatively few with influence over key

policymakers.

3.4 Long-Term Trends

CSOs play an essential role in Nepal’s democracy by supporting due process and giving voice to

marginalized populations whose needs are often overlooked by the government. An opportunity

exists for collaboration between Nepali CSOs and the state in all phases of policy making,

implementation, and evaluation. Given widespread concerns over the assault on civic engagement

worldwide, spaces for civil society to operate and defend human rights, social justice, and

democratic governance will continue to be indispensable in Nepal.

Decentralization may create opportunities for local and grassroots organizations to participate in

development planning and the delivery of public services. However, the extent to which CSOs

meaningfully influence these processes will depend on their capacity to effectively engage local

policy makers. It will also require that LGs are willing and able to incorporate CSOs into local

policy processes.

Nepal’s increasing emphasis on “big development” (bikas) will also create opportunities for CSOs

to foster civic engagement on public service delivery. However, it is important that CSOs balance

this new responsibility with the role they have played to date – supporting inclusion and ensuring


that “no one is left behind” by development (Nazeen and Thapa, 2019). Identity-based CSOs in

particular have been essential in advocating for marginalized populations. If both CSOs and the

GoN shift focus away from the inclusion agenda, there is a risk that rights and inclusion will

receive inadequate attention, undermining long-term development outcomes.

4. CSO and CBO Mapping

4.1 Profile of Participating Organizations

This assessment includes a total of 107 CBOs and 94 CSOs in 10 Sajhedari-STF working

municipalities in 5 districts (i.e., Bajhang, Doti, Dang, Kailali, and Kanchanpur) and 2 provinces

(i.e., Sudur Paschim and Province 5). The profiles of participating CBOs and CSOs are presented

in Figure 1 and 2, respectively.

CBOs

Figure 1: CBOs by Municipality, Impact Population, and Thematic Focus

24

11

13

7

7

8

13

7

8

9

1

2

7

8

9

10

12

18

33

52

1

2

2

3

7

7

8

15

17

34

39

Bitthad Chir

Dipayal Silgadhi

Shikhar

Dangisharan

Ghorahi

Tulsipur

Dhangadhi

Gauriganga

Bhimdutta

Punarbas

Haliya

People Living with HIV/AIDS

Senior Citizens

Dalit Community, Dalit Women

Farmers

Person with Disabilities

All

Youth

Children

Women, Single Women

Disaster Risk Reduciton

Child Protection

Forest Conservation

Water and Sanitation

Women Empowerment

Youth Engagement

Citizen Engagement, Governance and Accountability

Human Right, Peace and Social Protection

Health and Nutrition

Awareness, Capacity Building and Advocacy

Socio-Economic Development

By

Mun

icip

alit

ies

By

Im

pac

t P

op

ula

tio

nB

y T

hem

atic

Focu

s

Profile of CBOs


As can be seen in Figure 1, the number of CBOs consulted for the Mapping and Needs Assessment

are categorized by municipality, impact population, and thematic focus. The highest concentration

of CBOs is in socioeconomic development; and awareness, capacity-building, and advocacy by

theme; and women and children by impact population. The total number of CBOs consulted was

107.

CSOs

Figure 2: CSOs by District, Working Area, Impact Population, and Thematic Focus

15

16

14

21

28

4

69

27

1

2

2

3

6

7

8

10

26

26

30

41

1

1

2

5

7

9

9

10

10

14

18

19

Bajhang

Doti

Dang

Kailali

Kanchanpur

Municipal level

District Levl

Province level

Haliya

People Living with HIV/AIDS

Gender and Sexual Minorities

Ex Kamlari

Youth

Ex Kamaiya

Marginalized Groups

Person with Disabilities

All

Children

Dalit Community

Women

Renewal Energy

Legal Aid

DRR and CCA

Nature, Forest and Environment Conservation

Caste, Gender and Dometic Violence

Governance, Accountability and Citizen Engagement

Education

Community Mobilization and Socio-Economic Development

Women, Youth and Children

Health, Water and Sanitation

Awareness, Capacity Building and Advocacy

Human Right, Social Justice, inclusion and peace

By

Dis

tric

ts

By

Work

ing

Are

aB

y I

mpac

t P

op

ula

tio

nB

y T

hem

atic

Focu

s

Profile of CSOs


As can be seen in CSOs

Figure 2, the number of CSOs consulted for the Mapping and Needs Assessment are categorized

by district, working area, impact population, and thematic focus. The highest concentration of

CSOs is in human rights, social justice, inclusion, peace; and awareness, capacity-building, and

advocacy by theme; and women and the Dalit community by impact population. Ninety-four CSOs

were consulted.

4.2 Overview of Mapping CBOs and CSOs

The purpose of mapping CSOs and CBOs was to access organizational information, including:

The preparation and use of basic documents such as policies and guidelines by organizations

to ensure institutional governance.

Participation in local governance through being involved in policy dialogue and feedback,

and the planning and budgeting process; managing public entities; and monitoring the

delivery of public services (civic oversight), the decision-making process, and the direct

citizen feedback mechanism.

Participation in SA mechanisms and tools initiated by LGs.

Facilitation and practice of SA tools and mechanisms.

GESI within organizations.

The mapping also aimed to capture baseline data, particularly related to the:

Increased percentage of leadership positions in U.S. Government-supported community

management entities that are filled by a woman or members of a vulnerable group.

Increased proportion of community forums that actively engage in the oversight of public

service delivery.

Input and Process

Separate forms were used to collect data from CBOs and CSOs. Information from CBOs was

collected by citizen engagement coordinators visiting offices of each CBO, and information from

CSOs was collected during consultation workshops organized at the district level and follow-up

was performed through telephone calls and email correspondence.

