ALBANIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND

COMMUNITY WORKS PROJECT II

PREPARATION AND TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE DURING
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PARTICIPATION PILOT PROGRAM
INCLUDING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AND PARTICIPATORY
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Local Development Plan and

Participatory Monitoring
and Evaluation:
Structure and Methodology

August 2004

Sharon Cooley
Katie Mark
The Urban Institute

Edlir Vokopola
Zana Vokopola
Linda Mitrojorgji
Urban Research Institute

Pranvera Bekteshi
Blendi Bushati
Marieta Cili
Edmond Fishka
Shefik Gjata
Migena Muhaj
Dritan Pistoli
Leonard Prifti
The Albanian Development Fund
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ...............................................................................................3
Background
What is a Local Development Plan?
Guiding Principles of a LDP
Linkage to Annual Budget Development
Community Participation
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Summary

II. LDP/PME Structure .................................................................................9

Situational Analysis
Commune Vision
Strategic Goals
Action Steps/Projects
Pre-feasibility study for action steps
Budget and preliminary identification of funding sources
Schedule and accountability assignments
Measurable outcomes
Communication/Public Information Plan

III. LDP/PME Methodology...........................................................................18

Step One: Obtaining Commitment
Step Two: Providing Direction
Step Three: Getting Started
Step Four: Gathering Information
Step Five: Village Participation
Step Six: Synthesizing Data, Input into Preliminary Framework
Step Seven: Participatory Strategic Goal Subcommittee Work
Step Eight: “You talked, we listened. Did we get it right?” Community Meeting
and Commune Council Conceptual Approval of the LDP
Step Nine: Integration with Budget Development/Funding Identification
Step Ten: LDP Implementation and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Suggested Work Plan and Timeframe for LDP/PME

2
 I. INTRODUCTION

Background

As part of its commitment to build the capacity of Albanian local government to engage
in sustainable and participatory development, the Albanian Development Fund (ADF)
has commissioned the Urban Institute and its local partners, in collaboration with ADF
staff, to devise a comprehensive structure and methodology for Local Development
Planning (LDP) and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME). The key precepts of
the LDP and PME framework are that it is participatory in design and implementation,
and meaningful, that is, feasible, to all beneficiaries concerned.

In the spring of 2004, the ADF contracted the Urban Institute to prepare and provide
technical assistance for a participation pilot program for local development planning and
participatory monitoring and evaluation at the commune level. The specific charge is to
design “an effective methodology to develop the capacity of communes and villages to
use a participatory approach to design and implement Local Development Plans and
appropriate monitoring systems.” The methodology shall place special emphasis on
community participation in the entire process of the design, implementation, and
monitoring of the Local Development Plan. A special feature of the LDP/PME is that it
takes advantage of the vast work being conducted on social capital and the extent to
which social cohesion, as one facet of social capital, is critical for communities to
achieve prosperous economies, sustainable development, and a higher quality of life.

A Pilot Participatory Working Group (PPWG) was established in the summer of 2004 to
identify the main parameters and processes of the LDP/PME with the intent of bringing
in other stakeholders to provide input and further shape the final LDP structure and
methodology. The PPWG consists of representatives of the Urban Institute and its local
partner, the Urban Research Institute (Instituti Kerkimeve Urbane), and members of the
Albanian Development Fund. As the project takes shape, members of the ADF Board,
Ministry of Local Government, commune elected officials and staff, and donors will be
invited to join the discussion and further enhance the structure and methodology.

This document represents the culmination of a variety of workshops and discussions

conducted by the PPWG over the course of three months. The introduction of the report
contains a brief discussion as to how the PPWG conceptualizes the Local Development
Plan and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation structure and methodology. It also
touches upon the special linkage sought between the LDP and the budget development
processes, as well as with social capital principles and practices. Section II sets forth
the structure of the Local Development Plan and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
and Section III proposes a methodology for its implementation.

What is a Local Development Plan?

Local development planning is a vital process that allows local governments—and the
publics they represent—to take control of and shape their futures. A Local Development
Plan provides information on a community’s course of action, a roadmap, if you will, for
elected officials, local government staff, and the community-at-large to follow when
shaping their desired futures. Local development planning is proactive. It is about

3
strategic thinking, planning, and anticipating the kinds of things a community needs to do
in order to achieve its desired goals.

Effective local development planning entails that a local government understand what
“business” it is in, who its customers are, and how well it is meeting their needs and
expectations. When done well, local development planning involves input and
participation from a broad cross-section of the community and other stakeholders. This
guarantees that the local government is harnessing the best resources possible in
planning its future, as well as providing an all-important forum for civic participation,
ownership and engagement.

In fact, the importance of the community participation component cannot be

overestimated. The strategic goals and action steps articulated in the Local
Development Plan are not solely the domain of the commune government. The
Commune cannot do it all, nor can it address the community’s needs alone. Inherent in
the LDP is the notion that the entire community has a stake in and a contribution to
make to the achievement of a sustainable commune. The commitment and actions of
various community members, groups, and other stakeholders are critical to the
successful attainment of the Commune’s vision, goals, and actions that are constitutive
of the LDP.

Local development planning also allows local government to better align its services with
local council and community priorities, as well as with regional and national priorities.
For example, in 2002, the Albanian government prepared the National Social and
Economic Development Strategy (NSSED), which sets forth a long-term development
strategy for poverty reduction, economic growth, and the enhancement of education and
governance, among other issues. Various donors and local organizations have also
contributed to the development of regional development plans that expressly aim to align
more localized strategies and policies with the NSSED.

Conversely, regional and national institutions, as well as donors, have a great deal to
learn and gain from local development plans in the establishment of broader frameworks
of policymaking and action. It is anticipated that the LDPs, upon gaining momentum, will
ultimately drive the development and content of regional and national planning and
policymaking, as well. As part of this project, a mapping of regional and local
development planning efforts currently underway in Albania is being prepared; summary
findings and recommendations from this research will be included in a final report and
incorporated into the final LDP/PME Structure and Methodology as deemed relevant.

A Local Development Plan is only effective when it is rigorously used to plan and design
services and projects, allocate resources, identify fiscal gaps and needs, measure the
results of local government work, and communicate these results to the community. It is
a process and document by which the community can hold leadership accountable for
getting things done in a manner that is responsive to their needs and priorities. It
ensures a wise and effective utilization of scarce resources to ensure the community is
positioned to meet its goals.

