Increased Citizen Participation in Local Decision-Making

Outcome

evidence of citizens in target communities more actively participating in local decision-making processes

This indicator explores whether there is evidence that citizens in project-supported communities are participating more actively, regularly, or meaningfully in decision-making processes that affect them. The indicator captures behavioural and social change - moving from awareness of participatory opportunities to active and sustained engagement in governance processes.

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

1) With key project partners and other relevant stakeholders, discuss and define what constitutes “active participation.” Agree on what kinds of behaviour or engagement count as “active.” Examples include:

• Attending local planning, consultation, or council meetings;

• Speaking, presenting issues, or submitting proposals during these meetings;

• Participating in local committees or citizen monitoring groups;

• Voting in participatory budgeting or community prioritisation processes;

• Organising or facilitating community discussions on local issues;

• Taking initiative to follow up on local government actions.

Participation that is merely symbolic (e.g. attending without contributing) should not be counted as active unless it demonstrates intent to engage (e.g. asking questions, signing petitions, contributing feedback). Increased participation does not imply influence over decisions, and the definition of active participation should reflect this distinction.

2) With key project partners and other relevant stakeholders, discuss and define what constitutes “evidence” of active participation. Acceptable evidence includes a combination of at least two of the following sources:

• Meeting minutes or attendance lists showing citizen presence and participation.

• Records of citizen inputs, such as proposals, questions raised, submissions, petitions, or feedback forms.

• Reports or media coverage confirming increased participation or initiatives.

• Photos, announcements, or communication materials demonstrating citizen-led engagement or follow-up actions.

• Testimonies from citizens, civil society organisations (CSOs), community leaders, local authorities, or independent observers confirming increased participation or initiative.

3) Set the reference period for which you will collect evidence of more active participation. Collect data for a defined time frame, typically the current reporting year or project period (e.g. the last 12 months).

4) Develop a tool to record evidence of more active participation. Prepare a simple tool (table or database) to document the types of changes and evidence of citizens’ increased participation in local decision-making processes according to the predefined criteria (step 1). The tool may record for example the following information for each observed case of increased participation:

• location

• period / date

• type of authority

• type of stakeholder(s) who contributed to change

• type of decision-making process

• no. of citizens participating, which citizen group(s)

• description of change in participation

• significance of change

• source of verification / evidence

• project contribution

• external contribution

5) Collect evidence through two or more suggested methods:

• Focus group discussions: Facilitate group discussions with citizens to explore citizen participation in local decision-making processes and related evidence.

• Key informant interviews: Interview community leaders, committee members, or facilitators to verify the changes in extent and quality of participation and identify enablers or challenges. To understand citizens participation, the following questions can be asked:

  • In your view, how has citizen participation in local decision-making changed in [specify the period]? What has contributed to this change?

  • How do different groups of citizens usually express their opinions or contribute to local decisions? Can you describe any specific examples?

  • How significant is this change? Why? How is the current participation different from the situation [specify the period]?

• Observation or document review: Attend or review minutes from participatory meetings and attendance records to assess active contribution and diversity of voices.

• Survey: Conduct a short survey with community members to capture self-reported changes in participation behaviour (e.g. whether they attended meetings more often, spoke up or shared views, submitted proposals, or engaged in follow-up actions related to local decision-making).

6) Document collected information in the tool you designed in step 4 and store evidence. Keep copies of meeting records, participant lists, photos, testimonies (group discussions and interviews), or media references for verification.

7) Report on the indicator. Provide a narrative description of the indicator’s achievement using the collected evidence and information captured in the table or database (step 4). In your reporting, combine the available quantitative information—number of communities showing more active citizen participation—with qualitative interpretation that explains the nature, depth, and significance of the observed changes.

Report and interpret findings with reference to relevant contextual factors such as gender, age, vulnerability status, social or ethnic group of active citizens, types of participation process, and geographic location, as feasible and appropriate.

1) Use this indicator when describing the qualitative extent of change provides more meaningful insight than numerical measurement, as it focuses on the increase in active participation - not on simply counting participants. It allows to assess the quality and significance of how citizen participation becomes more active, rather than relying on numerical counts. Quantitative measures alone may misrepresent progress, while a qualitative approach helps determine whether participation has truly become more active, meaningful, and inclusive.

2) Consider using Outcome Harvesting (OH) or Most Significant Change (MSC) methodologies to capture meaningful change in citizen participation. These qualitative methods are well suited to this indicator, as they help document what changed, how and why it changed, and why the change matters, as well as the project’s contribution. OH can be used to identify and verify concrete instances where citizens took initiative, contributed ideas, or influenced decisions, and to explain the significance of these changes. MSC can capture citizen stories that describe how participation has evolved and why these changes are important from their perspective. Inviting both citizens and local authorities to reflect on these findings can strengthen learning and validation.

3) Decide whether it is necessary to collect baseline considering the type or combination of methodologies you use and the type of evidence you collect.

4) Triangulate data. Data and evidence become stronger when verified and validated against multiple sources, including supporting documents, external persons, and other experts.

5) Interpret results and any scoring within the local social, institutional, and political context. Compare observed changes to the pre-intervention situation—using baseline data or respondents’ recall—and recognise that progress may look different across communities. For example, citizens speaking up for the first time in a village meeting may represent as meaningful a change as citizens in a larger town beginning to submit formal proposals or join planning committees. When assessing progress, encourage partners to reflect on what steps are needed to deepen participation in the next period, identifying enabling factors and barriers that shape citizen engagement. This helps avoid inappropriate comparisons across communities and provides insight into the conditions influencing participation.

6) Given that civic space has many actors, examine how your activities may have influenced the observed shifts in citizen participation. This will help you to better understand your contribution in depth. Determine whether shifts in citizen participation can be linked to project support (e.g. civic education, facilitation, outreach activities of capacitated CSOs, or communication campaigns).

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 has a strong Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) component, assess whether marginalised or underrepresented groups (e.g. women, youth, ethnic minorities) show increased participation, and consider exploring any specific barriers they may still face.

9) If your project wants to assess the degree of change rather than document evidence, you may consider reformulating the indicator to Extent of citizens’ active participation in local decision-making processes in target communities. Additional guidance on this approach, including practical considerations and illustrative examples, is provided in the one-page document linked below.

10) If you prefer to use a quantitative indicator, you can reformulate the proposed indicator to Number of citizens in target communities more actively participating in local decision-making processes. In this case you can use an interviewer-administered or online survey to collect the relevant information.

11) For EU-funded projects, consider the following OPSYS indicators instead (more options can be found on Predefined indicators for design and monitoring of EU-funded interventions website):

• Extent to which civil society and other partners participate in the planning of social protection provision

• Level of participation of women, youth, persons with disabilities, the elderly, indigenous people and other populations in development of urban policies supported by the EU-funded intervention

• Number of women's organisations participating in decision-making regarding local governance, development and peacebuilding thanks to support of EU-funded intervention