4.3 Mapping CBOs

Institutional Governance

CBOs were asked whether they have the basic documents and procedures required to ensure

smooth internal governance. Their responses are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Institutional Governance

Existing Institutional Policy, Guideline, and/or Procedure Documents

Number of CBOs Using Institutional Policies, Guidelines, and/or Procedure Documents

(of 107 CBOs surveyed)

Meeting procedures 96

Annual plan and budget 41

Sources of revenue 24

Code of conduct and ethics 34


Grievance redress mechanism 9

Ninety-six (out of 107) CBOs have meeting procedures. Meeting procedures define the type and

frequency of meetings, participants, quorum establishment, types of agendas to be discussed, and

decision-making. CBOs also maintain registers to record meeting minutes.

CBO Participation in the Local Governance Processes

CBOs participate in various stages, events, and occasions in the local governance process.

Typically, their participation is reactive (i.e., participating based on an invitation from the

government).

Table 3: CBO Participation in the Local Governance Process

Types of Participation Number of CBOs Using Types of Participation


Policy dialogues, feedback 46

Planning and budgeting process 49

Managing public entities 33

Monitoring the delivery of public services 31

Decision-making process 25

Direct citizen feedback mechanism established at the LG level 3

As can be seen in Table 3, the highest share of CBO participation was in the planning and

budgeting process, while the lowest was participating in the direct citizen feedback mechanism

established at the LG level. The second-highest category was the number of CBOs participating in

the policy dialogues and providing feedback.

In FGDs, CBO representatives suggested that their participation in the local governance process

was largely limited to meeting with political representatives and elected leaders. No formal

mechanism had been established to engage CBOs in policy dialogues and feedback. Moreover,

CBO engagement in the planning and budgeting process was found to be limited, only occurring

during community-level discussions.

CBO Participation in SA and Citizen-Reporting Initiatives

CBOs participate in various SA events and citizen-reporting initiatives organized by LGs (see

Table 4). Again, their participation is mostly reactive (i.e., CBOs participate only when invited by

the government).

Table 4: CBO Participation in SA and Citizen-Reporting Initiatives Organized by LGs

Tools and Mechanisms Number of CBOs Using Tools and Mechanisms


Public hearing 45

Social audit 17

Monitoring the work user committees 24

Public audit 24

Exit poll 4

Citizen report card 4



As shown in Table 4, CBOs responded that they participate in the public hearing mechanism the

most. A public hearing is one of the most widely used tools, not only at the municipal level but

also at the ward and service center levels. There is a need to empower CBOs to more proactively

participate in the SA process.

CBOs Facilitating and Organizing SA Tools and Mechanisms

CBOs’ use of SA tools and mechanisms results in improved governance and transparency, and

helps to hold governments accountable to their citizens. However, only a few CBOs were found

to use these tools and mechanisms (see Table 5).

Table 5: CBOs Facilitating and/or Organizing the Practice of SA Tools and Mechanisms

Tools and Mechanisms Number of CBOs Using Tools and Mechanisms


Public hearing 12

Social audit 9

Public audit 5

Expenditure tracking 0

Public procurement monitoring 1

Participatory policy and budget analysis 2

Performance audit 0

Citizen jury 0

Community score card 0


Exit poll 0

As is shown in Table 5, few CBOs are engaging in public hearings or social audits, despite these

practices being mandatory for them to renew their affiliations. Similarly, public audits are only

performed when a CBO implements a project with a local budget. No CBOs reported using

expenditure tracking, performance audits, citizen juries, community or citizen score cards, or exit

polls.

Diversity and Inclusion within Organizations

As depicted in Figure 3: Diversity and Inclusion within Organizations women and excluded groups

are underrepresented in leadership positions compared to their membership numbers. The total

number of people in leadership positions across 107 CBOs is 1,598, of which 375 (23%) are male;

731 (46%) are female; 2 (0.13%) are from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and

questioning (LGBTIQ) community; and 490 (31%) are from excluded groups. This indicates the

need to further promote and empower women and excluded groups so that they are better able to

ascend to CBO leadership positions.


Figure 3: Diversity and Inclusion within Organizations

4.4 Mapping CSOs

CSOs are non-state, nonprofit, voluntary entities formed by people in the public sphere that

represent a wide range of interests. They can include CBOs as well as NGOs. However, for the

purposes of this study, CSOs and CBOs are treated as separate entities, with the former being more

structured and organized than the latter. CSOs can also include media organizations, cooperatives,

private sector initiatives for corporate social responsibility, networks, and federations of CSOs and

the media.

The findings of the CSO mapping are presented below.


The team evaluated whether CSOs have basic documents such as policies, guidelines, and

procedures to foster institutional governance. Their findings are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Institutional Governance

Existing Institutional Policies, Guidelines, and Procedure Documents

Number of CSOs with Institutional Policies, Guidelines, and Procedure Documents

(of 94 CSOs surveyed)

Organization's constitution 93

Finance and procurement 77

Human resources 68

GESI 60

Anti-corruption 55

Workplace harassment 48

Community mobilization 51

Partnership 39

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation(CCA)

37

Do no harm 31

Child protection 54

Strategic plan 65

Annual plan and budget 65

Resource mobilization 47

Last year social audit 50

52%

22%

72%

33%

FEMALE

EXCLUDED GROUPS

Leaders Members


Code of conduct and ethics 64


Discussions with CSOs during the consultation workshops revealed that several of the documents

listed in Table 6 are required for their registration. These documents are the organization’s

constitution as well as administrative and financial policies. Other documents are prepared because

they are required by project contracts or to fulfill donor organization requirements. Even in

instances where CSOs lack certain documents, they still need to orient members and provide

periodic updates.