Local Development Plans should be championed and conceptually approved by local

councils. Although ideally long-term in both vision and actions, LDPs need to retain a
high degree of flexibility to ensure continued relevance and responsiveness to the

4
community’s changing needs and priorities. In this way, LDPs should be revisited
annually and revised, where desired.

The LDP/PME process developed for Albanian communes follows the time-honored
principles and concepts of strategic planning. In adapting this conceptual framework to
local needs and reality, the PPWG established a set of principles to guide the
development of the structure and methodology.

Guiding Principles of Local Development Planning in Albanian Communes

The Commune Local Development Plan is

ƒ Strategic in nature. The LDP looks at the long-term needs of the community and
identifies the best strategies to address them; it strategically looks at local assets,
too, and the best positioning of those assets in relation to effectively resolving
problems of common concern. The process also engenders the culture of
strategic thinking among all participants, a vital aspect of successful
sustainability.
ƒ Simple. The LDP/PME methodology and process will be understandable and
manageable by the commune for purposes of feasibility, ownership and
sustainability.
ƒ Participatory and Inclusive. The LDP/PME development process,
implementation, and monitoring will involve a broad representation of the
Commune, including members of each constitutive village, women, youth,
seniors, and other typically disadvantaged populations.
ƒ Feasible. The LDP—as a plan—will contain concrete, feasible action steps and
projects. It will aim to strike a balance between actions/projects that can be
incorporated into the budget and/or achieved by the community with little
financial requirements and actions/projects that might need external support
(e.g., donors, grants).
ƒ Aligned with regional and national priorities and goals where relevant. Although
the starting point for the content of the LDP is the community, special attention
shall be paid by the local government how their LDP fits into broader objectives.
Obviously, this attention will ensure that LDPs do not contain actions/projects
that contradict regional or national aims, but rather enhance and support them.
ƒ A tool to Demonstrate Responsiveness, Accountability and Transparency.
LDPs not only involve the community in their development and, hence, are
responsive to the community’s needs and preferences, but are used by the
community to hold local government accountable for its work.

Linkage to the Annual Budget Development Process

Local development planning is only effective when it is employed as a guide for

identifying and allocating resource gaps and possibilities. Too often, local governments
create LDPs with great fan fair only to find them gathering dust on a shelf. Budgets are
developed reactively, and rolled over from year to year with little change in line item
accounts except to account for inflation and other exigent circumstances. In the PPWG’s
approach, the LDP is conceptualized as the starting point of the budget development
process, although its content at times will supersede budget constraints, as well.

5
Special emphasis will be placed on the identification of concrete actions and projects
that will be considered by commune staff and council in making budgetary choices. Work
being conducted by the Urban Institute as part of a USAID Local Government project
has demonstrated great utility in a model designed to build capacity of local
governments in assessing community preferences, and presenting these in the form of
choices and trade-offs for local government elected officials to consider when developing
annual operating and capital budgets. The LDP process will incorporate this model into
various parts of the plan, namely, gathering citizen input into what is important to them,
identifying revenue streams to support these preferences, and presenting valid choices
with regard to what is both responsive to the community and feasible for the local
government to address.

However, as will be shown below, the LDP will also include actions and projects that will
(1) not necessarily require a fiscal impact and/or (2) fall outside budget constraints and
thereby require external assistance. The latter cases should not be seen as “wish lists”,
but rather valid explorations for obtaining the necessary funds to support such an
endeavor. This issue will be outlined in more detail in later sections of this report.

Community Participation in the Development and Implementation of the LDP

Citizen participation is a key component in building local government capacity. Citizen

engagement in civic matters yields more responsive solutions and decisions concerning
matters that affect the entire community. Citizens who are involved in the planning
stages are more apt to get involved in implementation and monitoring, as well. As a
result, trust and understanding of local government processes, community pride, and
overall accountability are greatly increased, enhancing the chances of successful local
planning and development.

The PPWG’s approach to the Local Development Plan ensures the participation of
citizens—from long-term priority setting to implementation and monitoring. Although the
entire community will be invited to participate, the process also takes steps toward
targeting special groups to ensure participation and inclusion, including women, youth,
and seniors, as well as special stakeholders, e.g., local NGOs, businesses, and so on.

Participation is guaranteed through a variety of institutionalized mechanisms in the

proposed structure and methodology of the LDP. For example, citizens will be invited to
sit on the Local Development Plan Group, an advisory body to be formed to spearhead
and provide oversight and guidance to the development of the LDP; LDP Priority Area
Subcommittees, smaller groups set up to formulate concrete action plans to achieve
goals; a Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Group, and village-level Consulting and
Monitoring Groups designed to ensure all villages are represented in the design,
monitoring, and implementation of the LDP.

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E)

Monitoring and evaluating (M&E) the effectiveness of an organization’s work is crucial

for a number of reasons. For one, it enables the organization to be accountable to its
stakeholders that it is achieving, or well on its way to achieving, what the organization

6
said it was going to do. Regular and continuous outcome monitoring of, say, local
government services or a strategic plan, also allows the organization to identify early
indications of problems in achieving its goals, thereby allowing for timely intervention and
adjustment in the service area in question. In this way, M&E is an invaluable
management practice for local government staff to assess how well they are achieving
their targets. Consequent evaluation allows for a deeper understanding of how and why
intended results were or were not achieved yielding invaluable lessons learned for future
program design and implementation efforts.

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) emphasizes the added value of

involving the community and other stakeholders directly in the monitoring and evaluation
activity. Effective PM&E involves the community not only in the monitoring and
evaluation process, but in the design of the PM&E system, as well. In this way, the
outcomes to be measured have a better chance of reflecting the real needs of the
citizenry.

Involving beneficiaries in the development of the PM&E system also helps develop a
sense of ownership for the project on a whole (i.e., what is being monitored and
evaluated) and for the results of the evaluation. Additionally, the presence of community
members on the monitoring team allows for a credible partnership between local
government and the citizens it serves. It should be said at the outset that PM&E is not
based on an assumption of distrust, but instead aims to enhance the dialogue and
partnership among all participants and beneficiaries of the Local Development Plan, as
well as further mutual learning and understanding of the most important concept to be
gleaned from the PM&E process—results!

