Inclusiveness of Local Decision-Making Processes

Outcome

Impact

extent to which local decision-making processes related to [specify] are inclusive

This qualitative indicator measures how inclusive and participatory local decision-making processes are - for example, in the areas of service delivery, budgeting, development planning, or governance oversight. It assesses who participates, whose voices influence decisions, and whether local mechanisms actively include marginalised or underrepresented groups. The indicator therefore provides a picture of how responsive and representative local governance processes are and helps identify areas for improvement in participation, accountability, and inclusion.

Determine the indicator’s value by using the following methodology:

1) With key project partners and other relevant stakeholders, discuss and agree on clear indicator criteria and definitions.

• Specify which “local decision-making processes” are being assessed. These might include village development committees, township planning, participatory budgeting, service user committees.

• If relevant, clarify the topic or sector (e.g. education, health, infrastructure, livelihoods, environment).

• Define “inclusiveness” as the extent to which diverse social groups - particularly those often excluded - are able to participate meaningfully and influence outcomes. When defining inclusiveness, consider the following dimensions:

  • Representation: Who participates? Do decision-making bodies include women, youth, minority groups, and other vulnerable populations?

  • Voice and influence: Are all participants able to express their views freely, and are these views considered in decisions?

  • Accessibility: Are processes (e.g. meetings, consultations) accessible in terms of language, location, timing, and information?

  • Accountability and feedback: Are decisions communicated transparently, and do citizens receive feedback on how their inputs were used?

  These dimensions can provide the basis for qualitative scoring.

2) Set the reference period for which you will collect evidence of inclusiveness of local decision-making processes. Typically assess the development within the current reporting year or project period (e.g. past 12 months).

3) Develop a tool to record evidence of inclusiveness of local decision-making processes. Prepare a simple tool (table or checklist) to document inclusiveness of local decision-making processes as per the predefined criteria (step 1). The tool may record for example the following information for each observed case of inclusiveness of local decision-making processes:

• location

• period / date

• level (village, township, municipal)

• decision-making process

• topic / sector

• type of stakeholder(s) who contributed to change

• representation of groups

• mechanisms for voice and influence

• accessibility

• accountability mechanisms

• source of verification / evidence

• project contribution

• external contribution

4) Collect evidence through two or more of the following methods:

• Document and media review: Review meeting minutes, participant lists, official reports, media articles, or social media posts to identify which groups participated and to what extent they were able to express their views.

• Key Informant Interviews: Interview local leaders, civil society organisations’ (CSO) representatives, and participants, including underrepresented groups, to understand who was included or excluded, and why.

• Focus Group Discussions: Facilitate discussions with diverse community members to assess perceived fairness, openness, and influence in decision-making.

• Observation: Attend local decision-making meetings to assess participation dynamics (who speaks, who decides).

• Survey: Conduct a short survey with participants or community members to capture perceptions of inclusiveness to understand whether people felt informed, able to participate, and heard.

5) Record the collected and verified information into the developed tool/database (step 3).

6) Develop a set of clear criteria and standards for assessing the extent of CSO/partner contribution. One option is to use rubrics (more guidance in resources below)—a structured assessment tool that uses descriptive levels to judge the achieved level of performance. Rubrics provide clear narrative criteria for each level, allowing users to classify progress in a consistent, systematic, and comparable way. The rubric in this case should describe the depth and consistency of inclusion in local decision-making processes according to the defined dimensions (e.g. representation, voice and influence, accessibility, accountability and feedback). Users should always formulate their own project-specific rubrics at the inception in line with baseline findings. Ideally, the formulation should take place during a joint workshop with project partners. An illustrative example of a rubric scale and the description of each level is provided in the annex below.

7) Assess the indicator’s achievement. Use the information recorded in the developed tool/database (step 3) to assign a rubric level (e.g. minimal, emerging, moderate, significant, institutionalised) to assessed decision-making processes. To determine the appropriate level, engage expert(s) or - if you want to promote participation and strengthen ownership—organise participatory workshop(s) with representatives of civil society, community groups, and other relevant stakeholders.