CSO Participation in the Local Governance Processes

CSO participation in local governance processes is a mix of reactive (i.e., participating when

invited by the government) and proactive (i.e., CSOs staking a claim for participation). The

number of CSOs involved in various events and occasions is shown in Table 7.

Table 7: CSO Participation in the Local Governance Process

Types of Participation Number of CSOs Using the Type of Participation


Policy dialogues and feedback 66

Planning and budgeting process 69

Managing public entities 51

Monitoring of the delivery of public services 56

Decision-making process 48

Direct citizen feedback mechanisms established at the LG level 11

During the district-level workshops, most CSOs indicated that their participation in the local

governance process was generally ad hoc in nature, and mostly based on personal and political

connections. Some CSOs also shared their experiences with pro-active participation, particularly

in planning and policy feedback.

Several CSOs are involved in managing public entities such as public places; and properties and

services such as health, education, water, sanitation, irrigation, local roads, public parks,

community buildings, and community forests. CSO participation in monitoring the delivery of

public services is mostly through the monitoring committee, along with the users committee to

implement programs with local budgets. Other CSO engagements include affiliation, sharing

programs and budgets, and getting permission to work.

CSO Participation in SA and Citizen-Reporting Initiatives

CSOs participate in LG initiatives to use SA and citizen reporting. The number of CSOs that

reported such participation can be seen in Table 8.

Table 8: CSO Participation in SA and Citizen-Reporting Initiatives Organized by LGs

Tools and Mechanisms Number of CSOs Using the Tool or Mechanism


Public hearing 71

Social audit 68

Monitoring work of user committees 49

Public audit 55


Exit poll 24



As shown in Table 8, many CSOs participated in public hearings, social audits, and public audits.

This is likely because these three tools are widely used by LGs, ward offices, and service centers

such as health posts, community schools, and projects implemented by user committees. However,

government participation in these tools and mechanisms is not always meaningful. During the

discussions, most CSOs reported that these tools exist primarily ‘on paper’ as a formality or to

fulfill an obligation.

CSOs Facilitating and/or Organizing the Use of SA Tools and Mechanisms

In addition to formal mechanisms such as public hearings, public audits, and social audits, CSOs

also reported using SA tools and mechanisms to hold public service providers accountable. The

number of CSOs using these tools is shown in Table 9.

Table 9: CSOs Facilitating and/or Organizing the Use of SA Tools and Mechanisms

Tools and Mechanisms Number of CSOs Using the Tool or Mechanism


Public hearing 69

Social audit 66

Public audit 49

Expenditure tracking 28

Public procurement monitoring 30

Participatory policy and budget analysis 25

Performance audit 11

Citizen jury 10

Community score card 21


Exit poll 17

As shown in Table 9, the three most widely used tools by CSOs are public hearings, social audits,

and public audits. The least-used tools are citizen juries, performance audits, and citizen report

cards. During the consultation meetings, CSOs indicated that they primarily used SA tools and

mechanisms to fulfill project, registration, and renewal requirements. Because the use of these

tools is mostly project-related, a change in staff often means an organization loses skilled human

resources.

Diversity and Inclusion within CSOs

Diversity and inclusion in CSOs is presented in Figure 4, which shows the representation of

women and excluded groups in executive boards and general assemblies. It also shows staff

composition, including interns and volunteers.


Figure 4: Diversity and Inclusion within CSOs

As depicted in Figure 4, women are fairly well-represented on CSO executive boards, as they

comprise 48% of executive board members, compared to 42% of general assemblies. There is a

much wider gap for excluded groups, who account for 74% of general assemblies, but only 39%

of executive board members. During consultation meetings, CSOs admitted that the higher

representation of women on executive boards is due to mandatory female representation

provisions. CSOs said there is still a need to empower women to undertake leadership roles and

make independent decisions that favor women and excluded groups.

Leadership Positions

The total number of people in leadership positions across 94 CSOs is 2,957, of which 815 (28%)

are male, 1,176 (40%) are female, 21 (0.7%) are from the LGBTIQ community, and 945 (32%)

are from excluded groups.

5. Needs and Gap Assessment

The team aimed to assess organizations’ needs and gaps in two areas: 1) knowledge and

information; and 2) skills and capacity.

Within each area, the team assessed organizations’ performance on five major themes. Each theme

comprised several tools and mechanisms. These tools and mechanisms are referred to as

‘parameters’ for the purposes of this study. Table 10 covers the themes and parameters for the

knowledge and information area, while Table 11 presents the themes and parameters for the skills

and capacity area.

Information was gathered during a series of qualitative discussions with CSOs as well as FGDs

with CBOs in each of the project’s working municipalities. Altogether, 94 CSOs participated in

the assessment, while 104 personnel attended 10 FGDs.

The team used a form to collect and organize the data (see Annex 4). Organizations were asked to

rate their “existing” and “desired” performance, along with different parameters from one (rated

worst) to five (rated best). The team then aggregated these scores and identified gaps for each

parameter. These findings are presented in Figures 5 – 14.

5.1 Knowledge and Information

Table 10 shows the themes and parameters that were used to assess CSOs’ knowledge and access

to information.