PM&E will take place throughout the process of developing the Local Development Plan.
It is not only important to monitor the outcomes of work toward the goals, but to monitor
and evaluate the Local Development Planning process, as well. This means that
outcome measures will be established for each strategic goal and action step. But it also
entails the establishment of criteria and indicators for evaluating the process of the LDP
development itself. A PME Group (see below) will be charged with developing criteria
and indicators for measuring the process. These criteria might address the following
questions, in addition to others to be determined by the group:

ƒ Was the development of the plan inclusive? Did/does it involve members

of all villages, women, youth, seniors, ethnic groups, and so on?
ƒ Did the process satisfy the participants’ expectations?
ƒ Did the plan affect policy decisions, such as budgetary choices?
ƒ Did the final plan respond to the community’s input?
ƒ Did it involve sufficient public information campaigns to encourage
participation and dialogue between the local government and community?

In order to accord appropriate credence and importance to PME, the PPWG has
proposed the establishment of an autonomous PME Group that will work closely with the
LDP Group (see below) and commune staff in developing appropriate measures, data
collection techniques, criteria, and the like—and then measuring and reporting on the
results on an annual, or, if desired, more frequent basis. Because the PPWG assumes
local governments are and wish to be transparent and accountable—and that it is
important they send this message—the PME Group includes both commune staff and
community members.

7
Summary

The structure and methodology of Local Development Planning and Participatory

Monitoring and Evaluation presented below has several components but it has been
designed with the intention of providing procedures, steps, and tools that are as
simplistic and straightforward as possible. It is also intended that its implementation will
be open to adaptation and—of utmost importance—a great deal of flexibility to respond
to local requirements, local input, and other modifications as deemed necessary by the
participants themselves.
One major challenge of the project is ensuring the planning process is both
comprehensive and meaningful yet grounded in reality of what a commune can feasibly
achieve. In other words, we do not wish to gather the input of hundreds of villagers,
involve countless hours of staff and other stakeholders’ time, thereby raising
expectations, if in reality it will be unfeasible to do much of anything. It is therefore highly
important that the LDP strikes a balance between small projects that require little
financial resources, and those that will require external assistance.

This challenge should not amount to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” There
is much a local government can gain by having its needs “on the table” so it can began
incrementally working toward addressing that need in at least the long-term. Action steps
need not entail actual implementation of a water system in the first year of the LDP, but
rather may state intent to prepare a pre-feasibility study for a water system in the first
year, with funding identification as an action step in the second year, and so on. In the
meantime, communication about small steps achieved will go far in keeping the
community interested and mobilized to make it happen.

ƒ Special attention will also be paid throughout the implementation phase to

lessons learned that will make local development planning replicable throughout
all communes and municipalities in Albania.

8
 Local Development Plan and
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

II. STRUCTURE

This report differentiates between the structure of the Local Development Plan (LDP)
and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) and the methodology by which the
LDP/PME is realized.

The Structure of the LDP/PME defines the constituent components and content that
enable the local government to understand its current situation in relation to the future,
the direction it wishes to head, how it will get there, resources for attaining its vision
(both fiscal and community assets), and the way in which it will monitor its successes
and failures. The Structure of the Local Development Plan and Participatory Monitoring
and Evaluation Framework is comprised of the following components:

ƒ Situational Analysis
ƒ Commune Vision
ƒ LDP Priority Areas
ƒ Strategic Goals
ƒ Action Steps/Projects
ƒ Pre-feasibility study for action steps
ƒ Budget and preliminary identification of funding sources
ƒ Schedule and accountability assignments
ƒ Measurable outcomes
ƒ Communication/Public Information Plan

Exhibit 1 portrays the relationship between these components.

Local Development Planning Process

Situational Analysis: Where are we? SWOT

Commune Vision
Where do we want to be?
(10-15 yrs)

Participatory Priority Areas/Strategic Goals/

Monitoring and Action Steps and Projects
Evaluation How do we get there?
(of process)
Priority Area Priority Area Priority Area Priority Area
Economic Dev Social Dev Public Infrastructure Good Governance

Strategic Goal 1 Strategic Goal 1 Strategic Goal 1 Strategic Goal 1

Action step Action step Action step Action step
Action step Action step Action step Action step
Action step Action step Action step Action step

Strategic Goal 2 Strategic Goal 2 Strategic Goal 2 Strategic Goal 2

Action step Action step Action step Action step
Action step Action step Action step Action step
Action step Action step Action step Action step

Strategic Goal 3 Strategic Goal 3 Strategic Goal 3 Strategic Goal 3

Action step Action step Action step Action step
Action step Action step Action step Action step
Action step Action step Action step Action step

Pre-Feasibility Pre-Feasibility Pre-Feasibility Pre-Feasibility

Final Local Development Plan Budget Development Participatory Monitoring and

9
(trade-offs, choices) Evaluation
(annually) (quarterly reports)
The process by which these components come to life in a dynamic LDP entails a variety
of actors and institutions. The intersection of these actors and components will be
detailed below in Section III: LDP and PME Methodology. For now, however, it is
sufficient to outline the main stakeholders, beneficiaries and groups involved in the
development and implementation of the LDP process:

Main Stakeholders/beneficiaries:

ƒ Elected officials
ƒ Commune staff
ƒ Community (all villagers)
ƒ Other stakeholders: other governmental institutions, both regional and
national; associations; NGOs; businesses; donors; students;
associations; and so on
ƒ Contracted NGO
ƒ Project sponsors: ADF/World Bank

Advisory Groups:

The LDP/PME process aims to be participatory and inclusive. The PPWG proposes the
establishment of the following groups to assist and advise the local government in the
development, implementation and monitoring of the LDP/PME:

Local Development Planning Group (LDP Group): This group is

responsible for spearheading, providing guidance and advice, and overseeing
the development of the LDP. The LDP Group will also be in charge of
preparing the final proposed Local Development Plan to be presented to the
Commune Council for approval. It will be aided by LDP Priority Area
Subcommittees (of the LDP Group) tasked with preparing priority area-
specific action plans to achieve goals within those areas.

Composition:
Chair, to be elected by LDP Group
Chief of Commune
2-3 Council members
3-5 Commune staff (e.g., urban planning, finance officer, pubic service,
social service)
3-5 citizens-at-large representing various demographics/professions of
population
1 (5-20) representative from each village
Total number of participants: 15-40, depending on # of villages in the
commune

10
LDP Priority Area Subcommittees: These groups are seen as small
working group subcommittees of the LDP Group established to synthesize
input, study feasibility of, and prepare priority area-specific action plans.
Because the work of this group is bound to require technical expertise, the
Subcommittees will be encouraged to invite additional members of the
community or from outside of the community to aid in the development and
feasibility analysis of the priority area-specific action plans. The
Subcommittees will present their priority area-specific action plans to the LDP
Group for final review and compilation into the proposed Local Development
Plan.