Using a numerical score (e.g. 1–5, as outlined in the annex below) can make comparisons and aggregation easier.

If desired, summarise how many local decision-making processes fall into each rubric level to illustrate overall progress in inclusiveness.

Consider engaging an external expert or evaluator to substantiate/validate your results during project’s evaluation.

8) Report on the indicator. Provide a narrative description of the indicator’s achievement summarising the collected evidence and the assigned rubric levels (step 7), along with any minutes or documentation from participatory scoring workshop(s) if available. Describe the extent and quality of inclusiveness of decision-making process, highlighting how different groups - particularly those who are often underrepresented - were able to access, participate in, and influence the process. Combine any available quantitative information (e.g. number of processes assessed) with qualitative interpretation that explains the depth, consistency, and equity of participation. Use the rubric results to summarise overall patterns or shifts in inclusiveness across decision-making processes.

Report and interpret findings with reference to relevant contextual factors such as the location, type of participating groups (e.g. civil society, private sector, community members, marginalised groups etc.), characteristics of participating groups (e.g. gender, age, disability, ethnicity, displacement, poverty etc.), as feasible and appropriate.

1) Use this indicator if you want to assess the quality of inclusiveness, not just the number of participants. Apply clear qualitative criteria (e.g. rubrics) to evaluate how inclusive local decision-making processes are - considering representation, voice, accessibility, and feedback - rather than relying on attendance counts alone.

2) Consider using Outcome Harvesting methodology to document and assess improvements in inclusiveness. Outcome Harvesting can help systematically identify, describe, and verify concrete examples where local decision-making processes became more inclusive. Take advantage of the guidance on Outcome Harvesting methodology provided in the resources below. For each “harvested outcome,” record:

• What changed? (e.g. in terms of representation, accessibility, voice, or accountability)

• Who changed? (which authority or processes)

• When and where did the change occur?

• How significant is the change?

• How did the project contribute to it? (e.g. through facilitation of inclusive spaces, capacity strengthening, advocacy, technical input, or networking)

3) To track progress over time, apply the rubric at baseline and at planned reporting points (e.g. annually and/or at endline) to assess whether the level of inclusiveness of local decision-making processes shifts over time - e.g. from “emerging” to “significant” inclusiveness.

4) If using rubrics is too resource-intensive or if sufficient data cannot be collected to reliably justify scores (e.g. due to project scale or partner coordination constraints), adapt the methodology accordingly. In such cases, you may use Outcome Harvesting without rubric scoring, while still maintaining a results-based and evidence-driven approach.

5) Define inclusiveness contextually. Clarify early in the project which groups are considered marginalised or underrepresented in each setting to ensure locally relevant assessment.

6) Given that civic space has many actors, examine how project activities may have influenced the inclusiveness of local decision-making processes. This will help you to understand your contribution more in depth. Determine whether observed improvements in representation, voice, accessibility, or feedback mechanisms can be linked to project support. These might include capacity strengthening, awareness-raising, facilitation of inclusive spaces, or advocacy. When assessing contribution, consider whether (a) the project activities align with the changes observed, (b) stakeholders confirm the project’s influence, and (c) no stronger alternative explanation exists. Document contribution pathways through interviews, reflection sessions, or Outcome Harvesting to understand how the project helped strengthen inclusiveness.

7) If resources allow, consider also alternative or external factors contributing to change. These can be assessed by asking questions such as:

• How has the political context influenced this change/outcome, either positively or negatively?

• How did cooperation with other actors affect the achievement of this change / outcome? Which actors were involved, and in what ways did their involvement help or hinder progress?

8) If your project aims to strengthen participation and ownership of the key stakeholders, engage them in the indicator methodology design and/or indicator results validation Involve community members, civil society actors, local authorities, and other partners in developing rubric criteria, reviewing the assigned levels / numerical ratings, and discussing their shared understanding of local inclusive decision-making.

9) If your project has a strong Gender Equality and Social Inclusion component, in addition to assessing inclusion, document any barriers marginalised and underrepresented groups face in accessing, participating in, or influencing local decision-making. Use these insights to recommend ways to make decision-making processes more inclusive and equitable.