48%

42%

48%

45%

39%

74%

38%

28%

EXECUTIVE BOARD

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

STAFF MEMBERS

INTERN AND VOLUNTEERS

Women Excluded Groups


Table 10: Themes and Parameters (tools/mechanisms) Used to Measure Needs and Gaps in CSOs’ Knowledge and Access to Information

Themes Parameters

(tools and mechanisms)

1. Constitution and laws

Constitutional provisions Constitutional rights

Structures of LGs Functions of LGs

Local laws and policies

2. Institutions and mechanisms

Institutions and mechanisms of LGs Open government partnerships

Open data standards and practices Open contracts and procurement standards

3. Services and entitlements

Special or targeted services and entitlements Public services

Processes and conditions to receive services and entitlements

Quality and benchmarks for service standards

4. Policy deliberation process

Policy reviews Policy feedback

Policy consultations

5. Civic spaces for governance, social accountability, and oversight

Lodge grievances Provide direct feedback

Influence decision-making Participate in planning and budgeting processes at the local level

Monitor the delivery of public services Participate in the practice of SA tools to hold governments accountable

Exercise democratic principles and values Manage public services and entities

Constitutional Provisions and Laws

Figure 5 shows the largest knowledge gap involved constitutional provisions related to federalism,

while the lowest was the structure of LGs.

Figure 5: Constitutional Provisions and Laws to Implement Federalism

Institutions and Mechanisms

As shown in Figure 6, the largest knowledge gap was open data standards and practices, while the

lowest was institutions and mechanisms of LGs.

Constitutional Provision

Structure of Local Government

Local Laws and Policies

Constitutional Rights

Function of Local Government

Needs Gaps


Figure 6: Institutions and Mechanisms to Implement Federalism

Civic Space in the Policy Deliberation Process

Figure 7 shows there were similar knowledge gaps for policy feedback, policy consultation, and

policy review.

Figure 7: Civic Space in the Policy Deliberation Process

Service and Entitlements

As shown in Figure 8, the largest knowledge gap was quality and benchmarks for service

standards, while the lowest was general understanding of public services.

Figure 8: Service and Entitlements

Institutions and Mechanism of Local Government

Open Data Standard and Practice

Open Government Partnership

Open Contract and Procurement Standards

Needs Gaps

Policy Review

Policy Consultation

Policy Feedback

Needs Gaps

Special or Targeted Services and Entitlements

Process and Conditions to Receive Services andEntitlements

Public Services

Qualty and Benchmarks for Service Standards

Needs Gaps


Civic Spaces for Governance, SA, and Oversight

As illustrated by Figure 9, the largest knowledge gaps were civic spaces to provide direct feedback

and SA tools to hold governments accountable. The smallest gaps were participation in planning

and budgeting processes at the local level, and the exercise of the democratic citizenry process.

Figure 9: Civic Spaces for Governance, SA, and Oversight

5.2 Skills and Capacity

Table 11 shows the themes and parameters that were used to assess CSOs’ skills and capacity.

Table 11: Themes and Parameters (tools/mechanisms) Used to Measure Needs and Gaps in CSOs’ Skills and Capacity

Themes Parameters


1. Access to public information

Plans and budgets Audit reports

Policies and laws Executive decisions

Revenue and expenditures Public service announcements

Use the right to information (RTI) to claim proactive disclosures Technical reports

Public procurement details

2. Use and reuse of public information

Campaign civic education Disseminate simplified versions of public documents

Demand transparency Claim spaces for participation

Claim services Ask questions on performance and conduct

Claim rights and entitlements Organize dialogue and interfaces

Provide suggestions and feedback Simplify policies, decisions, budgets, and reports

3. Influence policy and decision-making processes

Organize evidence-based advocacy campaigns Impart leadership skills

Engage and influence planning and budgeting processes

Conduct studies and research to collect evidence and make cases

Impart skills to negotiate and influence decision-making

Engage and influence the policy deliberation process

4. Use of SA tools

Community score card Public expenditure tracking

Monitoring the delivery of public services Pro-poor budget analysis

Public audits Local governance barometer


Themes Parameters


Participatory policy and budget analysis Participatory public procurement monitoring

Social audit Performance audits

Gender responsive budget analysis Citizen jury

Public hearing

5. Strengthen collaboration and networking

Stakeholders analysis and engagement Managing public services and entities

Public-private-partnership engagement Leveraging human and financial resources

Access to Public Information

Figure 10 shows that the highest skill gaps were access to technical reports, revenue- and

expenditure-related information, detailed plan and budget, and audit reports; while the lowest was

access to information related to public service announcements.

Figure 10: Access to Public Information

Use and Reuse of Public Information

Figure 11 shows the largest skill gap was disseminating simplified versions of public documents,

whereas the lowest was claiming space for participation. During the consultation workshop, CSOs

stated that claims for participation were dominated by people with personal and political

connections to organizations and local leaders.


Figure 11: Use and Reuse of Public Information

Influence Policy and Decision-Making Processes

As illustrated in Figure 12, the highest skill gap was imparting leadership skills, while the lowest

was imparting skills to negotiate and influence decision-making. During the consultation

workshop, CSOs said that negotiation and influence in decision-making was largely dependent on

the personal and political connections of people and organizations with local leaders.

Figure 12: Influence Policy and Decision-Making Processes

Use of SA Tools

Figure 13 shows that the largest skill gaps in using SA tools were community score cards,

monitoring the delivery of public services, and engaging in performance audits; while the smallest

were public hearings, public audits, and social audits. However, during the consultation workshop,

CSOs said that the practices of public hearings, public audits, and social audits exist more on paper

than in practice, and often do not lead to meaningful participation.