Composition:
Chair, member of LDP Group
1-2 commune staff
2-4 citizens-at-large
2-4 selected experts in the field to be invited on an as needed basis
Total number of participants: 6-11

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Group (PME Group): This group

is charged with working closely with the LDP Group and subcommittees in
establishing criteria for evaluating the LDP process, establish performance
measures for strategic goals and action steps, and to assess achievement of
outcomes. The PME Group will also be charged with monitoring the LDP’s
successful implementation and communicating to the council and citizenry
successes and failures.

Composition:
Chair
1-2 commune staff
3-5 citizens-at-large
Total number of participants: 5-8

Village Consulting and Monitoring Groups: These groups will be

established in each village and are charged with helping facilitate the
participation of villagers in the LDP and PME processes. A chair will be
elected from the group and will serve as a regular member of the LDP Group.

Composition:
Chair, to be elected by the group and to represent the group as a member
of the LDP Group
Village Chief
1-2 Village Elders
3-5 villagers, representing various demographics/professions of
population, e.g., women, youth, disadvantaged, minority
Total number of participants: 5-8

11
Exhibit 2 demonstrates the relationships between these actors and the proposed groups.

Commune Council

Chief of Commune
Commune Staff Participatory Monitoring
and Evaluation Group
LDP Advisory Group
Chair, TBD
Chief of Commune
2-3 Council Members
3-5 Commune Staff
LDP Priority Area 3-5 Citizens
Subcommittees 5-20 Village Reps

VILLAGE ONE VILLAGE TWO VILLAGE THREE VILLAGE FOUR

Chair, Consulting and Chair, Consulting and Chair, Consulting and Chair, Consulting and
Monitoring Group Monitoring Group Monitoring Group Monitoring Group

VILLAGE FIVE VILLAGE SIX VILLAGE SEVEN

Chair, Consulting and Chair, Consulting and Chair, Consulting and
Monitoring Group Monitoring Group Monitoring Group

Situational Analysis

The situational analysis allows the local government to assess its current situation in
relation to its future. Situational analyses typically involve data collection by local
government staff or others, but may also be highly participatory. For example, citizens
can be surveyed, or directly asked, their opinions and satisfaction ratings of current
service delivery, the overall state of affairs of their community, and the direction they
would like to see it move toward. The situational analysis also provides a good
opportunity for local government to assess community assets, such as various indicators
of social capital, which promise to provide a more in-depth and nuanced picture of the
community’s ability to engage in, implement, and sustain the LDP/PME processes.

The proposed Situational Analysis includes:

ƒ Preliminary data collection. Data are selected that will provide a broad picture
of the Commune’s current situation. Data collection will include current indicators,
as well as forecasts and trend analysis, where relevant. It is not intended that
data collection become an onerous task. Rather, the data ought to serve the
distinct purpose of providing a basic picture of the commune with later data
collection efforts to be more specifically targeted at priority areas of concern. The
proposed data to be collected are as follows:
o General community characteristics: population and tendencies in
population development and movement; population structure;
employment data; human resources available
o Social/Education/Health: social welfare recipients; schools and after-
school activity; adult education; level of education and test benchmarking;

12
 hospitals and health clinics (relationship between human capital and
social capital)
o Environment: “hot areas”; available data; current activities focused on
environment; public awareness (relationship between natural resource
capital and social capital)
o Economy: natural resources; businesses; industry; agricultural sector;
commercial services; products
o Infrastructure and services: water and energy; solid waste collection and
disposal; road network and maintenance; sewerage; telecommunication;
public transportation services (relationship between physical capital and
social capital)
o Institutions: organizations; associations; formal and informal networks;
social and political environment

ƒ Household Survey and Social Capital Assessment. The design and use of the
Household Survey and Social Capital Assessment will draw on successful
examples demonstrated by the Urban Institute (household Citizen Survey) and
the World Bank (SOCAT). The two approaches will be combined into one survey
that assesses both citizen satisfaction ratings with local services and the
existence/lack of social capital available to promote the successful
implementation and sustainability of the LDP. The PPWG is developing a sample
questionnaire (containing approximately 45-60 variables) that takes into account
these considerations.

ƒ SWOC analysis—Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Challenges. The

SWOC allows for a more qualitative assessment of the local government’s
current situation in relation to its future. The proposed LDP process involves both
the Commune Council and Commune staff, as well as the community in making
this assessment. The SWOC analysis, coupled with data and survey results, is
then synthesized and employed in the determination of the Commune Vision,
Strategic Goals, and Action Steps/Projects.

Community Vision Statement

The Commune Vision Statement allows the local government to demonstrate a shared,
coherent idea of what it plans to achieve through its local development plan. Vision
statements, especially in that they typically paint a picture of where a community wishes
to be in 10-15 years out, often appear lofty and seemingly unobtainable at first glance;
however, they are an important remedy to the adage, “if you don’t know where you are
going, how will you know if you got there.” The vision statement importantly is conceived
by the community-at-large and is expected to be referred to by the local government in
its urban and development planning and budgeting activities.

LDP Priority Areas

LDP priorities and strategic goals ideally are derived from input and dialogue involving all
stakeholders: council, staff, community members and other interested groups. But other
models, reminiscent of the way General Plans are developed in the U.S., suggest the
efficacy of establishing a priori priority areas under which the community can then assert
its goal preferences according to the prescribed theme. This approach enables a

13
balanced plan of action, and ensures that the prescribed critical areas are addressed in
each LDP.

In an effort to achieve this balanced plan for local development, the PPWG proposes
that the LDPs be structured around four Priority Areas: Economic Development, Social
Development, Public Infrastructure and Services, and Good Governance. These are
defined as follows:

ƒ Economic Development: small and medium-sized business, agronomy,

industry, marketplaces, tourism and marketing
ƒ Social Development: health, education, social welfare, pension schemes
ƒ Public Infrastructure and services: economic development infrastructure,
social development infrastructure, and public infrastructure and services
(cleaning, water, sewerage, etc.)
ƒ Good Governance: responsiveness, inclusiveness, public information, trust,
customer service

In devising strategic goals and action steps/projects under each LDP Priority Area, local
governments will be encouraged to think about environmental issues and impact, as
well.

