Citizen Proposals Funded at the Municipal Level

Outcome

evidence of [define: services / initiatives] funded at the municipal level that directly reflect citizen proposals submitted through participatory budgeting or consultation processes

This indicator assesses whether and to what extent municipal authorities translate citizen inputs - gathered through participatory budgeting, consultation, or other engagement mechanisms - into actual funded services or initiatives. It focuses on documenting whether participatory processes influence local decision-making and budget allocations, thus linking citizen participation with tangible governance outcomes. By documenting these changes, the indicator helps assess the responsiveness and accountability of municipal authorities and the effectiveness of participatory governance mechanisms.

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.

• Define “citizen proposal” - for example, any formal suggestion, project idea, or request originated from citizens or community groups, submitted through participatory budgeting or official consultation processes such as village forums, online platforms, and local assemblies. Where proposals are submitted or facilitated by CSOs, they should be considered citizen proposals only if there is demonstrable citizen input, such as evidence that the proposal reflects priorities expressed by citizens - this can include community meetings, consultations, surveys, or documented mandates. Proposals developed primarily by CSOs based on their own organisational strategies or funding priorities, without clear evidence of citizen input, should be excluded.

• Define “funded initiative” - for example, a project, service, or activity that appears in the approved municipal plan or budget and has allocated resources for implementation. Agree on the specific sectors or types of initiatives the indicator will track, for example, infrastructure, waste management, social services, livelihoods.

• Establish inclusion criteria for “direct reflection” to distinguish between coincidental alignment and actual responsiveness to citizen proposals. Consider the following suggestions for determining when funded initiative “directly reflects” a citizen proposal:

  • There is clear evidence that the funded activity responds to one or more citizen proposals (same issues, location, or content).

  • The proposal is traceable to a participatory process (e.g. meeting minutes, online submission, feedback reports).

  • The initiative was included in the municipal budget or work plan following that participatory process.

2) Determine what constitutes “evidence” of funded initiatives directly reflecting citizen proposals. Acceptable evidence includes a combination at least two of the following sources:

• Municipal funding documents - approved budgets, budget amendments, funding decisions - showing allocation to citizen-proposed services or initiatives.

• Records of participatory processes linking citizen proposals to funded items; these can include proposal lists, voting results, consultation reports.

• Official implementation documents confirming execution of funded proposals, such as project plans, procurement records, implementation reports.

• Public reports or confirmations verifying that funded services or initiatives reflect citizen proposals; these might include municipal reports, CSO monitoring, media coverage.

3) Set the reference period for which you will collect evidence of funded initiatives reflecting citizen proposals. Typically assess the development within the current reporting year or project period (e.g. past 12 months).

4) Develop a tool to record evidence of funded initiatives reflecting citizen proposals. Prepare a simple tool (table or database) to document and collect evidence of services/initiatives funded at the municipal level that directly reflect citizen proposals according to the set definitions and criteria (step 1). The tool may record for example the following information for each observed case of funded initiatives:

• location (municipality / ward)

• period / date

• type of participatory process

• no. of citizen proposals submitted

• no. of proposals reflected in funded initiatives

• description of reflected initiatives

• type of stakeholder(s) who contributed to change

• description of change

• significance of change

• source of verification / evidence

• project contribution, external contribution

5) Collect evidence through two or more suggested:

• Document and media review:  Examine municipal budget documents, annual work plans, meeting minutes, citizen proposals, feedback reports, or media coverage to identify overlap between proposals and funded initiatives.

• Key informant interviews: Interview local government officials or civil society representatives to confirm how proposals were reviewed, prioritised, and translated into funding.

• Focus group discussions: Discuss with citizens or community groups whether they recognize any of their proposals reflected in funded projects and whether they received feedback on outcomes.

• Observation: Attend budget discussions or public hearings to verify how proposals are presented and considered. Where possible, observe implementation of services or initiatives.

6) Document collected information in the tool you designed in step 4 and store evidence. Keep copies of relevant documents such as citizen proposals, budgets, photos or records of implemented initiatives, communication materials for each funded initiative / service.

7) Report on the indicator. Provide a narrative description of the indicator’s achievement using the collected evidence and the information documented in the table or database (step 3). Describe which funded services or initiatives can be directly traced back to citizen proposals and explain how these links were verified. In your reporting, combine any available quantitative information - number of citizen proposals reflected in funded initiatives - with qualitative interpretation that explains how and why these services and initiatives were funded and the role of participatory budgeting or consultation processes in influencing municipal decisions.

Report and interpret findings with reference to relevant contextual factors such as the type of initiative or service funded (e.g. infrastructure, health, education, livelihoods), type of participatory process (e.g. budgeting, consultation, planning), geographic area, as feasible and appropriate.

1) Consider using Outcome Harvesting methodology to document how citizen proposals influenced funded municipal initiatives. Outcome Harvesting can help identify, document, and verify specific cases where citizen proposals - submitted through participatory budgeting or consultation processes - were reflected in funded services or initiatives. Take advantage of the guidance on Outcome Harvesting methodology provided in the documents below. For each “harvested outcome,” record:

• What changed? (funded initiative or service)

• Who changed it? (which authority or department)

• When and where did the change occur?

• How significant is the change?

• How did the project or process contribute? (facilitation, training, advocacy)

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

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

4) Given that civic space has many actors, examine how your activities may have influenced the funded citizen proposals. This will help you to understand your contribution in depth. Determine whether these outcomes can be linked to project support (e.g. capacity strengthening, advocacy, facilitation, evidence generation). When assessing contribution, check whether (a) the project’s activities align with the outcome, (b) stakeholders confirm project influence, and (c) whether there is stronger alternative explanation. Document contribution pathways through interviews, reflection sessions, or Outcome Harvesting to understand how the project may have supported the funded initiatives.

5) 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?

6) If your project has a strong Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) component, assess whether marginalised or underrepresented groups (e.g. women, youth, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities) are participating in proposal development and submission process, whether their proposals are reflected, and whether they benefit from the funded initiatives and services. Document any barriers these groups face in having their proposals considered or funded. Use these insights to recommend ways to make participatory budgeting and consultation processes more inclusive and equitable.

7) 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 citizen representatives and municipal officials in jointly reviewing the collected evidence to co-confirm which funded initiatives originated from citizen proposals and to reinforce shared ownership of the process.

8) Consider data availability and feasibility. If access to municipal budget or planning data is limited, verifying whether citizen proposals were actually funded may not be possible. In such cases, use a simpler proxy indicator to still capture participation outcomes - for example:

• Evidence of citizen proposals submitted through participatory budgeting or consultation processes, or

• Number of government [define: policies/services/initiatives] at [local / provincial / national] level developed or revised with active [citizen / CSO] participation

These alternatives allow monitoring of participatory engagement even when financial verification cannot be conducted.

9) If your project wants to assess the degree of change rather than document evidence, you may consider reformulating the indicator to Extent to which municipal funding decisions reflect citizen proposals submitted through participatory budgeting or consultation processes. 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 municipal services or initiatives funded that directly reflect citizen proposals submitted through participatory budgeting or consultation processes.

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):

• Number of government policies developed or revised with civil society organisation participation through EU support

• 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

• Score (1–10) based on the degree to which the political leadership recognises the value of, and enables, participation by civil society in policymaking processes