Campaign Civic Education

Demand Transparency

Claim Services

Claim Rights and Entitlements

Provide Suggestion and Feedback

Dessiminate Simplified Version of Public Documents

Claim Spaces for Participation

Ask Questions on Performance and Conduct

Organize Dialogue and interface

Simplify Policies, Decisions, Budget and Reports

Needs Gaps

Organize Evidence Based Advocacy…

Engage and Influence Planning and…

Impart Skill to Negotiate and Influence…

Impart Leadership Skill

Conduct Study and Research to Collect…

Engaging and Influencing Policy…

Needs Gaps


Figure 13: Use of SA Tools

Strengthen Collaboration and Networking

Figure 14 shows that the largest skill gap related to strengthening collaboration and networking

was managing public services and entities, while the smallest was leveraging human and financial

resources.

Figure 14: Strengthen Collaboration and Networking

6. Assessment of CSO Priorities

The team assessed CSO priorities for various parameters under each theme by examining the

aggregated scores provided by CSOs. Only ratings between three and five on the one-to-five scale

were included in the analysis, as the ratings between one and two were comparatively low. The

team’s findings on CSO priorities are visualized in Figure 15–19. For these figures, the center

shows the highest priority, with priorities decreasing as one moves towards outermost circle.

Community Score Card

Monitoring of Delivery of Public Services

Public Audit

Participatory Policy and Budget Analysis

Social Audit

Gender Responsive Budget Analysis

Public Hearing

Public Expenditure Tracking

Pro-poor Budget Analysis

Local Governance Barometer

Participatory Public Procurement Minitoring

Performance Audit

Citizen Jury

Needs Gaps

Stakeholders Analysis and Engagement

Private Public Partnership Engagement

Managing Public Services and Entities

Leaveraging Human and Financial Resources

Needs Gaps


Overall Thematic Priorities

Figure 15: Thematic Priorities in Knowledge and Information

Figure 15 shows that the core priority is understanding the fundamentals of the constitution and

laws to implement federalism. Understanding the services and entitlements for citizens is the

second priority. The third priority is basic understanding of civic spaces for governance, SA, and

oversight mechanisms at the local level. Institutions and mechanisms, and policy deliberation

processes are rated as the fourth and fifth priorities, respectively.

Figure 16: Thematic Priorities in Skills and Capacity

As depicted in Figure 16, the core priority is given to skills and capacity to influence policy and

decision-making processes. Skills and capacity to use and reuse public information are the second

priority. Skills and capacity to use SA tools and mechanisms to hold governments accountable is

the third priority. Collaboration and networking, and access to public information are the fourth

and fifth priorities, respectively.


6.1 Priorities within Each Theme

Figure 17 depicts CSO priorities within each theme under the knowledge and information area. As

before, the top priority is located at the center of each diagram, with priority decreasing as one

moves to the outermost circle.

Figure 17: Knowledge and Information Priorities

Constitution and Laws Institutions and Mechanisms

Policy Deliberation Process Services and Entitlements

Governance, SA, and Civic Oversight


Figure 18: Skills and Capacity

Figure 18 shows CSO priorities within each theme under the skills and capacity area. As before,

the top priority is located at the center of each diagram, with priority decreasing as one moves to

the outermost circle.

Access to Public Information Use and Reuse of Public Information

Influence Policy and Decision-Making Processes Use SA Tools to Hold Governments Accountable

Collaboration and Networking


7. Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Types of CBOs and CSOs

This study reached 107 CBOs and 94 CSOs across the project’s 10 working municipalities. The

highest concentrations of CBOs are in socioeconomic development, awareness, capacity-building,

and advocacy by theme; and women and children by impact population. CSOs are concentrated in

human rights, social justice, inclusion, peace, awareness, capacity building, and advocacy by

theme; and women and the Dalit communities by impact population.

7.2 Inclusion and Diversity in Leadership Positions

The representation of women in CSO general assemblies and executive boards in this study is

fairly strong; however, excluded groups are not as well-represented. Although there has been an

increase in the number of women representatives in leadership positions, there is still a need to

build their capacity to lead and make decisions in support of other women and excluded groups.

In CBOs, the number of women and excluded group members in leadership positons is quite low;

therefore, there is a strong need for leadership development programs that target women and

excluded groups at the CBO level.

7.3 Citizen Engagement

CBO and CSO Enabling Environment

Citizen groups, CBOs, and CSOs are structured in traditional ways; however, the structures of

these organizations have not been streamlined to adapt to the evolving local governance

process.

“Local governments are tasked with integrating civic engagement into political processes.

Despite this, elected officials have not yet recognized CSO contributions to civic awareness,

the democratic process, and constructive citizen-state engagement has not yet been recognized

by elected officials.

CBO and CSO engagement is generally low. Where engagement exists, it is primarily reactive

(i.e., in response to an invitation) as opposed to proactive (i.e., staking a claim to participate),

and is highly influenced by personal and political connections.

Governments have not been able to adequately perform the seven-step planning process. The

needs and voices of women, Dalits, poor people, and persons with disabilities (PWD) have not

been sufficiently addressed.

Community oversight and ownership are lacking in the policy deliberation process. CSOs’

feedback in policy has yet to be practiced by LGs.

Existing Spaces for Civic Engagement

The assessment evaluated spaces for local citizens at the ward, service center, and municipal levels.

Ward level: Citizens can request information about services; they provide suggestions for

being treated equally, raise their voices for service continuity, and submit citizen complaints.

Service center level: Per the Local Government Operation Act 2074, municipalities must

integrate and govern basic services and service centers within their jurisdictions. Citizens

mostly engage by receiving services, while CBOs and CSOs manage public entities and

services that are related to health, education, community forests, and drinking water.


Municipal level: Citizens help to implement development schemes, demand public services

from governments, and provide inputs and requests for municipal budgets.