Strategic Goals

Goal-setting is one of the most crucial stages of the LDP as it sets the stage for the
concrete short-term actions and projects the community will incrementally work on in
order to attain their vision. Goals challenge the local government to be more responsive
to the environment in order to achieve its desired future. They are measurable and the
desired outcome should be decided in consensus fashion.

Establishing goals is a strategic process and in this way it is recommended that their
number be limited to no more than 3-5 achievable goals for each priority area. In other
words, the LDP is not designed to capture the entire spectrum of commune needs and
desires. Rather, strategic goals are about anticipating the best (i.e., feasible and
practical, yet meaningful) course of action the community can take in effecting change
for the betterment of the community.

The PPWG proposes that the LDP set forth 3 Three-Year Strategic Goals with 1, 2, and
3-year action steps designed to realize the goals. This is aligned with budget
development whereby local governments are required to adopt an annual budget that
contains three-year expenditure and revenue forecasts. The three-year prospectus also
allows donors, such as ADF, to incorporate commune needs into their long-term funding
plans.

Action Steps/Projects

If the heart of the Local Development Plan is the identification of community priorities
and setting goals, then its brainpower is the plan of action conceived to address them.
Given serious resource constraints, this action planning promises to be the stickiest
point of the process. Action steps and project identification need to strike a delicate
balance between what is feasible within a community’s current resources and what may
be doable should adequate resources be later identified. It is paramount that the

14
community be encouraged to think large and small. In other words, action steps may run
the gamut from identifying small-scale reasonable areas of improvement that can
immediately be addressed with little or no fiscal impact, such as “hold quarterly
community clean-up campaigns to address litter problem,” to larger infrastructure
projects for which the first action step might be to “conduct further study into the
feasibility of achieving 80 percent water hook-ups by 2007,” as opposed to a less
feasible action of “implement water system for all villagers to have access to clean water
supply.”

Pre-feasibility study for action steps/projects

The action steps/projects need to be realistic, feasible, and meaningful. There are many
methods by which local governments assess the feasibility of proposed action steps and
projects, ranging from application of a simple criterion to a more involved analytic
framework. The PPWG recommends that communes keep this process simple and
SMART, that is, that action steps be specific, measurable, agreed upon, realistic, and
time/cost bound. Importantly, local governments need to pay attention to the intended
outcome, or result, of the proposed action step, especially as it is related to the intended
outcome of the overall strategic goal. This alignment function will ensure individual
actions are incremental steps toward achieving overall goals and, ultimately, the
commune vision.

Budget and preliminary identification of funding sources

The action steps/projects identified in the LDP shall include enough information as to
purpose, cost estimations, resource requirements, and so on, to enable commune staff
and elected officials make effective budgetary choices. Some actions will fall outside the
budget process and these need to be identified as such with suggested funding sources,
including a combination of citizen contribution and/or local government matching funds
clearly attributed.

Schedule and accountability assignments

Each action step/project should be assigned to a member of the commune staff who is
held accountable for implementation in a timely manner. Should problems surface due to
unforeseen circumstances, this person is responsible for notifying the chairs of the LDP
Group and the Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Group.

Measurable outcomes

There is no reason to do anything, unless we understand the purpose and intent of our
action. Performance measures are a critical tool in the identification of the intended
result, or impact, of local government work. Although the entire family of measures—
input, output, efficiency, and outcome—are invaluable for a local government that wishes
to more effectively deliver services and have the best information while developing its
budget, the LDP concentrates on outcome measures for understanding the intent of the
goals and action steps and monitoring its success in achieving success.

For example, through the citizen survey, we may realize that only 40 percent of citizens
surveyed rate the commune as “clean” or “very clean.” We may also hear in the village
participation meetings a great deal of dissatisfaction regarding the cleanliness of the

15
commune. The social capital section of the survey may indicate the presence of local
youth club or business association. The following LDP Priority Area--Strategic Goal--
Action Step-Outcome measure relationship might appear as follows in Exhibit 4:

Exhibit 4. Example of LDP Structure

LDP Priority Area: Public Infrastructure and Services

Strategic Goal 1: Improve the cleanliness of the Commune

Goal Outcome Measure: % of citizens surveyed who rate the cleanliness of

the commune as “good” or “excellent.”

Action Step 1a: Invite local youth club and other organizations to co-
sponsor quarterly clean-up days

Output/Intermediate Outcome Measure(s): Meeting held;

agreement achieved; # of clean-ups conducted

Action Step 1b: Explore feasibility of contracting out solid waste collection
service for once a month pick-ups

Output/Intermediate Outcome Measure(s): Study conducted; %

of citizens surveyed who said they would be willing to contribute
cash to improve/have garbage collection service.

Action Step 1c: Institute a fine for illegal dumping and a method for
meaningful enforcement

Output/Intermediate Outcome Measure(s): Successful adoption

of fine; % of fines collected/all fines issued

Communication/Public Information Plan

Good communication between the local government and the citizenry is key to a healthy,
participatory democratic political culture. It is paramount that the local government
communicates the purpose, process, and participation opportunities throughout the
development of the LDP.

Of equal importance is that results of the community’s work on the implementation of the
LDP are regularly communicated. Public information will be achieved in a variety of ways
throughout the process. For example, leaflets and posters concerning all council and
community meetings will be widely disseminated, as will results of the proposed
household survey. Informal and formal networks and institutions, ideally identified in the
proposed survey and at village meetings can also provide good resources for
information dissemination.

16
Once a draft LDP has been produced, a “You talked, we listened. Did we get it right?”
community meeting might be held as an occasion to elicit final input into the LDP.
Quarterly progress reports should be held with the Commune Council and widely
publicized with an annual report of progress made toward achieving all action steps and
performance targets to be produced for the public.

These components form the basis of a simple, meaningful, and feasible Local
Development Plan. The next section discusses how these components come to life.

17
 Local Development Plan and
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

III. METHODOLOGY

The previous section outlined the fundamental components and actors that make up the
proposed structure of the Local Development Plan and Participatory Monitoring and
Evaluation process. However, there is much activity that goes into the making of each
component. The following outlines in linear fashion the methodology by which the plan is
developed, with special emphasis placed on assuring broad community participation.

Prelude

The Community Works Project II scope of work entails the hiring of a NGO who will be
responsible with facilitating and ensuring implementation of the three-year pilot program
in approximately six communes. Therefore the first step will be to ensure the NGO is
fully on board and conversant with the final structure and methodology. The six
communes will have been selected as part of the first phase of this project.