Engagement Capacity

Very few CBOs and CSOs are using SA tools. When such tools are used, it is often as a

formality to fulfill project requirements, rather than a meaningful step in holding governments

accountable.

CBOs and CSOs have not yet taken up the mantle of ensuring governments deliver crucial

public services. Although CSOs and CBOs sometimes engage service centers, these are usually

centers that are already performing adequately. CSOs and CBOs place little pressure on poorly

performing service centers to strengthen public service delivery.

Service benchmarks and standards still need to be understood by both service providers and

service recipients.

While citizens engage and participate individually, CSOs and CBOs are not yet engaging as

frequently as institutions.

Existing CBO and CSO Engagement Practices

CBO and CSO participation is mostly reactive (i.e., participating when the government issues

an invitation); however, proactive participation exists in the planning and budgeting processes.

Public hearings are the most widely used SA tool, not only at the municipal level, but also at

the ward and service center levels. The top three tools most commonly used by CSOs are public

hearings, social audits, and public audits.

The engagement of CSOs in local governance is more ad hoc in nature, and largely depends

on personal and political connections.

CSOs are also engaged in managing public entities that include public places; properties; and

services such as health, education, water, sanitation, irrigation, local roads, community

buildings, and community forests.

CSO participation in monitoring public service delivery is mostly through monitoring

committees, which are formed in parallel to user committees to implement programs with local

budgets.

Other engagements illustrated by CSOs include affiliation, sharing programs and budgets, and

getting permission to work.

Local governments tend to view citizen engagement as something to be managed and

controlled, rather than working to collaborate with citizens, facilitate their participation, and

integrate their views into local governance.

The participation of citizens, CBOs, and CSOs in direct feedback mechanisms is very low.

CBO and CSO Needs and Priorities

Thematic priorities in knowledge and information – The first priority is to understand the

fundamentals of the constitution and laws to implement federalism. A knowledge of services

and entitlements for citizens is the second priority. The third priority is to gain a basic

understanding of civic spaces for governance, SA, and oversight mechanisms at the local level.

Institutional mechanisms and the policy deliberation process are the fourth and fifth priorities,

respectively.


Thematic priorities in skills and capacity – The first priority is skills and capacity to influence

policy and the decision-making process. Skills and capacity to use and reuse public information

and access to that information is the second priority. Skills and capacity to use SA tools and

mechanisms to hold governments accountable is the third priority. Finally, collaboration and

networking, and access to public information are the fourth and fifth priorities, respectively.

Challenges

Challenges include:

A reluctance on the part of LGs to engage citizens and CSOs in the policy-deliberation process.

Delays in adapting local procedures for registration, renewal, affiliation, and engagement of

CBOs and CSOs.

A greater focus on infrastructure development than on human development and governance.

The importance of personal contacts and political affiliations in the functioning of LGs, which

inhibits a fair and efficient system at the local level.

Additional financial burdens faced by service-oriented and volunteer-type CSOs from

government charges for registration and renewal.

Differences in municipality-wide CSO governing practices, which create confusion on how to

follow municipality-specific rules and regulations.

The belief among CSOs that SA tools are now being used mostly as a formality to meet project

requirements, which undermines the intended outcomes of such requirements.

Opportunities

Opportunities exist to:

Promote constructive citizen-state engagement in developing policies and process reforms, and

enhancing meaningful participation.

Utilize CBOs and CSOs as intermediaries to reach poor and vulnerable citizens.

Practice collaborative governance to utilize knowledge, resources, and skills.

Build trust and ownership among citizens, agencies, and LGs in the local governance process.

7.4 Recommendations

Based on the above recommendations, Sajhedari-STF should work toward the following goals:

Provide civic awareness raising at the community level for good governance practices.

Promote dialogue to resolve emerging community issues.

Support the establishment of functional coordination with LGs and other stakeholders.

Facilitate the civic education process to increase the access of excluded groups to public

services, in coordination with LGs and supportive agencies.

Support LGs in establishing a culture of being more sensitive to protecting citizen rights and

also addressing their voices and aspirations.

Support timely and effective monitoring of government-supported development works,

ensuring the participation of CSOs.


In addition to these goals, all stakeholders should work together to achieve the following:

Design Interventions

Organize CBOs and CSOs at the ward and municipal levels.

Facilitate constructive citizen-state engagement.

Support citizens, CSOs, and CBOs to engage in policy and public processes.

Regularly consult with CBOs and CSOs.

Create need- and demand-based interventions.

Implement Interventions

Allow CBOs and CSOs to help lead interventions at the local level.

Promote local organizations, local markets, and local economies.

Raise awareness, build capacity, and support institutional development as one, integrated

package.

Ensure that local governments are continuously engaging and following up with CSOs, CBOs,

and citizens, to strengthen the implementation of policies and programs.

Prioritize women, youth, the poor, and excluded groups in interventions.

Coordinate and Collaborate

Ensure that LGs acknowledge CSOs’ and CBOs’ important roles and contributions.

Create and institutionalize additional spaces for citizen engagement.

Explore opportunities for synergies, and avoid the duplication of efforts and resources.

Facilitate learning and sharing among CBOs within and across municipalities.


Annex 1: Bibliography

Constitution of Nepal 2072. Nepal Law Commission.

http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/archives/category/documents/prevailing-

law/constitution/constitution-of-nepal.

Local Government Operation Act 2074. Nepal Law Commission.

http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/np/archives/category/documents/prevailing-law/statutes-

acts/.