Step One: Obtaining Local Commitment

The first step in the local development plan is to achieve commitment and buy-in from
the local elected officials. It is recommended that the NGO approach the Chief of
Commune, who will agendize the proposal at a regular session of the Commune
Council. The proposal will explain in detail the purpose and methodology of the project
and request that the Council adopt a resolution to create a Local Development Plan with
widespread community participation. It will also request the Council to establish a Local
Development Plan Group (who will later be tasked with establishing Priority Area
Subcommittees), a Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Group, and village-level
Consulting and Monitoring Groups.

The composition of these groups has been carefully explored. It is especially important
that the Commune Council has buy in with the LDP Group as it will be tasked with
bringing the final proposed LDP forward to the Council for conceptual approval at a later
date in time. In this way, the Council will nominate 2-3 of its own members to serve on
the LDP Group. It is equally important that the entire process be seen as a local
government endeavor; hence, the inclusion of both elected officials and commune staff
on the various advisory groups. Nevertheless, the spirit of community participation under
girds the entire structure and process. The selection of community members and their
composition will be key to successfully enacting the principle of inclusiveness.

Step Two: Providing Direction

The Chief of Commune will bring together all members of the LDP Group, the PME
Group, and village-level Consulting and Monitoring Groups for a two to three day training
workshop on LDP/PME and the proposed structure and methodology. The selected
NGO will provide this training and an implementation schedule will be established. The
purpose of the workshop is to fully orient commune staff and key participants, gain their
input, identify the parameters of the situational analysis, discuss the participatory
components, and so on.

18
The commune staff, with assistance from the NGO, will work with the Chairs of the
village-level Consulting and Monitoring Groups in disseminating information pamphlets
to their local communities. Especially important in this task will be the announcement of
the upcoming Village Vision Festivals to which the entire commune population is invited
to participate and provide input into the development of the LDP (see below for more
details).

Step Three: Getting Started

The LDP Group, PME Group, and village-level Consulting and Monitoring Groups should
hold planning meetings to chart out their respective courses of action, timeframes, and
roles and responsibilities. During these first meetings, the PME Group will settle on
evaluation criteria and indicators for monitoring the process of the development of the
LDP as it will be important for the monitoring of this activity to begin right away. During
the development of the LDP, the PME Group will work closely with the LDP Group and
Priority Area Subcommittees to establish performance indicators for the monitoring of
success toward achieving the LDP’s desired outcomes and other performance
measures.

Step Four: Information Gathering

As stated in the previous section, the LDP contains a Situational Analysis, which
comprises data collection, survey, and a SWOC analysis as its primary pillars.

Data collection and Household Survey

Local government staff, with the assistance of the NGO, will identify indicators to be
collected and tracked, data collection source, and benchmarks, if available. The
indicators should serve the purpose of orienting the commune to its general
characteristics and trends in order to supplemental other information being gathered for
“painting a picture” of the Commune. Should Council opt for a priori priority areas to be
prescribed, data collection will be more closely targeted to support those areas.

This stage will also launch a household survey that seeks both service satisfaction
ratings, and a social capital assessment. The survey instrument will be designed by the
PPWG and conducted by the NGO, who will first test the instrument and make any
modifications deemed necessary.

SWOC Analysis

The SWOC analysis will be conducted in three parts: as part of a regular session of the
Commune Council, thereby gaining critical input from the elected officials, among
commune staff, and with the community-at-large. In some cases, the SWOC session
with the elected officials and commune staff might be combined. In this case, questions
regarding what is/what is not working well within government are probed, enabling useful
dialogue between electeds and staff to improve internal workings and communication.

It is highly important to have the Community weigh in on what they perceive the
strengths and weaknesses of the commune to be. In order to engage as broad as
representation of input as possible, two versions of village participation have been
conceived. One issue raised here, however, is the feasibility of having village-specific

19
meetings given the large number of villages in some communes and the geographic
dispersion of the villages. In some cases, for example, communes consist of 15 villages,
some of which are as far as two hours away by car from the commune seat of
government. The PPWG has proposed clustering villages and/or perhaps busing
residents to the village meetings. This detail needs to be further explored in all its pros
and cons.

Step Five: Village Participation

An important precept of the LDP is that it involves the input and participation of as many
residents as possible—and that this representation is inclusive of members from all
commune villages and those societal groups typically excluded from local political
participation, including perhaps women, youth, seniors, and ethnic groups.

Two alternatives are being proposed to elicit village input. Both alternatives seek to
maximize resident comment, participation, and ownership in development of the LDP.

Alternative One: The Village Vision Festival

The Village Vision Festival is conceived as an interactive forum for gaining citizen insight
and input into the LDP, as well as an opportunity for educating the general public about
the LDP in particular, and the workings of local government in general. The Festival is
organized by the local commune staff, with assistance provided by the NGO in its
organization and facilitation.

The Village Vision Festival requires an indoor space large enough to allow participants
to travel to various “stations” to answer focused questions, discuss issues with commune
staff and perhaps other experts, and generally “envision” the future of their community.

Each station is furnished with flip charts for recording participants’ comments and ideas,
relevant survey data and other statistics to further inform, and is manned by a local
government staff member, NGO affiliate, and/or invited subject-matter experts.

The Festival is fun and interactive in nature and framed as a family outing, with music
and food serving as background enhancement. Exhibit 5 depicts a proposed
organizational set-up of a Village Vision Festival.

20
 Exhibit 5. Proposed Organizational Set-Up of a Village Vision Festival
Station Nine Station Eight
How can we How can we
improve upon: improve upon:
Good the
Entrance Station Seven
Governance Environment
How can we
improve upon:
Public
Infrastructure

Station One:
Intro to LDP

What is your Refreshments

Station Two:
10-15 year
Who are we?
(mapping vision for the
exercise of Commune?
village assets)

Station Three Station Six

What do I like How can we
most about improve upon:
my village/ Station Four Station Five Station Six Social
Commune What do I like How can we How can we Development,
least about improve upon: improve upon: cont’d
my village/ Economic Social
Commune Development Development

Station One: Introducton to LDP

Introductory table with pictorial depiction of LDP/PME and NGO staff available to
answer questions. One option is to provide a “Festival Map” to each participant
who will be encouraged to visit each station that is depicted on the map. At each
station, they will receive a stamp. Once the card is filled, they are allowed to
enter a raffle drawing to win a modest prize. This ensures that participants will
visit each station.

Station Two: Mapping our Assets

Participants will “map” the assets of their villages. A map of the village will be
placed on the wall on which participants will indicate the presence of institutions,
such as schools, churches, mosques, sports fields, and so on, but also the
presence of informal networks. NGO staff, trained in asset-based community
development techniques, will be on hand at this station, asking focused
questions on various skills, knowledge sets, informal networks, memberships in
associations, etc.

21
 Station Three: What do I like most about my Village? The Commune?
Participants will have the opportunity to weigh in the positive attributes and
features, that is, the strengths, of their village and of the commune, e.g., I trust
my neighbors, or there is healthy soil

Station Four: What do I like least about my Village? The Commune?

Participants “vent” about what they dislike about living in the village and the
Commune. E.g., there a lot of garbage on the side of the roads, or the river is
polluted.

Station Five: Economic Development:

Participants provide suggestions for improvement and comments on
needs/preferences regarding economic development.

Station Six: Social Development:

Participants provide suggestions for improvement and comments on
needs/preferences regarding social development issues, including, social
services, education, and health.

Station Seven: Public Infrastructure:

Participants provide suggestions for improvement and comments on
needs/preferences regarding public infrastructure.

Station Eight: Environment:

Participants provide suggestions for improvement and comments on
needs/preferences regarding the environment.

Station Nine: Good Governance:

Participants provide suggestions for improvement and comments on
needs/preferences regarding good governance.

Station Ten: Commune Vision/Further Participation

Participants provide vision statements in order to paint a picture of what they
would like their commune to look like in 10-15 years. They will also be asked
whether they would like to participate more directly in the monitoring and/or
implementation of the LDP and, if so, will be considered by the various advisory
groups for direct or indirect inclusion.

The content and number of “stations” can be modified and/or simplified, but the main
purpose is to create an interactive and memorable atmosphere in which all participants
feel comfortable and enthused about participating, as well as receiving some good
education about their local government and their role in creating “good governance.”

Alternative Two: The Village LDP Meeting

In the event the Village Vision Festival is deemed unfeasible, a more formal and
structured meeting will be called to obtain community input. It should be noted that the
same outcome is anticipated by each meeting, although the former might promise to be
more memorable!

22
A sample agenda for Alternative Two: The Village LDP Meeting:

a. Brief presentation of LDP/PME and, possibly, survey results and data

from preliminary situational analysis (20 min)
b. Strengths of the Village/Commune (large group)
c. Weaknesses of the Village/Commune (small groups with anonymous
reporting out of results to larger group)
d. Establish 10-year Commune Vision (small group to develop statements
with report out to larger group)
e. Identify action steps/projects that if achieved would significantly enhance
the qualify of life of the villagers and take them closer to attaining the
vision
f. Begin identifying means by which actions can get implemented, i.e., hold
discussion on community capacity to undertake projects outside of budget
constraints.

Step Six: Synthesizing Data, Council, Staff, and Community Input into Preliminary
Framework.

Under the supervision of the commune staff, the NGO will take an objective first stab at
compiling and synthesizing the preliminary data, survey results, and SWOC analyses
into a coherent situational analysis, as well as compile the vision, goal and action ideas
into a report for review by the Local Development Plan Group.

The Local Development Plan Group will use this Preliminary LDP framework to

1. finalize the situational analysis

2. create a proposed Commune Vision
3. establish three to five Strategic Goals that fall under the Priority Areas
4. compile suggested action steps gleaned through the SWOC analyses and Village
Vision Festivals

Step Seven: Participatory LDP Priority Area Subcommittee Work: action planning and
pre-feasibility analyses

LDP Priority Area Subcommittees will be established to conduct further work on the
concrete action steps/projects as suggested by the council, staff and community. The
LDP Priority Area Subcommittees are comprised of selected local government staff with
a special expertise in the area in question, general community members, and experts as
invited. Given the resources of a particular commune, outside experts might be invited
on an as needed basis from regional institutions, NGOs, or other bodies.

For example, for the priority area Social Development, the subcommittee might consist
of local government staff responsible for this area, local school principals and/or
teachers, chair of the local parent association, and a local doctor/nurse. For consultation
purposes, the Social Development Subcommittee may invite qark-level experts, as well.

The LDP Priority Area Subcommittees will be aided by the NGO (and ADF) in
conducting pre-feasibility analyses of the action steps and projects to ensure relevance
and conformity with the goal, as well as cost estimation and other social asset analysis
to ascertain potential resource allocation choices.

23
The intent is to achieve a balance among the following categories of action
steps/projects:

ƒ those achievable by the community with little or no fiscal impact

ƒ those achievable with financial contribution by the community
ƒ those achievable within budget constraints by the local government
ƒ those to be proposed to external donor organizations
ƒ and/or those achievable by a combination thereof.

The LDP Priority Area Subcommittees will also consult with the PME Group to establish
meaningful performance measures for the strategic goals and action steps.

Step Eight: “You talked, we listened. Did we get it right?” Community Meeting and
Commune Council Conceptual Approval of the LDP

The LDP Priority Area Subcommittees present their specific action plans to the LDP
Group, who is tasked with preparing the final draft document for submission to the
Commune Council for conceptual approval. Prior to submission to the Commune
Council, however, it is ideal to return to the community to ensure that the final draft Plan
indeed meets their expectation. This may be done in the form of a community meeting
with formal presentations of the final document. The advantage of this approach is that it
allows the LDP Group to obtain the continuous buy-in and commitment on the part of the
community, especially important for the successful implementation of the plan. Since
much of the resource identification will entail community participation and perhaps
financial contribution, this is an ideal time to gauge that commitment and identify
community champions of the cause.

This meeting would also be an ideal time for the PME Group to present an evaluation of
the process of the LDP—to what extent the process has been inclusive, and so on, to
lend the LDP credibility and legitimacy. Of course, their work does not end here.

Should an additional community meeting not be feasible, the LDP could be presented at
a Commune Council meeting with all Village Chiefs present (and voluntarily by other
community members), or all Chairs of the village-level Consulting and Monitoring
Groups, who will be tasked with disseminating the outcome to their communities.

Step Nine: Integration with Budget Development Process and Resource Identification

The intent of the Local Development Plan is to allow communities to shape and control
their destinies. It therefore cannot be separated from the budget development process,
as this is the site where very scarce resources get allocated, desirably, in response to
community needs and preferences. In the development of the budget, the commune
staff ought to be able to present concrete choices and trade-offs to the elected officials
on how they may best spend the citizens’ tax dollar. Given the data collected and input
gathered, the LDP presents a convincing picture of what some of those choices ought to
be.