Nazneen, S. and D. Thapa. 2019. The Implications of Closing Civic Space for Sustainable

Development in Nepal. Institute of Development Studies.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334671033_The_Implications_of_Closing_Civic_Spac

e_for_Sustainable_Development_in_Nepal

Sapkota, K. 2020. Local Government and CSOs, Partners of Prosperity in Federal System.

Lokaantar Sanchar Pvt. Ltd. 2020. http://english.lokaantar.com/articles/local-government-csos-

partners-prosperity-federal-system/.

Uttam Uprety. 2011. A reflection on the legal framework for civil society in Nepal. The

International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law. https://www.icnl.org/resources/research/ijnl/a-

reflection-on-the-legal-framework-for-civil-society-in-nepal.

http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/archives/category/documents/prevailing-law/constitution/constitution-of-nepal

http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/archives/category/documents/prevailing-law/constitution/constitution-of-nepal

http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/np/archives/category/documents/prevailing-law/statutes-acts

http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/np/archives/category/documents/prevailing-law/statutes-acts

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334671033_The_Implications_of_Closing_Civic_Space_for_Sustainable_Development_in_Nepal

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334671033_The_Implications_of_Closing_Civic_Space_for_Sustainable_Development_in_Nepal

http://english.lokaantar.com/articles/local-government-csos-partners-prosperity-federal-system/

http://english.lokaantar.com/articles/local-government-csos-partners-prosperity-federal-system/

https://www.icnl.org/resources/research/ijnl/a-reflection-on-the-legal-framework-for-civil-society-in-nepal

https://www.icnl.org/resources/research/ijnl/a-reflection-on-the-legal-framework-for-civil-society-in-nepal


Annex 2: CSO Mapping Form

USAID/Nepal Sajhedari- STF

CSO Mapping: Form (1)

NGOs/CSOs at the District and Province Levels

General Information

1. Name of the organization

2. Date of establishment

3. Address (District)

4. Phone number, email, website

5. Registration and affiliation

6. Geographical coverage (Districts)

7. Impact population (beneficiaries)

8. Thematic focus (key three areas 1, 2, and 3)

9. Membership or affiliation with any governance and

accountability network or forum

10. Contact person

(1. Name, 2. Position, 3. Contact number, and 4. Email)

Institutional governance

Current policy and practices Yes/No Updated/ not updated

1. Organization’s constitution

2. Finance and procurement policy

3. Human Resource policy or manual

4. GESI policy or strategy or guideline

5. Anti-corruption policy

6. Workplace harassment policy

7. Community mobilization policy or guideline

8. Partnership policy or strategy or guideline

9. DRR CCA policy or strategy or guideline

10. Do no harm policy or strategy or guideline

11. Child protection policy or strategy or guideline

12. Strategic plan

13. Annual plan and budget

14. Resource mobilization (fund raising) policy or plan

15. Other (please specify…..)

16. Annual turnover

17. Social audit of last fiscal year

18. Code of conduct and ethics

18. Grievance redress mechanism


Engagement with LG

Types of engagement Response (Yes/No)

1. Participation in policy dialogues, feedback

2. Participation in planning and budgeting process

3. Participating to manage public entities (please specify…….)

4. Participating in monitoring of the delivery of public services

5. Participating in decision-making process (please specify….)

6. Participating in SA events organized by LG:

Tools

Public

Hearing

(6.1)

Social

Audit

(6.2)

Monitoring

the Work of

User

Committees

(6.3)

Public

Audit

(6.4)

Exit

Poll

(6.5)

(CRC)

(6.6)

Grievance

Redress

Mechanism

(6.7)

Other

(please specify

……………..)

(6.8)

Please

check

7. Practicing and/or facilitating SA tools

Tools Public

Hearing

(7.1)

Social

Audit

(7.2)

Public

Audit

(7.3)

Expenditure

Tracking

(7.4)

Public

Procure-

ment

Monitoring

(7.5)

Participatory

Policy and

Budget

Analysis

(7.6)

Perform-

ance

Audit

(7.7)

Citizen

Jury

(7.8)

Community

Score Cards

(7.9)

CRC

(7.10)

Exit

Poll

(7.11)

Other

(please

specify

………..)

(7.12)

Please

tick

8. Participating in direct citizen feedback mechanism established at LG


Engagement with provincial government

10. Specify if any………………..


GESI within Institutions

Executive Board:

1. Total number:

2. Number of women:

3. Number of marginalized group members:

General members

1. Total number:

2. Number of women:


Staff members

1. Total number:

2. Number of women:


Intern and volunteers

1. Total number:

2. Number of women:


Enumerator: ____________

Date: _____________


Annex 3: CBO Mapping Form

USAID/Nepal Sajhedari- STF

CSO Mapping: Form (2)

Institutions at Municipal Level – Loose Forum and Networks

General Information

1. Name of the organization

2. Date of establishment

3. Address (municipality)

4. Phone number, email, website

5. Registration and affiliation

6. Geographical coverage

7. Impact population (beneficiaries)

8. Thematic focus (key three areas 1.,

2., 3.)