For those items that fall out of the budget process due to limited resources, efforts must
be taken to identify other funding options, and should these prove to unobtainable, the
Commune Council ought to consider revising the LDP.

24
Step Ten: LDP Implementation and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

The LDP will contain a detailed action plan that assigns responsibilities to various local
government actors. It is their responsibility to ensure implementation takes place
according to scheduled timeframes and to surface any unanticipated problems or issues
that may emerge as implementation gets underway. The PME Group is tasked with
monitoring, preferably, on a quarterly basis at least, the progress made toward achieving
the measurable outcomes. It is important to note that monitoring is done regularly—it is
not a one-off task—and allows the LDP Group, elected officials, and commune staff to
make necessary adjustments in a timely fashion. Progress made or not made should
then be reported to the community through a variety of means—local media, Commune
Council meetings, mailer, posters in community centers, and so on.

A number of tools are recommended for the regular tracking, measuring and reporting of
outcome and other performance information. Exhibit 6 demonstrates a simple scorecard
approach that is designed to be easily understood by the community-at-large and
indicates progress made toward achievement of action steps. If used on a continuous
basis, for example, monthly or quarterly, the scorecard acts as an early warning system
for identifying potential pitfalls or problems. Conversely, early success might indicate that
more can be done in that area or resources reallocated to an area that is particularly
struggling. The Scorecard’s simplistic design also allows easy access by the community
who may not be as adept at reading numbers and percentages but who nevertheless
want to see that things are getting done.

Exhibit 7 presents a useful performance measurement tracking matrix that encourages

the users to set future targets, as well. Both templates can be used in a complementary
fashion. Most importantly, the information gleaned needs to be reported to the
community in as many forums as possible.

Exhibit 6. Sample Scorecard Template

Strategic Goal: On Track

Needs
Improve the Cleanliness of the to
some Help! Notes
Commune Success
work!
Action Steps !
Invite local youth club/others to co-sponsor Meetings held, but no
clean-up days dates set for first clean-
up
Explore feasibility of contracting out solid Survey results showed
waste collection service for once/month lack of willingness to
pickups in all villages pay—seek other funding
opportunities or conduct
public awareness
campaign to raise
interest
Institute a fine for illegal dumping and a Fine has been adopted
method for enforcement by council—2 cases
successfully enforced!
Exhibit 7. Sample Performance Monitoring Matrix

25
LDP Priority Area: Public Infrastructure and Services
Strategic Goal: Improve the Cleanliness of the Commune
Action Performance 2004 2005 2006 Data
Step Measure Actual Target Target Gathering
Method
Strategic Goal % of citizens surveyed 30% 35% 50% Citizen Survey
Outcome who rate the
cleanliness of the
commune as “good” or
“excellent”
Invite local youth # of clean-up days 0 2 4 Organization/
club/others to co- conducted Commune
sponsor clean-up records
days
Explore feasibility of Study conducted and NA Yes NA Commune
contracting out solid adopted by Council records
waste collection
service for % of citizens surveyed 35% 45% 55% Citizen Survey
once/month pickups who said they would be
in all villages willing to contribute
cash to improve/have
garbage service
Institute a fine for % of citizens surveyed 70% 60% 45% Citizen survey
illegal dumping and who rate illegal
a method for dumping as a “very
enforcement serious problem”

Illegal dumping NA Prepared Adopted Commune

ordinance prepared and records
adopted by Commune
Council
% of fines collected/all NA NA 65% Commune
fines issued records

26
Suggested Work Plan and Timeframe for LDP Development Process

When What What Who

Fist Pilot: One

commune
Month One Commitment NGO meets with Commune Council to introduce the LDP/PME and NGO
obtain expression of interest.
Month One Direction Commune Council adopts resolution of creating a Local
Development Plan with Community Participation. Council directs
Chief of Commune and commune staff to spearhead the process.
Month One-Two Commune Council establishes LDP Group and PME Groups and
directs Village Chiefs to establish Village-level Consulting and
Monitoring Groups
Month Two Two-day Workshop with NGO, ADF, commune staff and village
chiefs to apprise of LDP process and obtain input
Month Two One-day Training Workshop (combined with above ?) with members
of LDP and PME Groups
Month Two Information Commune staff develops informational pamphlets and provides to NGO to assist
dissemination Village chiefs for dissemination
Month Two-Three Information gathering Commune staff, NGO begin data collection for situational analysis
Month Three-Four Information gathering/ Commune staff, NGO finalize design of household survey/social
Participation capital assessment; NGO conducts survey
Month Three Information gathering/ SWOC analysis conducted with Commune Council and commune
Participation staff
Month Four Information gathering/ Village Vision Festivals
Participation
Month Four-Five Checkpoint meeting Checkpoint meeting to be held with LDP Group, NGO, Specialist,
and ADF to assess feasibility and progress of pilot program
Month Four-Five Synthesizing info Commune staff, NGO to synthesize all inputs (data, survey, SWOC,
and village input) into basic framework
Month Five-Six Synthesizing info Local Development Plan Group to use basic framework to finalize
situational analysis, propose a Commune Vision, establish Strategic
Goals and propose initial action steps as derived from community
input
Month Five-Six Synthesizing info LDP Priority Area Subcommittees to synthesize all input regarding
action steps/projects; conduct pre-feasibility studies; and submit
priority-area action plans to LDP Group

27
Month Six Compilation LDP Group to compile situation analysis, commune vision, and
strategic goal action plans into a draft LDP
Month Six Presentation of LDP “You talked, we listened. Did we get it right?” Community meeting to
unveil draft LDP to community
Month Six Participation/Monitoring PME Group to review monitoring and evaluation of process
Month Six Presentation of LDP LDP Group to present draft LDP to Commune Council
Month Six-Seven Budget Development Commune Council conceptually approves LDP and directs staff to
prepare budget around its goals and action steps/projects
Month Seven-Eight Publication LDP Publication prepared with widespread dissemination
Month Eight Budget Development Budget development and other resource identification
Month Eight-Nine Review/Lessons Specialist to prepare one-year checkpoint report and lessons
Learned learned to date
Month Seven- Implementation Implementation
Ongoing
Month One- Ongoing monitoring with quarterly reports on progress made
Ongoing

28
29