9. Membership or affiliation with any

governance and accountability

network or forum

10. Contact person

(1. Name, 2. Position, 3. Contact

number, 4. Email)


Current policy and practices Yes/no Updated/not updated

1. Meeting procedure

2. Annual plan and budget

3. Sources of revenue

4. Code of conduct and ethics

5. Grievance redress mechanism

6. Ongoing program or events



Engagement with LG

Types of engagement Response (Yes/No)

1. Participation in policy dialogues, feedback

2. Participation in planning and budgeting process

3. Participating to manage public entities (please specify…….)

4. Participating in monitoring of the delivery of public services

5. Participating in decision-making process (please specify….)

6. Participating in SA events organized by LG:

Tools Public

Hearing

(6.1)

Social

Audit

(6.2)

Monitoring the

work of user

committees

(6.3)

Public

Audit

(6.4)

Exit

Poll

(6.5)

Citizen

Report

Card

(CRC)

(6.6)

Grievance

Redress

Mechanism

(6.7)

Other

(please specify)

(6.8)

Please

tick

7. Practicing and or facilitating SA tools

Tools

Public

Hearing

(7.1)

Social

Audit

(7.2)

Public

Audit

(7.3)

Expendi-

ture

Tracking

(7.4)

Public

Procure-

ment

Monitoring

(7.5)

Participatory

Policy and

Budget

Analysis

(7.6)

Perform-

ance

Audit

(7.7)

Citizen

Jury

(7.8)

Community

Score Cards

(7.9)

CRC

(7.10)

Exit Poll

(7.11)

Other

(please

specify

……..)

(7.12)

Please

tick

8. Participating in direct citizen feedback mechanism established at LG


Engagement with provincial government

10. Specify if any………………..

GESI within Institution

1. Total number people associated:

2. Number of women

3. Number of marginalized groups.

4. Total number of youth

5. Other specify if any…..

Enumerator: ____________

Date: _____________


Annex 4: Needs Assessment Form

USAID/Nepal Sajhedari-STF

CSO Needs Assessment Form

Name of the institution:

Address: Date:

Name of the respondent: Designation:

Aspect of capacity

Existing Status Desired Status

Please rate yourself where 1 is lowest

and 5 is highest

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

A. KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION

Constitution and law

1. Constitutional provisions

2. Constitutional rights

3. Structure of government

4. Laws and policies (local level)

5. Function of government (LG)

Institution and mechanisms

1. Institutions and mechanism of governance at local level

2. Open government partnership approach

3. Open data standards and practice

4. Open contract/procurement standards

Policy deliberation process

1. Spaces for citizen engagement in policy deliberation process (consultation)

2. Spaces for citizen engagement in policy deliberation process (feedback)

3. Spaces for citizen engagement in policy deliberation process (review)

Service and entitlement

1. Public services

2. Targeted service and entitlements [for women, children, PWDs, senior citizen, and

other marginalized and excluded groups]

3. Quality and benchmark (service standard)

4. Process and condition to get the service and entitlement

Governance, SA, and civic oversight

1. Democratic principle and values

2. Democratic citizenry process

3. Planning and budgeting process at local level

4. Civic space to manage public entities/services at local level

5. Civic space to participate and influence decision-making process at local level

6. Civic space to monitor the delivery of public services at local level

7. Civic space to provide direct feedback to government at local level

8. Civic space to participate to lodge the grievances at local level

9. Civic space to participate in the practice of SA tools to hold government

accountable at local level

B. SKILLS AND CAPACITY

Access the public information

1. Policy and laws

2. Executive decisions

3. Plan and budget


4. Public service and entitlement announcement

5. Technical reports

6. Audit reports

7. Revenue and expenditure reports

8. Public procurement details

9. Use the RTI and claim proactive disclosure

Use and reuse the public information

1. Claim services

2. Claim rights and entitlements

3. Claim spaces for participation

4. Demand transparency

5. Ask question on performance and conduct

6. Provide suggestion and feedback

7. Demystify and or simplify policies, decisions, budgets, and reports

8. Further disseminate simplified versions of public documents

9. Campaign civic education (citizen schooling)

10. Organize dialogues and interface

Influencing policies and decision-making process

1. Impart leadership skill

2. Conduct study and research to collect evidences and make cases

3. Impart skill to negotiate and influence decision-making

4. Organize evidence-based advocacy campaigns

5. Engage and influence planning and budgeting process

6. Engage and influence policy deliration process

Constructive citizen state engagement through SA tools

1. Organize and or facilitate public hearing (packaging with exit poll, citizen report

card, and citizen charter)

2. Organize and or facilitate public audit

3. Organize and or facilitate social audit

4. Practice community score card

5. Conduct and or facilitate gender responsive budget analysis

6. Pro-poor budget analysis

7. Participatory policy and budget analysis

8. Conduct or facilitate public expenditure tracking study

9. Practice and or facilitate local governance barometer

10. Participatory monitoring of the delivery of the public services

11. Citizen jury

12. Participating in performance audit

13. Organize or facilitate participatory public procurement monitoring

Collaboration and networking

1. Private public partnership engagement

2. Managing public services and entities

3. Stakeholders consultations, engagement and analysis

4. Leveraging human and financial resources

Assessment carried out by: _______________________


Annex 5: FGD Checklist

USAID/ Nepal Sajhedari-STF

CSO Mapping and Needs Assessment

FGD Checklist

Location of FGD

Municipality

Total participants

Sex Men Women Others

Oth

er d

isag

gre

gat

ion

Dalit

Aadibasi Janajati

PWD

Youth

Ethnic minority

……

Number of the organization

represented by the participant

Date and time of FGD

Discussion led by

Note taker

1) How is the working environment for CSOs in changing context of government structures?

2) How do CBOs describe the existing spaces for citizen engagement in the local governance process?

Service centers Wards Municipality

3) What is the capacity of CBOs to engage constructively in the decision-making process and other

governance initiatives?



4) How are the CBOs engaging in the decision-making and civic oversight process?


5) What are the opportunities and challenges?

Opportunities Challenges

6) What are the needs of CBOs in terms of capacity-building to engage constructively with LGs?

Knowledge Skills

7) How should Sajhedari-STF promote constructive citizen state engagement?

CSO Mapping - DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE ...

Documents

Transcript of CSO Mapping - DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE ...