20140521 DO-1 Baseline Report_FINAL

May 2014
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was
prepared independently by James Fremming, Sandra Basgall, William Cartier, Saiful Islam, and Naim Mostofa of Social
Impact, Inc., with data collection assistance from Nielsen Bangladesh.
USAID/Bangladesh Democracy and Governance
Baseline Survey 2013

Cover Photo: Social Impact photos from the BDGPE Project, 2012-2013.

USAID/BANGLADESH
DEMOCRACY AND
GOVERNANCE
BASELINE SURVEY
2013
Final Version, May, 2014
USAID Contract AID-OAA-I-10-00003
Task Order AID-388-TO-12-00001
DISCLAIMER
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

USAID/Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Baseline Survey 2013 1
CONTENTS
Acronyms ...........................................................................................................................................................4
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................................5
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................8
Overview of USAID/Bangladesh Development Objective 1: Citizen Confidence in
Governance Institutions Increased...........................................................................................................8
IR 1.1 Improved Democratic Political Processes ..............................................................................8
IR 1.2 Greater Accountability and Transparency in Targeted Public Institutions .................. 10
IR 1.3: Improved Access to Justice.................................................................................................... 11
IR 1.4 More Responsive Elected Local Government..................................................................... 12
Objective ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Scope............................................................................................................................................................ 13
Methods........................................................................................................................................................... 14
Background............................................................................................................................................. 14
Study Design........................................................................................................................................... 14
National Respondent Surveys................................................................................................................. 15
Public Opinion SURVEY (POS) .......................................................................................................... 15
Political Party Leader (PPL) Survey ................................................................................................... 18
Civil Society Organization (CSO) Survey ........................................................................................ 18
District Legal Aid Committee (DLAC) Survey............................................................................... 19
Elected Local Government Official (ELL) Survey........................................................................... 19
National Institutional Surveys................................................................................................................. 19
Bangladesh Election Commission (BEC) Survey............................................................................. 20
Members of Parliament (MP) Survey ................................................................................................ 20
Oversight Institutions (OI) Survey .................................................................................................... 21
Findings............................................................................................................................................................. 22
Performance Monitoring Plan Data - DO 1 ........................................................................................ 22
Indicator 1: Percentage of Citizens Reporting Confidence in Targeted Institutions of
Governance ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Indicator 2: Percentage of citizens engaged in governance initiatives ....................................... 27
IR 1.1 Strengthened Political Processes ........................................................................................... 32
Indicator 3: Capacity of the BEC to Conduct Elections Based on International Standards. 32
Indicator 4: Percentage of Respondents who Say that Political Parties Reflect the Voices of
their Constituencies ............................................................................................................................. 34
Indicator 5: Number of executive oversight functions exercised by Parliament................... 36
IR 1.2 Greater Accountability and Transparency in Public Institutions ........................................ 37
Indicator 6: Degree to which civil society groups participate in monitoring transparency
and accountability activities at targeted public institutions:......................................................... 37
Indicator 7: Level of efficiency of targeted public institutions to provide oversight of
Government functions: ........................................................................................................................ 38
IR 1.3 Improved Access to Justice......................................................................................................... 39
Indicator 8: Number of Individuals who Received Legal Aid or Victim’s Assistance with
USG Support .......................................................................................................................................... 39

Indicator 9: Degree of Effectiveness of Service Delivery by District Legal Aid Committees
(DLAC).................................................................................................................................................... 40
IR 1.4 More Responsive Elected Local Government......................................................................... 43
Indicator 10: Percentage of People who Say that Local Government is Responsive to
Constituents’ Needs in the Targeted Area..................................................................................... 43
Indicator 11: Percentage of People who Express Satisfaction with the Quality of Local
Government Services........................................................................................................................... 46
Annex I: Baseline Statement of Work ...................................................................................................... 50
Annex II: DO-1 Performance Indicator Reference Sheets................................................................... 62
Annex III: Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members .................... 78
Annex IV: Survey Data Collection Instruments...................................................................................... 79
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Democracy and Governance Results Framework Showing the Four IRs Under DO-1,
and the Illustrative Sub-IRs. ......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2: Divisions in Bangladesh where USAID DG Programs Work............................................. 16
Figure 3: Procedure for Household/Household Member Selection................................................... 17
Table of Tables
Table 1: Summary of PMP Baseline Values..................................................................................................6
Table 2: Sample Size by Survey................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3: Sample Distribution for Public Opinion Survey...................................................................... 17
Table 4: Citizen Level of Confidence across All Governance Institutions ....................................... 23
Table 5: Citizen Level of Confidence by Age Group............................................................................. 24
Table 6: Citizen Level of Confidence by Sex........................................................................................... 24
Table 7: Citizen Level of Confidence by Education Level .................................................................... 24
Table 8: Citizen Level of Confidence by Rural/Urban Area................................................................. 25
Table 9: Citizen Level of Confidence by Governance Institution....................................................... 25
Table 10: Percent of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives....................................................... 27
Table 11: Percent of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives, by Targeted Institution ......... 28
Table 12: Percent of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives by Institution and Age Group 28
Table 13: Percent of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives, by Institution and Sex............. 29
Table 14: Percentage of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives by Institution and Area ..... 29
Table 15: Levels of Citizen Engagement in Governance Initiatives by Type................................... 29
Table 16: Key Informants’ Ratings of BEC Capacity to Hold Fair Elections*................................... 33
Table 17: Frequency of Selected Actions by Political Leadership*..................................................... 34
Table 18: Frequency of Selected Actions by Political Leadership by Age......................................... 34
Table 19: Frequency of Selected Actions by Political Leadership by Sex ......................................... 35
Table 20: Frequency of Selected Actions by Political Leadership by Rural/Urban ......................... 35
Table 21: Distribution of DLAC Effectiveness Ratings.......................................................................... 41
Table 22: Responsiveness of Local Government.................................................................................... 43
Table 23: Responsiveness of Local Governments by Age.................................................................... 44

Table 24: Responsiveness of Local Governments by Sex..................................................................... 44
Table 25: Responsiveness of Local Governments by Education......................................................... 44
Table 26: Responsiveness of Local Governments by Rural/Urban..................................................... 44
Table 27: Quality of Local Government Services................................................................................... 46
Table 28: Quality of Local Government Services by Age..................................................................... 47
Table 29: Quality of Local Government Services by Sex ..................................................................... 47
Table 30: Quality of Local Government Services by Education.......................................................... 47
Table 31: Quality of Local Government Services by Rural/Urban ..................................................... 47
Table 32: Quality of Local Government Services by Service Area .................................................... 49

ACRONYMS
ACC Anti-Corruption Commission
AL Awami League
BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics
BDGPE Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Program Evaluations
BEC Bangladesh Election Commission
BNP
CDCS
Bangladesh Nationalist Party
Country Development Cooperation Strategy
CSO Civil Society Organization
DG Democracy and Governance
DI Democracy International
DLAC District Legal Aid Committee
DO-1 Development Objective 1
ELL Elected Local Government Leaders
GBS Bohobirhy, Gram Bikash Sangstha
GKSS Gono Kallyan Swabolombi Sangstha
GoB Government of Bangladesh
IC Information Commission
IP Implementing Partner
IR Intermediate Result
JIIP Jamaat-i-Islami Party
JP
LGU
Jatiya Party
Local Government Unit
MMS Manab Mukti Sangstha
MP Member of Parliament
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OCAG Office of Comptrollers of General Audit
ODG Office of Democracy and Governance
OI Oversight Institutions
PMP Performance Management Plan
POS Public Opinion Poll
PPL Political Party Leader
PRODIP Promoting Democratic Institutions and Practices
RF Results Framework
SDLG
SSC
SI
Strengthening Democratic Local Governance
Secondary School Certification
Social Impact, Inc.
USAID
VGD
VGF
United States Agency for International Development
Vulnerable Group Development
Vulnerable Group Feeding

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURVEY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
To ensure that progress towards USAID/Bangladesh’s Democracy and Governance (DG)
Development Objective (DO) is effectively monitored, USAID/Bangladesh’s Democracy and
Governance Program Evaluations Project (BDGPE) conducted a multi-faceted national survey
to establish baseline data to support program performance management and program learning.
Through subsequent surveys, the Mission´s Office of Democracy and Governance (ODG) will
be able to track changes in values attached to the performance indicators. For this reason, it
will be an important management tool as ODG determines any technical or resource
adjustments for ongoing or future projects.
METHODOLOGY
BDGPE implementing partner (IP), Social Impact, Inc. (SI), in partnership with Nielson-
Bangladesh, developed eight different survey instruments for this quantitative baseline study.
Nielson-Bangladesh collected data using five of these instruments—through a public opinion
survey (POS) and four national respondent surveys featuring sectorally-focused groups of
respondents: District Legal Aid Committees (DLAC), Elected Local Government Leaders (ELL),
Human Rights civil society organizations (CSOs), and Political Party Leaders (PPL). SI BDGPE
staff collected the data using the three remaining survey instruments with the Bangladesh
Electoral Commission (BEC), Oversight Institutions (OI), and Members of Parliament (MP). All
surveys were conducted through structured, face-to-face interviews. Field administration of the
survey took place during spring and summer of 2013. The total combined sample of all groups
was 4,379.
In quantitative surveys of this kind, several methodological limitations are present. Such surveys,
even when they include some “open-ended” questions to respondents, rely heavily on adequate
and effective design of the sample and data collection instruments in order to ensure valid and
reliable data. Data need to be carefully gathered, organized, and stored, and analyses need to be
appropriate to what the collected data can provide as well as the needs of ultimate users.
Ethical conduct must be maintained (for example, protecting confidentiality of information) as
data are collected from a broad sample of survey respondents.
The survey team has taken substantial precautions to counter possible biases and other errors
in conducting the survey. Data collection instruments were vetted with USAID, SI survey
specialists, and Nielsen Bangladeshi survey methodologists. Enumerator training was extensive
and overseen by Nielsen and SI survey managers. Data verification was carried out after survey
data were collected, to ensure that data were accurately transferred to electronic files. Overall,
all of the components of the survey met SI’s rigorous technical standards for survey
administration.

FINDINGS
Findings for eight of the eleven ODG Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) indicators are
summarized in the following table. Following the presentation of the draft report in September
2013, the survey team worked closely with the ODG to clarify the meaning and data collection
implications of indicator definitions as described in the Mission’s PMP, and in some cases
offered suggestions for alternative indicators, refinement of indicator definitions and units of
measure. The present report reflects all of USAID/Bangladesh comments and suggestions on
the draft report.
Table 1: Summary of PMP Baseline Values
Indicator Baseline Value
DO-1: Citizen confidence in governance institutions increased
Indicator 1: Percentage of citizens reporting
confidence in targeted institutions of governance
15.6% of citizen respondents from USAID-targeted
areas report “very high” or “high” confidence,
averaged across governance institutions
Indicator 2: Percent of citizens engaged in
governance initiatives
15.3% of respondents from USAID-targeted areas
report engagement with at least one governance
institution
IR 1.1: Strengthened political processes
Indicator 3: Percentage of respondents who say
that the BEC has the capacity to conduct fair
elections
81.5% of key informants hold “very high” or “high”
levels of confidence in the BEC’s election
administration system
Indicator 4: Percentage of respondents who say
that political parties reflect the voices of their
constituencies
41% of citizen respondents from USAID-targeted
areas said that political parties performed at least
two of three actions to reflect constituents’ input
Indicator 5: Number of executive oversight
functions exercised by Parliament
The data collection and analysis of this indicator
has been put on hold by USAID/Bangladesh
IR 1.2: Greater accountability and transparency in public institutions
Indicator 6: Degree to which CSO groups
participate in monitoring transparency and
accountability activities at targeted public
institutions
Indicator 7: Level of efficiency of targeted public
institutions to provide oversight of government
functions
IR 1.3: Improved access to justice
Indicator 8: Number of individuals who received
legal aid or victim’s assistance with USG support
CSOs report that 46,877 people received legal aid
through the DLACs or victim’s assistance through
USAID’s programs
Indicator 9: Degree of effectiveness of service
delivery by (District Legal Aid Committes) DLAC
Summary index of DLAC service delivery
effectiveness: 20.7 out of possible 25 (satisfactory)

Indicator Baseline Value
IR 1.4: More responsive elected local government
Indicator 10: Percentage of people who say that
local government is responsive to constituent’s
needs in the targeted area.
49.6 of respondents in targeted areas report that
local governments are responsive to constituents’
needs.
Indicator 11: Percentage of people who express
satisfaction with the quality of Local Government
Services in their locality
83.4% of respondents in targeted areas say that LG
services are “adequate” or “excellent”.
During the analysis of the baseline survey data and the preparation of this document, USAID/
Bangladesh made changes in the indicator selection, definition, and data collection methods.
Thus, for Indicators 5, 6 and 7, USAID has instructed SI to put on hold further data collection
and analysis.
NEXT STEPS
With this report, and accompanying electronic data files, the ODG now has its baseline values
for eight of its eleven indicators. Provisional next steps in utilization of these data include:
 ODG review of the PMP data and related analyses, with two areas of focus. First, the
team may wish to review the data for its relevance and utility as baseline data. There are
occasions when data as collected and reported are quite different from what had been
envisioned at the time of indicator development, and refinement of definitions or data
collection approaches are not uncommon as baselines are established. Second, the team
likely will need to address the issue of target setting, as the next stage in fully populating
the DO-1 PMP.
 Sharing of basic results of the survey with stakeholders beyond USAID/Bangladesh. As
noted in the survey Scope of Work, this can be done by producing a shorter, less
technically oriented document that conveys survey findings. The survey team is
prepared to commence consultations with ODG to refine the plan for this product.

INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW OF USAID/BANGLADESH DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE
1: CITIZEN CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNANCE INSTITUTIONS
INCREASED
Confidence in governance institutions is foundational to democracy and a prerequisite for
political stability and economic growth. Since Bangladesh’s return to democracy in 1990, a
“winner-take-all” approach to politics has left opposition parties little political recourse other
than parliamentary walkouts, general strikes, and violence, which has degraded confidence in
governance institutions. In 2006, the increasingly bitter rivalry between the parties culminated
in a collapse of confidence and a return to military rule after 16 years of civilian government,
including several democratic transfers of power. While the situation has improved since then,
and the country is currently under democratic rule, there remain four inter‐related obstacles to
effective governance in Bangladesh: (1) nascent political institutions, including the parliament
and political parties; (2) rampant corruption, low transparency of government, and ineffective
mechanisms of accountability in all branches of government; (3) the inability of citizens to access
the justice system; and (4) the concentration of authority and resources at the national level.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) believes that increased
citizen engagement in government with increased demand for democratic practices and better
services combined with a better-trained civil service and better-informed political leaders will
result in improved accountability and responsiveness to citizen needs. Accountability and
responsiveness will lead to increased confidence in governance institutions laying the
groundwork for peace, stability, and development. This was the impetus for the development of
the USAID/Bangladesh Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Development
Objective-1 (DO-1), and all USAID-funded democracy and governance (DG) projects are based
on the Results Framework (RF)(Figure 1) of this Strategy.
To ensure the Mission’s expected results under this development objective are adequately
tracked and monitored, USAID’s Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Program Evaluations
Project (BDGPE), implemented by Social Impact (SI), conducted a multi-faceted national survey
to establish a baseline to support program performance management and program learning;
midterm and final evaluations are planned in parallel with this monitoring. This will help the
Mission’s Office of Democracy and Governance (ODG) to both determine any adjustments
that should be made in current projects and better target future projects regarding USAID’s
DO-1 interventions. Intermediate results (IRs) and sub-intermediate results are as follows:
IR 1.1 IMPROVED DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL PROCESSES
USAID will work to promote productive electoral processes, engage women and youth in the
political process, promote human rights and freedom, and support internal reforms that
facilitate constructive dialogue and solutions to problems.
Sub-IR 1.1.1 Improved Legislative Deliberation Process in National Decision-Making:
Bangladesh’s elected parliament should function as the center of national decision-making by

fulfilling the core functions of legislatures: to transform ideas into laws and conduct effective
oversight of government performance. However, the bitter political rivalry between parties
prevents constructive discourse. The current top-down decision-making is further handicapped
by a culture of political boycotts launched by the opposition. There are few opportunities for
rank-and-file members of the ruling party to participate in the shaping of national policy.
USAID’s activities will continue to strengthen the capacity of existing parliamentary bodies—
such as the newly established Budget Analysis and Monitoring Unit, the committee system, and
single-issue all-party caucuses—to provide greater transparency and informed policy
formulation.
Sub-IR 1.1.2 Improved Electoral Processes: USAID supports democratic elections in
Bangladesh, reaching many stakeholders who work directly with the Bangladesh Election
Commission (BEC), political parties, the media, and civil society organizations (CSOs).
Successful elections require both a technical expertise in elections administration, as well as
delivery of sufficient information to voters through competitive campaigns. One of the key goals
is to enable citizens to make informed choices among candidates representing different visions
for the development of the country.
Sub-IR 1.1.3 More Responsive Political Parties: Bangladeshi political parties took a large step
forward in 2008 with the first legal requirements for candidate selection, women’s participation,
affiliate groups, and campaign finance reporting. USAID helps political actors meet technical
requirements and improve internal governance practices. USAID further supports meaningful
political party reform that helps parties broaden their leadership structures, incorporate new
voices within the parties, and solicit feedback from voters, civil society, and experts external to
the party. USAID also focuses on issues related to government responsiveness to food security,
employment, health care service delivery, access to justice, and environmental degradation.
Cross-Cutting Sub-IR Informed Citizenry Actively Engaging in Democratic Processes: A
vibrant civil society sector exists in Bangladesh but remains largely untapped by elected and
unelected leaders for their real world expertise. Even civil society organizations with dedicated
advocacy functions do not effectively organize their efforts or find open avenues for decision-
makers. In each activity with the parliament, election administrators, and political parties,
USAID advances the capacity of institutions to be open to citizen input. One way in which it
does this is civic education on voicing criticism and oversight while partnering with existing
CSOs to constructively engage with political institutions at all levels.

Figure 1: Democracy and Governance Results Framework Showing the Four IRs
Under DO-1, and the Illustrative Sub-IRs.
IR 1.2 GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN TARGETED
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
USAID will support Government of Bangladesh (GoB) efforts to reduce corruption at all levels
by promoting policy and budget reforms, citizen participation in the government, citizen
awareness of the right to information, demand for investigative journalism, and increased
accountability and transparency.
Sub-IR 1.2.1 Strengthened Capacity of Targeted Public Institutions: USAID strengthens
independent government oversight bodies to function more effectively and promote a more
democratic culture of checks and balances. Through future programs, USAID will provide direct
assistance to the BEC to increase effectiveness of their regulation of political parties and
management of national and local elections. USAID-funded anti-corruption interventions will
continue to provide targeted technical assistance to oversight/watchdog mechanisms. USAID
also plans to work closely with the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Affairs Bureau,
which approves and monitors the use of foreign assistance by the non-governmental sector. As

a result of USAID’s assistance, the capacity of GoB officials will be strengthened to practice
greater accountability and transparency in public institutions.
Sub-IR 1.2.2 Enabling a Legal Environment for Greater Oversight of Government
Functions: The legal structure responsible for ensuring transparency in government exists
largely only on paper in Bangladesh. Awareness of these laws, their intended purposes, and
means of implementation are lacking among the government, oversight bodies, civil society, the
media, and the public. USAID will continue to promote understanding of how Bangladesh’s legal
environment currently allows oversight and brings stakeholders and decision-makers together
to remedy acknowledged shortcomings in this structure. With appropriate policies in place,
coupled with enhanced human resource capacity, oversight institutions could function more
efficiently to institutionalize the desired systems of checks and balances that foster sustainable
growth across sectors. USAID-funded activities will strengthen government oversight bodies by
enhancing their policy formulation and implementation capacity as well as supporting policy
reforms.
Cross-Cutting Sub-IR: Informed Citizenry Actively Engaging in Democratic Processes:
USAID-supported interventions will focus on increasing the credibility of government oversight
and watchdog bodies by making them more responsive to citizens’ demands and needs. USAID
will continue to support initiatives to orient CSOs, particularly involving women and media, on
the role of the government’s institutions of accountability, human rights, and political
governance, including events jointly attended by officials of independent government oversight
institutions. USAID will continue to establish forums in which CSO representatives and media
are able to exchange views and promote joint advocacy for policy reforms. USAID will continue
to build investigative journalism skills in local journalists and to promote the use and
enforcement of the Right to Information Act. Likewise, USAID will continue to support its
successful efforts to bring together government oversight bodies and non-government
watchdog groups to promote and support more active engagement of citizens in democratic
processes.
IR 1.3: IMPROVED ACCESS TO JUSTICE
USAID will work to improve judicial integrity and self-governance, support legal advocacy and
legal aid, raise awareness of human rights issues, and increase access to community-level justice
and policing.
Sub-IR 1.3.1 Improved Delivery of Legal Aid in the Formal Justice Sector: At present, GoB
has made $100,000 available in each District and Session Court and has created the National
Legal Aid Cell within the Ministry of Justice to help the poor gain access to the justice system.
In practice, the poor and disadvantaged find it cumbersome and difficult to take advantage of
these initiatives. Thus, the legal aid fund is currently not well utilized. USAID’s anticipated
programming will focus on reducing the barriers that discourage people from accessing these
opportunities. To increase leverage between different actors such as lawyers, lawyers
associations, and civil society actors in delivering legal aid, advocacy initiatives will be
considered.

Sub-IR 1.3.2 Increased Self-Governance of the Judiciary to Better Serve the Public:
USAID support for judicial self-governance will encourage self-examination by members of the
judiciary of their performance, priority needs, and aspirations. Activities will be designed that
give special attention to improving judicial ethics, discipline, budgeting, and operational
effectiveness.
Sub-IR 1.3.3 Informed Citizenry Actively Engaging in Democratic Processes: The Rule of
Law assessment indicated that the poor in Bangladesh have limited access to legal information.
Most indigent and disadvantaged citizens view the formal justice system as inefficient, expensive,
and distant. USAID efforts will develop partnerships with Bangladeshi CSOs to overcome these
hurdles. Support will be provided for a legal literacy campaign that would provide information
to local populations regarding the availability of legal aid funds and services and how to access
them.
IR 1.4 MORE RESPONSIVE ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT
USAID will promote decentralization of governance, allocations and financial resource
generation, and citizen and elected officials’ participation in local decision-making and planning.
Sub-IR 1.4.1 Expanded Role of Authority of Elected Local Government: Policy or
structural changes that transfer the balance of development resources and staff capacity to local
governments from central government-line ministries will have an enormous effect on the
ability of people to locally determine and implement their own development priorities. USAID
will support advocacy efforts to encourage the national government to adopt legal and policy
reforms to expand the roles, authorities, and resource allocation for local government.
Research on laws, ordinances, and practices that govern local governments will be widely
disseminated to create constituencies for reform.
Sub-IR 1.4.2 Increased Ability of Elected Local Government to Effectively Deliver
Services: The functionalities of elected local governments are an obvious reflection of the
political will of a national government to deliver its services. The challenge lies in responding to
the growing demands of citizens and taking on plans for future needs. USAID will support
efforts to improve the capacity of local governments and citizenry while also working to
strengthen the legal framework and engage citizens, CSOs, and respective stakeholders.
Cross-Cutting Sub-IR Informed Citizenry Actively Engaging in Democratic Processes: The
local citizenry and forums are indispensable resources of indigenous knowledge and can be the
driving forces for any positive changes. Additionally, they are the determinants of achievements
and failures. USAID will focus on rights and responsibilities of citizenry while engaging them
systematically in the local governance process as service demanders and service providers.
USAID will use an approach that seeks to engage citizens with other sector-specific initiatives at
the local level, such as community-based natural resource management initiatives, local health
management support groups, and community-driven school oversight committees.

PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to establish a reliable reference point (a baseline) for all 11 of the
ODG’s DO-1 Performance Management Plan (PMP) indicators. However, as noted above,
following USAID/Bangladesh guidance, only eight of the PMP indicators are discussed here,
leaving out Indicators 5, 6 and 7, which ODG has elected not to analyse at this time. These
eight indicators will be used to measure USAID’s success in achieving its DG goals under its
current CDCS.1
Additionally, this baseline will be used to identify performance targets and
subsequently determine the progress of programs under USAID/Bangladesh’s ODG in coming
years.
SCOPE
This study measures baseline data on the following indicators:
Indicator 1: Percentage of citizens reporting increased confidence in targeted institutions of
governance,
Indicator 2: Percentage of citizens engaged in governance initiatives,
Indicator 3: Percentage of respondents who say that the BEC has the capacity to conduct
fair elections,
Indicator 4: Percentage of respondents who say political parties reflect the voices of their
constituents,
Indicator 5: Number of executive oversight functions exercised by the parliament (on hold),
Indicator 6: Degree to which civil society groups participate in monitoring transparency and
accountability activities of targeted public institutions (on hold),
Indicator 7: Level of efficiency of targeted public institutions to provide oversight of
government functions (on hold),
Indicator 8: Number of individuals who received legal aid or victim’s assistance with USG
support,
Indicator 9: Degree of effectiveness of service delivery by District Legal Aid Committees
(DLAC),
Indicator 10: Percentage of people who say that local government is responsive to
constituents’ needs in the targeted area, and
Indicator 11: Percentage of people who express satisfaction with the quality of Local
Government Services in their locality
Subsequent to the submission of the first draft of the baseline report in September, 2013,
USAID/Bangladesh modified Indicators Nos. 3, 4, 8, 10 and 11, reflected in new PIRS. This
required additional analysis of the baseline data. The current report is based on the new
PIRS and indicator definitions.
1
See Annex II for the DO-1 Performance Indicator Reference Sheets, including summary baseline data for each
indicator.

METHODS
BACKGROUND
The baseline surveys were conducted during the first and second calendar quarters of 2013.
This package of surveys is intended to provide:
 External, independently verified measures of progress and impacts of the interventions
carried out by USAID implementing partners (IPs) in the areas in which USAID is
currently working or in which it invested future resources;
 Insight into movement in the wider DG sector, including areas in which USAID has not
yet invested resources;
 Assistance to USAID in ensuring that it is targeting the most high-value interventions
across the DG sector; and
 A “pre-intervention” profile for USAID programs to be implemented in the future.
Because the indicators are diverse in substance, different methods and evaluation tools were
required to collect the baseline data for the different indicators. For instance, the evaluation
team used a national public opinion survey of 3,510 Bangladeshi citizens in all of the areas in
which USAID’s implementing partners (IPs) work to help populate the baseline for indicators 1,
4, 10 and 11. In order to populate the other indicators, the evaluation team used more
purposive-sampling for surveys of political party leaders, elected government officials, and
human rights CSOs, plus a document review of the District Legal Aid Committees’ (DLAC)
registration books.
STUDY DESIGN
A quantitative baseline study was conducted with a combined sample of 4,379 among eight
different groups of respondents, featuring five national surveys and three national institutional
surveys. In order to collect this data, SI (implementer of USAID’s BDGPE project) contracted
with Nielsen Bangladesh to collect all of the national data, which consisted of the Public
Opinion Survey (POS) and four national respondent surveys of the different groups of
respondents: DLAC, Elected Local Government Leaders (ELL), Human Rights CSOs, and
Political Party Leaders (PPL). BDGPE staff collected the data from the BEC, Oversight
Institutions (OI), and Members of Parliament (MP). The studies were conducted using a face-to-
face interview technique.
The battery of surveys is summarized in Table 2 below. Note that owing to the changes in
USAID ODG’s indicator definition after the submission of the first draft of this report, this
analysis does not utilize the respondent survey of Political Party Leaders or the survey of
Parliament Members.

Table 2: Sample Size by Survey
National Respondent Surveys Indicators Sample Size
Public Opinion Survey of the General Population (POS) 1, 2, 3, 4,10, 11 3,510
Political Party Leader (PPL) NA 536
Human Rights Civil Society Organization (CSO) 8 35
District Legal Aid Committee (DLAC) 9 36
Elected Local Government Leader (ELL) 10 & 11 261
National Institutions Surveys
Bangladesh Election Commission (BEC) 3 31
Parliament Members (MP) NA 10
Oversight Institutions (OI) 5, 6 & 7* 10
Total 4,379
*Note that these three indicators were not included in the final report.
NATIONAL RESPONDENT SURVEYS
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY (POS)
SI designed the public opinion survey (POS) to ascertain public perspectives of the government
from Bangladeshi adults living in USAID ODG Program implementation areas. The POP
measures Bangladeshis’ opinions regarding a variety of DG institutions: the BEC; Parliament;
local government institutions; OIs such as the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the Office
of Comptrollers General of Audit (OCAG), and the Information Commission (IC), District
Courts; DLAC; and Political Parties. It provides data for the following ODG PMP indicators:
Indicator 1: Percentage of citizens reporting increased confidence in targeted institutions of
governance,
Indicator 2: Percentage of citizens engaged in governance initiatives,
Indicator 4: Percentage of respondents who say political parties reflect the voices of their
constituents,
Indicator 10: Percentage of people who say that local government is responsive to
constituents’ needs in the targeted area, and
Indicator 11: Percentage of people who express satisfaction with the quality of Local
Government Services in their locality
It is a probability survey representative of the population in those areas where USAID ODG
Programs are implemented. SI used the 2011 Bangladesh Population Census data, collected by
the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), to construct the sample frame for the study. The
sample of Bangladeshis was then selected using a stratified random sampling technique to
ensure the urban-rural distribution (30-70) was representative of the population in the seven
divisions in which the USAID ODG works (Figure 2 highlights the areas in which the USAID
ODG works).

Figure 2: Divisions in Bangladesh where USAID DG Programs Work
Note: Areas in green are those where USAID DG programs were active at the time of survey administration.
Within these divisions, SI randomly selected 30 people from 117 primary sampling areas. The
following figure illustrates the procedure used for selecting the households and individual
respondents.

Figure 3: Procedure for Household/Household Member Selection2
Table 3 shows the detailed sample distribution for the survey. The margin of error for this
survey is approximately ±5 percent, allowing for a statistically robust comparison of data among
regions of Bangladesh.
Table 3: Sample Distribution for Public Opinion Survey
Total Urban Rural Sample Size
Barisal 60 150 210
Chittagong 240 450 690
Dhaka 330 810 1140
Khulna 120 270 390
Rajshahi 180 330 510
Rangpur 120 270 390
Sylhet* - 180 180
Total 1050 2460 3510
Female 525 1230 1755
Male 525 1230 1755
* USAID does not work in Sylhet urban areas; therefore, the data collection for this Division was limited to rural
areas.
2
The tables developed by statistician Leslie Kish are a rigorous tool widely used by survey teams for sampling
persons within households to be surveyed.
Once the household was chosen, any household member who was over 18 years of
age was automatically qualified as a potential respondent.
In cases where a household having more than one qualified respondent, a Kish2 table was used to
select the respondents;
An appropriate landmark was selected to start the data collection in each SP
Data collection followed a right hand rule from
the landmark to select the households
For every successful interview, alternate
houses was chosen for interviewing.
After selection of primary sampling areas the sample
was divided into 6 starting points (SPs).
From each starting point, 5 respondents were surveyed

In the presentation and analysis of the PMP indicators, the survey results are disaggregated,
where appropriate, by sex, age, socio-economic classification, and rural versus urban residency.
Originally, the survey was also to be disaggregated by political party affiliation or support, but
the difficult political situation in Bangladesh at the time made the topic of political affiliation very
sensitive, and, thus, it was necessary to eliminate questions associated with a respondent’s
political affiliation.
POLITICAL PARTY LEADER (PPL) SURVEY
This survey collected data on the four major political parties: the Awami League (AL),
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Jatiya Party (JP), and Jamaat-i-Islami (JIIP). However, the JIIP
was removed from the final sample due to the unavailability of JIIP party members.3
Since there
was no pre-existing database of political party leaders in Bangladesh, a purposeful sampling
design was used, keeping national representation of both location and power in mind. Samples
for different divisions and locations within each Division were selected through a list of political
party leaders provided by Democracy International. The evaluation team matched this list with
the DG working areas (where the survey was conducted). Any list outside the DG working
areas was removed.
The PPL survey was the most challenging of all the surveys to administer, as some of the
political leaders from the other parties were afraid to participate and were not willing to
provide responses to the enumerators. A “snowball” technique was used to find replacement
respondents. The final sample included 536 party leaders across the three parties (AL, BNP and
JL).
In the course of the indicator design and review, subsequent to the submission of the draft
report, USAID/Bangladesh opted not to use the PPL survey data for the indicators relating to
political party responsiveness; hence this survey was not utilized for the final set of ODG PMP
indicators.
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION (CSO) SURVEY
The CSO survey was designed to measure:
Indicator 8: Number of individuals who received legal aid or victim’s assistance with USG support
USG support refers to the following human rights programs: Protecting Human Rights (Plan
Bangladesh), Action for Combating Trafficking in Persons (Winrock International), Community-
Based Policing (the Asia Foundation), and Labor Projects (American Center of International
Labor Solidarity). There are 71 CSOs who work with these IPs. These 71 CSOs made up the
sampling framework for this survey. The evaluation team determined that a sample of more
than 30 was required to ensure a statistically significant sample size. As such, to ensure an
adequate sample the evaluation team selected a stratified proportionate (by CSO) random
sample of 50 percent of the CSOs, or 35 CSOs, ensuring representation in each of the Union
Parishads and municipalities in which the POP was administered.
3
Most of the JIIP party members went into hiding after Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, the Nayeb-e-Ameer (or the vice-
president) of Jamaat-i-Islami, was convicted on February 28, 2013 and sentenced to death on two of the charges.

Nielsen enumerators set appointments with the CSOs over the phone, and then the interviews
were conducted. Also, although less than ideal, in some cases, the enumerators shared the
questionnaires with the CSOs and then collected them after they were complete. This was
done because of the evaluation team found it very difficult to reach the partner CSOs during
the survey.
DISTRICT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE (DLAC) SURVEY
This DLAC survey was developed to measure:
Indicator 9: Degree of effectiveness of service delivery by DLAC.
DLAC was developed as a way of facilitating access to justice for the poor. Offices in all 64
districts provide legal aid to the poor to institute or defend cases in courts. This system was
established by the Legal Aid Act (Act VI of 2000) to ensure that all are equal before the law and
are entitled to equal protection under the law. In the past, poor citizens from disadvantaged
communities often withdrew cases against powerful opponents because the financial burden
was too much for them to bear. DLAC was designed to alleviate this discrimination.
In order to obtain legal aid, a poor person has to go to the DLAC offices and obtain legal
advice. If his or her claim is strong, he or she is assigned a lawyer who takes the case to court.
All of these transactions are kept in the DLAC offices in two ledgers. The DLAC survey was
given to DLAC staff, and the evaluation team also supplemented the survey with a desk review
of the ledgers. The evaluation team visited 36 of the 64 DLAC offices located in USAID DG
implementation areas. Enumerators surveyed staff at these locations, and in cases where the
enumerators had access to the DLAC databases, they conducted data and document reviews.
ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL (ELL) SURVEY
The evaluation team developed the ELL survey to collect data to supplement the POP data.
However, owing to changes in the indicator definition, following USAID guidance, it was
decided not to use these data.
The evaluation team sampled the chairman and two elected officials—one woman and one
man—from each municipality or upazila in which the POP was conducted. The enumerators
visited the local Union Parishad Office (Pouroshova) to collect the names of the local chairmen
and members. If the chairmen or members were available, the enumerators tried to conduct
the interview or arrange an appointment to conduct the interview at a later date. If the
chairmen were not available at all, the enumerators conducted the interview with the deputy
chairmen. Overall, 77 chairmen, 95 male members, and 89 female members were interviewed
for the ELL survey.
NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL SURVEYS
The team conducted three national institutional surveys of the:
1. BEC;
2. MPs; and
3. OIs, including the:

a. Anti-Corruption Commission,
b. Office of Comptrollers of General Audit, and
c. Information Commission
The evaluation team designed these surveys to gather data about the institutions. The
respondents were both internal staff and external experts purposively selected to reflect the
internal and external views and experiences of these institutions. Each of these surveys is
described in more detail below.
BANGLADESH ELECTION COMMISSION (BEC) SURVEY
The BEC survey was used to collect data for the following indicator:
Indicator 3: Capacity of BEC to conduct elections based on international standards.
The respondents were selected to create a representative pool of the BEC, including: BEC
Commissioners, the BEC Secretariat, Election Management, the Election Directing Department,
the Public Relations Office, the Law Office, the Human Resource Development Office, the
Planning Office, the Development and Research Office, the Budget Office, the System
Management (ICT) Office, and the National ID Card Registration Office. Other electoral
stakeholders (including academians, CSO representatives, election working groups, journalists,
and international service providers) were also included. The total sample size was 31 and
included 23 men and 8 women.
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MP) SURVEY
The evaluation team designed the MP survey to collect data for the following indicator:
Indicator 5: Number of executive oversight functions exercised by the Parliament.
The evaluation team selected respondents to ensure representation of MPs from the following
committees:
 Labor and Employment Committee
 Fisheries and Livestock Committee
 Power Energy and Mineral Resources Committee
 Local Government Road Development and Cooperative Committee
 Women and Children Welfare Committee
In addition to legislative staff on these committees, evaluation team members also interviewed
leaders of the CSOs who received Promoting Democratic Institutions and Practices (PRODIP)
research grants to work closely with these MPs, Bangladeshi scholars, and political scientists.
This survey was to supplement data from the POP. However, the subsequent changes in
USAID/Bangladesh’s PMP indicator definition led to a decision to not use the MP survey data
for this indicator.

OVERSIGHT INSTITUTIONS (OI) SURVEY
The OI survey was designed to answer:
Indicator 6: Degree to which civil society groups participate in monitoring transparency and
accountability activities by targeted public institutions.
Indicator 7: Level of efficiency of targeted public institutions to provide oversight of government
functions.
The evaluation team selected respondents from IP CSOs including NGOs, the media, academia,
and trade associations. In the case of these two Indicators 6 and 7, there was a change in the
indicator definition and USAID/Bangladesh has put on hold the data collection and analysis for
this indicator.

FINDINGS
To facilitate the reader’s understanding of findings, the presentation of findings is structured in
the following manner: Each indicator is introduced with the text from the “precise definition”
section of the USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) for that indicator. Next
the evaluation team provides the summary data for the indicator, in table format, accompanied
by a short analytical discussion of these data. Next, the team presents the PIRS-specified
disaggregations of data for the indicator. For simplicity of presentation the disaggregation tables
together are followed by a discussion of the disaggregated data.
PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN DATA - DO 1: CITIZEN
CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNANCE INSTITUTIONS INCREASED
INDICATOR 1: PERCENTAGE OF CITIZENS REPORTING CONFIDENCE IN
TARGETED INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNANCE
Indicator 1 Definition from the USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet:
This multi-faceted indicator tracks citizen confidence that governance institutions have the capacity to
influence the direction of government initiatives for the better socio-economic condition of the country.
Targeted institutions include the Bangladesh Election Commission (BEC), Parliament, political parties,
local government institutions (Union Parishad, Upazilla Parishad, and Municipal Corporations),
oversight institutions (Office of Comptroller, Auditor General, and Anti-Corruption Commission), the
Information Commission, and the judiciary (District Courts and National Legal Aid Service
Organization (NLASO).
The issues on which citizens' perceptions are measured include:
 BEC: BEC's ability to conduct elections according to international standards
 Parliament: Parliament's performance in the provision of oversight to the Executive, and its
responsiveness to citizen needs
 Political Parties: Responsiveness of political parties to citizens' concerns
 Local Government Institutions: Responsiveness to constituents' needs and effectiveness
 Oversight Institutions: Public perceptions of the effectiveness of government in combatting
corruption and increasing governmental transparency
 Information Commission: Effectiveness in monitoring compliance with Right to Information
Act
 District Courts: Effectiveness of district courts to administer cases in a fair and timely
fashion
 Legal Aid Services Organization: Effectiveness of NLASO and DLAC to provide legal aid
services
Citizens score each of the targeted institutions on a Likert scale of 1 — 5:
 1 = Strongly disagree
 2 = Disagree
 3 = Neither agree nor disagree

 4 = Agree
 5 = Strongly agree
Each respondent scores the targeted institutions against a maximum of 40 (number of institutions [8]
under review multiplied by the maximum points possible [5] per institution). Respondents’ confidence
levels are defined as follows:
 < 8 = Very low
 9-16 = Low
 17-24 = Medium
 25-32 =High
 >33 = Very high
Indicator 1 Summary Data:
Table 4: Citizen Level of Confidence across All Governance Institutions
Level of Confidence Percent
Very High 3.3 (N =114)
High 12.3 (428)
Medium 33.5 (1171)
Low 41.6 (1452)
Very Low 9.3 (326)
Total Valid Responses 100.0 (N=3,491)
Indicator 1 Overall Discussion:
Overall (cross-institutional), data from the survey indicate that as of Spring 2013, citizen
confidence levels in government institutions are generally low, but not extremely so (as
shown in Table 4). Nearly 51 percent of citizens who live in USAID DG project
implementation areas indicate low or very low levels of confidence, while only about 16
percent report high or very high confidence in government institutions.
Indicator 1 Disaggregation:
Disaggregated data is presented (according to the PIRS requirements) below, followed by a
brief discussion.

Table 5: Citizen Level of Confidence by Age Group
Confidence
Level
Age Group (%)
20 or
Under
21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Above 60
Very High 4.8 3.4 3.1 2.5 4.0 2.6
High 14.1 12.1 12.7 13.0 10.6 8.9
Medium 39.4 35.2 32.7 32.0 32.0 27.7
Low 32.7 40.5 41.1 44.1 43.4 50.8
Very Low 8.9 8.9 10 8.3 10.0 9.9
Total Valid
Responses
100.0
(N=269)
100.0
(1,127)
100.0
(879)
100.0
(675)
100.0
(350)
100.0
(191)
Table 6: Citizen Level of Confidence by Sex
Level of Confidence Sex (%)
Female Male
Very High 3.0 3.5
High 10.8 13.6
Medium 32.1 35.0
Low 41.6 41.6
Very Low 12.4 6.3
Total Valid Responses 100.0 (N=1,737) 100.0 (1,754)
Table 7: Citizen Level of Confidence by Education Level
Level of Confidence
Education Level (%)
Illiterate
Up to 5
years
School 6 to
10 years
Above SSC
Very High 1.7 3.1 3.4 5.7
High 5.3 11.9 12.9 22.2
Medium 25.5 35.1 36.9 39.1
Low 51.4 42.2 38.8 29.8
Very Low 16.1 7.7 8.0 3.2
Total Valid
Responses
100.0
(N=1,014)
100.0 (907) 100.0 (889) 100.0 (681)

Table 8: Citizen Level of Confidence by Rural/Urban Area
Level of Confidence
Area (%)
Rural Urban
Very High 3.8 1.9
High 11.2 14.8
Medium 31.9 37.3
Low 42.9 38.6
Very Low 10.2 7.4
Total Valid Responses 100.0 (N=2,445) 100.0 (1,046)
Table 9: Citizen Level of Confidence by Governance Institution
Confidence
Level
Institution (%)
BEC
Parliament
Parties
LGIs
ACC
IC
District
Court
NLASO&
DLAC
Very High
/Strongly Agree 28.0 18.2 10.1 19.8 13.5 15.9 26.2 14.8
High 55.0 31.4 26.9 45.1 28.2 30.4 33.6 30.8
Medium 7.7 16.1 13.9 10.7 19.5 28.2 18.2 34.8
Low 6.5 26.2 28.4 17.5 28.9 18.7 12.5 12.8
Very Low 2.8 8.09 20.7 6.9 10.0 6.8 9.5 6.7
Percent
“High” or
“Very High” 83.0 49.6 37.0 64.9 41.7 45.3 59.8 45.6
Total Valid
Responses
3,152 3,151 3,340 3,363 1,366 734 2,125 655
Indicator 1 Disaggregated Data Discussion:
By disaggregating the data, it becomes clear that confidence in government institutions varies
across different socio-demographic groups. Specifically, age appears to be negatively
correlated with respondent confidence in government institutions; 61 percent of those
Bangladeshis living in USAID DG project implementation areas who are over the age of 60
display low or very low levels of confidence while only 42 percent of citizens under 20 share
these low levels of confidence (See Table 5 for details).

Additionally, confidence varies markedly by sex; females tend to report lower confidence
levels than do males (high or very high levels totaling 13.9 percent for females and 17.1
percent for males) (See Table 6 for details). This finding is reinforced by a notable sex
differentiation in civic engagement, with men much more likely to be engaged than women
(see Indicator 2 below).
Finally, the level of educational attainment also appears to matter, with more highly educated
citizens being more likely to have confidence in the government than the less educated.
Specifically, findings show that while only 7 percent of illiterate citizens who live in USAID DG
project areas report high or very high confidence in government institutions, 28 percent of
those with education above Secondary School Certification display these levels. This positive
association is consistently linear from one level of education to the next, which challenges the
oft-cited theoretical presumption that educational attainment may lead to a more critical
attitude towards government institutions (See Table 7).
Urban or rural area of residence, on the other hand, appears not to be a strong predictor of
overall confidence in government institutions; numerical differences between rural and urban
respondent ratings are not statistically significant (See Table 8 for details).
In comparing confidence levels across the eight respective governance institutions, the BEC
stands out as an organization that draws broad confidence from the citizenry, with 83 percent
of citizens living in USAID DG project implementation areas expressing high or very high
confidence in the Commission. On the other end of the spectrum are political parties, which
as a group elicit only 37 percent of respondents expressing high or very high confidence. The
other institutions are given confidence levels ranging between those of the BEC and the
political parties (See Table 9 for details).

INDICATOR 2: PERCENTAGE OF CITIZENS ENGAGED IN GOVERNANCE
INITIATIVES
Engagement is tracked by measuring citizen participation in defining the issues, identifying solutions,
and developing priorities for action and resources related to initiatives of targeted governance
institutions. Respondents are regarded as having participated if they have engaged in any of the above
activities at least once in the previous twelve months through formal (meetings called by the
government) or informal structures (participation in town hall meetings). Targeted institutions of
governance would be the BEC, Parliament, local government institutions (Union Parishad, Upazilla
Parishad, and Municipal Corporations), oversight institutions (Office of Comptroller, Auditor General,
Anti-Corruption Commission, and Information Commission) and judiciary (District Courts). Governance
initiatives refer to reforms/changes to make selected government institutions more transparent,
corruption free, and efficient.
Notes on Indicator 2:
• Because the types of engagement, as described in the indicator definition, are rare
among an entire adult societal population (as applied to most governance institutions at
least), they are unlikely to produce practical data through a public opinion survey. As
such, the survey asks respondents “whether or not (yes/no) [they] have been involved in
activities associated with the targeted institutions.” For example, regarding the BEC, the
survey asks, “Did you participate in any activities related to or organized by the
Bangladesh Election Commission in the past 12 months?”
The PIRS specifies “percentage of citizens” as the unit of measure for this indicator. Thus, to
derive a summary figure for this indicator, the evaluation team counted the number of survey
respondents who reported their engagement within the last 12 months with at least one of the
governance institutions specified in the definition, and from this number calculated a percentage
of all valid responses.
Table 10: Percent of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives
Description Percent
Percent of citizens reporting engagement with at
least one governance institution
15.2
(N= 3,510 total valid responses)
In informal conversations about political life, often Bangladeshis (as with people in many other
places) will say that political participation among average citizens is quite low. In this context
the overall figure of fifteen percent here is rather surprisingly high. Readers need to keep in

mind, however, that the criterion for inclusion is quite easy to meet in two ways: 1) A
respondent need only report having engaged in the activities of just one of the targeted
institutions, and 2) “Being involved in activities” of institutions is a considerably lower bar than
that suggested by the types of actions identified in the current PIRS (those being: definition of
issues, identifying solutions, and developing priorities for action). USAID may wish to review
this PIRS at a later date.
The disaggregation of Indicator 2 by age, sex, urban/rural and education presented below offer
further perspective on types of engagement.
Table 11: Percent of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives, by Targeted
Institution
Institution Percent of Citizens Engaged
Parliament 11.3 (N=395)
Local Government 4.4 (156)
BEC 1.9 (68)
Oversight Institutions
ACC 0.4 (13)
OCAG 0.1 (5)
IC 0.2 (6)
Total valid responses=3,510
Table 12: Percent of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives by Institution and
Age Group
Institution Age Group, in Years (%)
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over
60
Total
BEC 2.9 32.4 29.4 22.1 10.3 2.9 100 (n=68)
Parliament 5.6 25.1 24.1 23.8 16.2 5.3 100 (395)
Local Government 5.1 23.7 28.2 19.2 16.7 7.1 100 (156)
Oversight
Institutions
ACC 15.4 30.8 15.4 38.5 0.0 0.0 100 (13)
OCAG 0.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 100 (5)
IC 0.0 16.7 16.7 33.3 0.0 33.3 100 (6)
DLAC 0.00 57.1 0.0 14.3 14.3 14.3 100 (7)
Total 5.2
(N=34)
25.8
(168)
24.9
(162)
23.2
(151)
15.1
(98)
5.7
(37)
100 (650)

Table 13: Percent of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives, by Institution and
Sex
Institution Male (%) Female (%)
BEC 2.5 1.4
Parliament 19.6 2.9
Local Government 7.1 1.8
Oversight Institutions ACC 0.6 0.1
OCAG 0.3 0
IC 0.3 0.1
DLAC 0.3 0.1
Total 24.9 5.5
Male N=1,755 Female N=1,755 Total N=3,510
Table 14: Percentage of Citizens Engaged in Governance Initiatives by Institution
and Area
Institution Urban (%) Rural (%)
BEC 29.4 70.6
Parliament 30.9 69.1
Local Government 28.4 71.6
Oversight Institutions
ACC 53.8 46.2
OCAG 60.0 40.0
IC 16.7 83.3
DLAC 42.9 57.1
Total 30.9 (N=201) 69.1 (449)
Table 15: Levels of Citizen Engagement in Governance Initiatives by Type
Institution Type of Engagement Formal/ Informal Percentage
BEC Meet BEC official on any issue related to
election
F 11.5
Attended a workshop/meeting/dialogue
organized by BEC
F 10.2
Served as a staff of BEC F 23.4
Worked as a local observer F 15.7
Worked as a polling staff F 24.1
Served as a polling agent F 29.9

Institution Type of Engagement Formal/ Informal Percentage
Other F 2.9
Parliament Discussion Meeting with MP F 10.3
Town hall Meeting F 12.5
Local Govt. Social safety-net program (VGF/VGD) F 36.1
Distribution of certificates F 66.7
Maintain law & order (shalish) F 6.2
Agricultural input F 4.6
Community health care F 5.6
Family planning F 6.8
Infrastructure development F 8.4
Other F 6.4
ACC Mainly providing information to ACC over
call
F 8.4
OCAG (activity not specified) F 5.2
IC Applied for information F 1.7
District Court Sought legal remedy from DC F 13.0
DLAC Received services F 3.0
Political Party Attended a party meeting I 37.0
Source: Public Opinion Survey
The pattern of citizen-engagement levels across institutions is quantitatively clear and arguably
of no surprise to those familiar with Bangladeshi political life. Engagement is at its highest (11
percent of citizens) for Parliament. Those respondents who said they were engaged with
Parliament are likely including their attendance at various public events that may feature a
speech by an MP. Local government institutions and the BEC are also part of the engagement
landscape (at 4 and 2 percent, respectively), while the levels of engagement with oversight
institutions and DLAC are only minimal.
The distribution of engagement is broad, including all age groups. The BEC involves a somewhat
higher proportion of young people than do the other institutions. Engagement with the
oversight institutions and DLAC are at levels too low to support statistically reliable
comparisons across age groups.
Table 13 demonstrates a striking contrast in engagement levels across the sexes. Males display
an overall engagement level of 24.9 percent, while the level for females is only 5.5 percent. In
fact, male levels of engagement are higher than those of females across all the governance

institutions covered in the POP. Most striking is the sex difference for engagement with
Parliament, where 20 percent of males report engagement but only 3 percent of females.
A notable contrast is also apparent in the urban/rural breakdown of engagement (Table 14),
where rural levels of participation are consistently higher than those for urban respondents. For
rural residents engagement is most extensive for local government (72 percent), closely
followed by the BEC (71 percent). For urban residents engagement is highest for the BEC (29
percent), in turn followed closely by local government (28 percent).
Table 15 displays the percentages of citizens reporting engagement with each institution,
broken down by particular type of activity. Note first that engagement with these institutions
tends to be through events called by government – that is, through formal activities. Political
party meetings are the only informal activities in which respondents reported participating.
Local government activities are the most commonly reported; participation in distribution of
certificates were noted by 67 percent of respondents. Thirty-six percent of respondents
reported their engagement with social safety-net programs administered by local government,
such as Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) and Vulnerable Group Development (VGD).
Engagement with BEC activities is also rather widespread, with 30 percent of respondents
reporting having served as a polling agent, for example.

IR 1.1 STRENGTHENED POLITICAL PROCESSES
INDICATOR 3: CAPACITY OF THE BEC TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS BASED
ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
The capacity of the BEC to conduct fair elections is measured through a key informant assessment. Key
informant refers to BEC officials and other stakeholders (academics and experts). The indicator tracks
key informant’s perception about BEC’s capacity to comply with standards of campaign finance,
electoral security, transparency, and monitoring as a result of USAID election assistance. Perceptions on
capacity will be scored (out of 5) for each of the following components:
 Oversight of and implementation of existing campaign finance regulations;
 Electoral security,
 Electoral transparency
 Election monitoring.
Respondents score the BEC’s capacity against each component using a scale of 1-5. Each respondent’s
total score for all of the four components is divided by four to find the final score. Anyone who scores
above 3 out of a possible 5 is regarded as saying the BEC has the capacity to conduct fair elections.
The percentage value of the indicator are based on the frequency of people who scored the BEC a 3 or
above.
As a way of assuring the quality of the data, perceptions of some key informants who are external to
the BEC, including international assistance providers, Bangladeshi political scientists, and experts on
legal framework, will be compared with responses from BEC officials. Any cases of significant variation
are explained in narrative accompanying the indicator.
Notes on Indicator 3:
• In the process of survey design refinement, USAID advised the evaluation team that a
self-assessment tool would not be used as the data collection method for this indicator.
Instead, ODG asked that a mini-survey of election officials, Bangladeshi academics, and
other experts be used.
• The evaluation team developed this survey, which included a 5-point rating scale for key
informants to measure BEC performance.
• Given the 5-point scale, the evaluation team recommended that the unit of measure for
updating this indicator’s PIRS be “percent,” with the definition being the percent of key
informants reporting “very high” or “high” levels of confidence in the BEC’s electoral
administration.

Table 16: Key Informants’ Ratings of BEC Capacity to Hold Fair Elections*
Variables
Percentage of Respondents who Rated BEC Capacity
“High” or “Very High”
BEC officials (N=12) Non BEC officials
(N=19)
Total (N=31)
Oversight/implementation of
campaign finance regulations
75.0 % (9) 26.3% (5) 45.2% (14)
Electoral Security 91.7% (11) 94.7% (18) 93.5% (29)
Electoral Transparency 100% (12) 84.2% (16) 90.3% (28)
Election monitoring 91.7% (11) 100% (19) 96.8% (30)
Total 89.6% 76.3% 81.5%
*Survey question: Information taken from the BEC Survey. Question numbers used are 25, 26 for oversight; 40, 41,
42, 43, 44, 45, 48 for security; 46, 47, 65, 74 for transparency; 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67,
68, 69, 70, 71 for monitoring. Responses from these four components were averaged. Average of the averages was
calculated to get percentage required for the indicator.
Indicator 3 Overall Discussion: It appears that expert confidence in the BEC is quite high,
with 81 percent of key informant respondents giving the BEC a “very high” or “high” rating.
Improvement upon this score in future years might appear difficult at first, but the more
detailed analysis from the key informant survey shows that there are indeed areas in which the
BEC might improve its work, particularly in oversight of regulations on campaign finance. It is
important to note, however, that the sample of key informants included BEC officials who may
report their levels of confidence with a positive bias, or “halo effect.” Parallel data from the
POP indicate that the citizenry at large does not differ notably from the key informants in their
estimation of the BEC.
USAID specified no disaggregation for this indicator.

INDICATOR 4: PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAY THAT
POLITICAL PARTIES REFLECT THE VOICES OF THEIR CONSTITUENCIES
“Reflection of constituents’ voices” is determined based on whether constituents regard their political
party leaders as having performed the following actions: a. Held meetings with their constituency; b.
Received citizen input; and c. Implemented citizen input. Political party leadership refers to leaders of
Bangaldesh Awami League, Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bangladesh Jatiya party at different levels
such as district, regional and national.
For each of the three questions, respondents will receive one (1) for a YES response and zero (0) for a
NO response, resulting in a score of between 0 and 3. The indicator will present the percentage of total
respondents who scored 2 or higher (i.e. responded YES to at least two of the three questions).
Table 17: Frequency of Selected Actions by Political Leadership*
Frequency Score
1 or less action 59.2% (N=1236)
2 or more actions 40.8% (N=851)
Total Valid Responses=2,087
*Data source is POS, Questions were PPR-1, PPR-3, and PPR-6.
In total, 59 percent of respondents say that political parties conduct one or fewer of the
selected activities that would give greater “voice” to citizens. Thus, it would be fair to say that
a minority of survey respondents consider that political parties represent their constituents’
voices.
Table 18: Frequency of Selected Actions by Political Leadership by Age
Frequency 20 or Under
%
21-30
%
31-40
%
41-50
%
51-60
%
Above 60
%
1 or less
action
64.2 (N=106) 61.2 (398) 54.9 (284) 60.2 (257) 57.0 (124) 61.5 (67)
2 or more
actions
35.8 (N=59) 38.8 (252) 45.1 (233) 39.8 (170) 43.0 (95) 38.5 (42)
Total Valid Responses = 2,087

Table 19: Frequency of Selected Actions by Political Leadership by Sex
Frequency Female
%
Male
%
1 or less action 73.6 (N=615) 49.6 (621)
2 or more actions 26.4 (221) 50.4 (630)
Table 20: Frequency of Selected Actions by Political Leadership by Rural/Urban
Frequency Rural
%
Urban
%
1or less action 60.6 (N=869) 56.2 (367)
2 or above 39.4 (565) 43.8 (286)
As shown in Table 18, younger people in the categories of under 20 and between 21 and 30
years of age were more likely to say that political parties do not conduct the selected “voice”
activities. Moreover, as shown in Table 19, women were notably more critical than men in this
regard, with 73.6 percent of female respondents saying that political parties carry out one or
less of the selected voice activities. Interestingly, men were split almost equally on the issue,
with about half of men rating political parties as being reflective of constituent voices and half
reporting that they are not. Likewise, as Table 20 shows, rural dwellers were more critical than
urban respondents.

INDICATOR 5: NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS
EXERCISED BY PARLIAMENT
USAID/Bangladesh is reconsidering the design of this indicator. Thus, the data collection and
analysis for this indicator has been put on hold.

IR 1.2 GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS4
INDICATOR 6: DEGREE TO WHICH CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS PARTICIPATE
IN MONITORING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACTIVITIES AT
TARGETED PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS:
4
See Annex II: DO-1 Performance Indicator Reference Sheets for detail.

INDICATOR 7: LEVEL OF EFFICIENCY OF TARGETED PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS:

IR 1.3 IMPROVED ACCESS TO JUSTICE
INDICATOR 8: NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVED LEGAL AID OR
VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE WITH USG SUPPORT
Legal aid refers to the services provided by District Legal Aid Committees in Bangladesh, such as legal
advice, legal representation, counseling, and legal education. Victim assistance refers to services
provided under USAID’s ACT, PHR, CBP, and Labor projects. These projects identify trafficking and
domestic violence victims, provide survivors with life skills and training in income generation, help victims
of domestic violence to get justice through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and provide physical
and mental health education and vocational training.
Baseline value for total number of individuals: 46,877 These data are self-reported by CSOs and
are not validated by SI. However, USAID’s IPs endeavor to ensure accuracy of grantees and
contractors in reporting on beneficiaries and clients.
This indicator measures the direct beneficiaries of USG supported programs and as such gives
an idea of the reach of these programs. However, interpreting these results and setting targets
will require considerable discussion. A future reduction in individuals who received legal aid or
victim’s assistance might reflect reduced USAID program funding, reduced IP effectiveness,
reduced GoB commitment in this policy area, or reduced incidence of trafficking or domestic
violence. As such, it is difficult to assign value to either a reduction or an increase in the value
of this indicator, as both could mean that USAID’s activities have been effective or ineffective.
Thus, USAID should seek more information about the causes for any shifts in the value of this
indicator.
Indicator 8 Disaggregated Data Discussion: While the PIRS requires disaggregation by
area, gender, age, and education these data are not available from CSO documents. The
baseline will be limited to the aggregate figure.

INDICATOR 9: DEGREE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF SERVICE DELIVERY BY
DISTRICT LEGAL AID COMMITTEES (DLAC)
Effectiveness of service delivery of District Legal Aid Committees refers to their efficiency in dealing
cases in a timely manner and their ability to reach out a large number of poor population. A scale will
be developed around timeliness of case disposal, proportion of cases disposed and proportion of legal
aid funds disbursed to measure the effectiveness of DLACs.5
The DLACs are rated against each of the
following elements:
• Acceptance of application to DLAC per quarter:
o 1 = <10 files
o 2 = 11- 15 files
o 3 = 16- 20 files
o 4 = 21-25 files
o 5 = >26 files
• Timeliness of appointing lawyer by DLAC per quarter:
o 5 = < l week
o 4 = 1-2 weeks
o 3 = 3-4 weeks
o 2 = 4-5 weeks
o 1 = >5 weeks
• Case filed for the victim
o 5 = < 5 days
o 4 = 6-12 days
o 3 = 13-18 days
o 2 = 19-24 days
o 1 = >25 days
• Cases disposed off per year
o 1 = <5 cases
o 2 = 5- 10 cases
o 3 = 11-15 cases
o 4 = 16-20 cases
o 5 = >20 cases
5
The reader is advised to note that while these scales capture aspects of DLAC service delivery they do not
explicitly measure or validate service delivery to the poor population

• Percentage of legal aid funds disbursed per year
o 1 = <20%
o 2 = 21-40%
o 3 = 41-60%
o 4 = 61-80%
o 5= 81-100%
• DLACs are scored against a score of 1-25.
o 1-5 = Bad
o 6-10 = Need to improve
o 11-15 = Good
o 16-20 = Satisfactory
o 21-25 = Excellent
On average, the DLACs reported an average summary index score of DLAC service delivery
effectiveness of 20.7 out of possible score of 25, which is a “Satisfactory” score according to
the scale listed above.
Indicator 9 Discussion: While the DLACs provide an important service to ordinary
Bangladeshi citizens, this rating is likely an over-estimation (to an unknown extent) of the true
level of service delivery effectiveness, since only about 25 percent of all the data collected for
this indicator was derived from examining DLAC log books. The rest of the data were collected
through a survey of DLAC officials. Enumerators report that DLAC officials were often hurried,
distracted by other business, or simply resistant to the prospect of enumerators examining the
log books. The result is that this indicator is dependent, thus far, on self-reported data and a
likely “halo effect” that biases the objectivity of data.
Indicator 9 Disaggregations:
While no disaggregations are required for this indicator, the team disaggregated by summary
score and effectiveness, as follows:
Table 21: Distribution of DLAC Effectiveness Ratings
Summary effectiveness
rating Percent Number
Excellent (score of 21-25) 63.8 23
Satisfactory (16-20) 25.0 9
Good (11-15) 11.2 4
Need to Improve (6-10) 0 0
Bad (5) 0 0
Total 100 % 36

Indicator 9 Disaggregated Data Discussion: As Table 21 shows above, the scores appear
overwhelmingly positive (“Excellent”), which may be due to self-reporting. Since at any given
DLAC, the indicator data may have been partially or completely collected via oral self-report,
countering this bias in the current data is not feasible. Therefore, while identified differences in
scores across divisions may truly describe differences in service delivery, it is also very possible
that the differences are simply due to differences in the method of de facto data collection.

IR 1.4 MORE RESPONSIVE ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT
INDICATOR 10: PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO CONSTITUENTS’ NEEDS IN THE
TARGETED AREA.
Local government’s responsiveness refers to:
1. Accessibility of elected members of local government,
2. Elected members’ willingness to listen to common people’s needs, and
3. Action taken by elected members to address these needs.
Each respondent scores his/her LGU on the three above-mentioned areas using a Likert scale of 1 – 5
for each criteria. The Likert scale used is:
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
Each respondent’s score will then be combined from each area for a total score (not to exceed15).
Local Government’s responsiveness levels will be defined as follows:
≤ 6 – Not responsive
7-9 – Neutral
10-15 – Responsive
The indicator (percentage) will be calculated by the number of people who fall into each category (Not
responsive, neutral, and responsive) divided by the total number of respondents.
Table 22: Responsiveness of Local Government
Responsiveness Score %
Not Responsive (≤ 6) 20.0 (N=683)
Neutral (7-9) 30.4 (1037)
Responsive (10-15) 49.6 (1693)
Indicator 10 Overall Discussion: According to the scale used for this indicator, almost half
of citizen respondents in the target areas of the survey reported that local governments are
responsive to constituents’ needs; 20 percent reported that local governments are not
responsive, and the final 30 percent were “neutral.”

Table 23: Responsiveness of Local Governments by Age
Score < 21 years 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 > 60
Not Responsive
(≤ 6)
17.8%
(N=47)
20.7%
(227)
19.3%
(165)
19.2%
(127)
23.3% (81) 19.1% (36)
Neutral (7-9) 31.1% (82) 30.4%
(333)
29.7%
(254)
59.4%
(199)
27.9% (97) 38.3% (72)
Responsive (10-
15)
51.1%
(135)
48.9%
(536)
51.1%
(437)
50.7%
(335)
48.9%
(170)
42.6% (80)
Total Valid
Responses
264 1096 856 661 348 188
Table 24: Responsiveness of Local Governments by Sex
Responsiveness Score Female Male
Not Responsive (≤ 6) 25.1% 19.3%
Neutral (7-9) 30.9% 28.2%
Responsive (10-15) 44.0% 52.5%
Total Valid Responses 1,755 1,755
Table 25: Responsiveness of Local Governments by Education
Responsiveness
Score
Illiterate % Up to 5 years % 6 to 10 years % Above SSC %
Not Responsive (≤ 6) 26.7 (N=262) 19.0 (169) 16.5 (144) 16.1(108)
Neutral (7-9) 35.5 (348) 29.6 (263) 29.0 (253) 25.7(173)
Responsive (10-15) 37.8 (370) 51.4 (457) 54.5 (475) 58.2 (391)
Table 26: Responsiveness of Local Governments by Rural/Urban
Responsiveness Score Rural Urban
Not Responsive (≤ 6) 20.0% (N=480) 20.1% (203)
Neutral (7-9) 31.4% (754) 28.0% (283)
Responsive (10-15) 48.6% (1167) 52.0% (526)
Total Valid Responses 2,401 1,012
Indicator 10 Disaggregated Data Discussion: As Tables 23 to 26 show, younger people,
more educated people, and urban dwellers show higher propensity to rate local governments

as responsive. Older people, illiterate people, and rural dwellers are considerably more critical
of local government responsiveness.

INDICATOR 11: PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO EXPRESS SATISFACTION
WITH THE QUALITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Satisfactory refers to adequate and excellent quality of the services delivered by the Local Government
following the prescribed guidelines. While USAID support is to enhance local government’s capacity to
effectively deliver all services, this indicator will track a limited number of services with which citizens
are more familiar. These services are a. social safety net, b. distribution of certificates, c. maintenance of
law and order, d. prevention of crime,, e. agricultural input, f. fisheries input, g. livestock input, h.
Irrigation, i. community health care, j. family planning, k. flood protection, l. infrastructure development,
and m. education.
Each of the areas will be scored by the respondent against a Likert scale of 1 – 4. The Likert scale to
be used is:
1 = poor
2 = needs improvement
3 = adequate
4 = excellent
Each individual will be given and individual score in the following manner: (sum of scores of each area
divided by number of services scored). This score will then fall into one of the four categories in the
Likert scale shown above. The indicator will show the percentage of people who score 2.5 or above on
the Likert scale.
Table 27: Quality of Local Government Services
Quality Score %
Less than 2.5 16.6% (N=153)
2.5 or Above 83.4% (N=766)
Total Valid Responses 919
Indicator 11 Overall Discussion: Only one-third of respondents were able to score local
government service quality. Of these, the large majority of respondents—83.4 percent
overall—expressed satisfaction with the quality of services. This may be due to the
construction of the index, which is a sum of the scores across all of the service areas. As
discussed below, this method gives greater weight to those service areas which have served a
larger number of people

Table 28: Quality of Local Government Services by Age
Quality Score < 20 Years 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60
Less than 2.5 12.0 (N=9) 21.2 (63) 14.2 (32) 17.6 (31) 14.6 (14) 1.6 (4)
2.5 or above 88.0 (66) 78.8 (234) 85.8 (193) 82.4 (145) 85.4 (82) 98.4 (240)
Total Valid
Responses 75 297 225 176 96 244
Table 29: Quality of Local Government Services by Sex
Quality Female Male
Less than 2.5 18.0% (N=74) 15.5% (79)
2.5 or Above 88.0% (N=337) 84.5% (429)
Total Valid Responses 411 508
Table 30: Quality of Local Government Services by Education
Quality Score Illiterate Up to 5 yrs. 6 to 10 yrs. Above SSC
Less than 2.5 19.0(N=48) 17.2(N=37) 18.0(N=41) 18.1(N=126)
2.5 or Above 81.0(N=205) 82.8(N=177) 82.0(N=185) 81.9(N=567)
Total Valid
Responses 253 214 226 693
Table 31: Quality of Local Government Services by Rural/Urban
Quality Score Rural Urban
Less than 2.5 16.0% (N=109) 18.4% (44)
2.5 or Above 84.0% (N=571) 81.6% (195)
Total Valid Response 680 239
Indicator 11 Disaggregated Data Discussion: One demographic factor that appears to
affect results is gender: as Table 29 shows, females are notably more critical than males of the
quality of services. However, the major disaggregating factor is the service type. Looking at
Table 32, it is clear that the overall high rate of satisfaction with LG services is determined by
the large number of responses to service area “Distribution of certificates.”, a large part of
which is the registry of births. It should be noted that this service was reformed just two years
ago, through the Union Service Information Centers, which now provide online birth
registration. Thus, the high levels of satisfaction with the on-line service provision weigh heavily
in overall levels of satisfaction with services. Other critical public service responsibilities, such

as health, education, family planning, etc., show much lower scores. USAID might consider
revising this indicator to avoid this bias.

TABLE 32: QUALITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY SERVICE AREA
SocialSafety-
NetProgram
(VGF/VGD)
Distributionof
Certificates
MaintainLaw&
Order(shalish)
PreventCrime,
Disorder,and
Smuggling
Agricultural
Input
FisheriesInput
LivestockInput
Irrigation
Community
HealthCare
Responsefor
FamilyPlanning
FloodProection
Infrastructure
Development
Education
Less than
2.5 32.5(N=104) 15.2(95) 38.6(22) 12.5(2) 34.1(14) 62.5(5) 100(2) 37.5(3) 51.8(29) 43.0(28) 85.7(6) 54.9(45) 61.5(8)
2.5 or
Above 67.5(216) 84.8(530) 61.4(35) 87.5(14) 65.9(27) 37.5(3) 0(0) 62.5(5) 48.2(27) 57.0(37) 14.3(1) 45.1(37) 38.5(5)
Total Valid
Responses 320 625 57 16 41 8 2 8 56 65 7 82 13

ANNEX I: BASELINE STATEMENT
OF WORK
Scope of Work for Baseline Study 2013
USAID’s Development Objective-1:
Citizen Confidence in Governance Institutions Increased
A. BACKGROUND
Promoting more pluralistic and responsive governance is one the US government’s (USG’s) four
overarching strategic goals for the FY 2012 Mission Strategic Report (MSRP) and the
complementary USG Three‐Year Strategic Plan for Bangladesh. The USAID/Bangladesh Country
Development and Cooperation Strategy development objective (DO) 1 is directly aligned to
this USG strategic goal. It addresses components of four inter‐related obstacles to effective
governance in Bangladesh: (1) nascent political institutions, including the parliament and political
parties; (2) rampant corruption, low transparency of government, and ineffective mechanisms of
accountability in all branches of government; (3) the inability of citizens to access the justice
system; and (4) the concentration of authority and resources at the national level. DO1 will
also directly contribute to the other DOs, e.g., health and education, disaster response, and
economic growth, by addressing governance in the areas of strengthening the political process,
greater accountability and transparency, improved access to justice, and more responsive local
government to the citizens of Bangladesh. DO-1 interventions will also contribute to six of the
priority areas in the Government of Bangladesh’s (GOB’s) Sixth Five‐Year Plan. Specifically, the
interventions will help the GOB in achieving the following goals under Vision 2021: (1) making
parliamentary processes effective; (2) strengthening local governments; (3) controlling
corruption; (4) promoting legal and judiciary reform; (5) improving sectoral governance; and (6)
protecting human rights.
The Baseline Survey of Democracy and Governance Indicators provides a critical independent
measure of progress and impacts to supplement the programmatic reporting of USAID
implementing partners in those areas in which USAID is currently investing its resources. To a
lesser degree, it also provides insight into movement in the wider governance space, including
areas in which USAID is currently not investing resources. This will assist USAID in ensuring
that it is targeting the most high-value interventions across the DG sector. Independent data
collected through the survey allows USAID to assess its priorities and developmental
hypotheses. Three separate surveys will be conducted during the life of DO1 (2013 baseline,
2014 midterm, and 2015 final evaluation), and results will be reviewed to determine any
adjustments that may need to be made regarding USAID DO1 interventions. The goal of the
surveys is to determine what progress USAID is making towards achieving its development
objective.
B. Overview of USAID/Bangladesh Development Objective 1: Citizen Confidence
in Governance Institutions Increased

Confidence in governance institutions is foundational to democracy and a prerequisite for
political stability and economic growth. A winner-take-all approach to politics since
Bangladesh’s return to democracy in 1990 has left opposition parties little political recourse
other than parliamentary walk-outs, general strikes, and violence, degrading confidence in
governance institutions. In 2006, the increasingly bitter rivalry between the parties culminated
in a collapse of confidence and a return to military rule after 16 years of civilian government,
including several democratic transfers of power. USAID believes that increased citizen
engagement in government with increased demand for democratic practices and better
services, which, combined with a better trained civil service and informed political leadership,
will result in improved accountability and responsiveness to citizen needs. Accountability and
responsiveness will lead to increased confidence in governance institutions, laying the
groundwork for peace, stability and development.
IR 1.1 Improved Democratic Political Processes
USAID will work to promote productive electoral processes, engage women and youth in the
political process, promote human rights and freedom, and support internal reforms that
facilitate constructive dialogue and solutions to problems.

Sub-IR 1.1.1 Improved Legislative Deliberation Process in National Decision Making:
Bangladesh's elected parliament should function as the center of national decision-making by
fulfilling the core functions of legislatures to transform ideas into laws and to conduct effective
oversight of government performance. However the bitter political rivalry between parties and
“winner-take-all” politics prevents constructive discourse. The current top-down decision-
making is further handicapped by a culture of political boycotts launched by the opposition.
There are few opportunities for rank-and-file members of the ruling party to participate in the
shaping of national policy. USAID's activities will continue to strengthen the capacity of existing
parliamentary bodies, such as the newly established Budget Analysis and Monitoring Unit, the
committee system, and single-issue all-party caucuses to provide greater transparency and
additional fora for informed policy formulation.
Sub-IR 1.1.2 Improved Electoral Processes: USAID supports democratic elections in
Bangladesh, reaching many stakeholders who work directly with the Bangladesh Election
Commission, political parties, the media, and civil society groups. Successful elections require
both a technical exercise in elections administration, as well as delivery to voters with sufficient
information through competitive campaigns. One of the key goals is to enable citizens to make
informed choices between candidates representing different visions for the development of the
country.
Sub-IR 1.1.3 More Responsive Political Parties: Bangladeshi political parties took a large step
forward in 2008 with the first legal requirements on candidate selection, women's participation,
affiliate groups, and campaign finance reporting. USAID helps political actors meet technical
requirements and improve internal governance practices. USAID further supports meaningful
political party reform that helps parties broaden their leadership structures, incorporate new
voices within the parties, and solicit feedback from voters, civil society, and experts external to
the party. USAID also focuses on issues related to government responsiveness to food security,
employment, health care service delivery, access to justice, and environmental degradation.
Cross-Cutting Sub-IR Informed Citizenry Actively Engaging in Democratic Processes: A
vibrant civil society sector exists in Bangladesh, but remains largely untapped for their real
world expertise by elected and unelected leaders. Even civil society organizations with
dedicated advocacy functions do not effectively organize their efforts or find open avenues for
decision-makers. In each activity with the parliament, election administrators, and political
parties, USAID advances the capacity of institutions to be open to citizen input. One way in
which they do this is through civic education on voicing criticism and oversight, while partnering
with existing CSOs to constructively engage with political institutions at all levels.
IR 1.2 Greater Accountability and Transparency in Targeted Public Institutions
USAID will support GOB efforts to reduce corruption at all levels by promoting policy and
budget reforms, citizen participation in the government, citizen awareness of the right to
information, demand for investigative journalism, and increased accountability and transparency.
Sub-IR 1.2.1 Strengthened Capacity of Targeted Public Institutions: USAID strengthens
independent government oversight bodies to to function more effectively and promote a more
democratic culture of checks and balances. Through future programs, USAID will provide direct

assistance to the Bangladesh Election Commission (BEC) to increase effectiveness of their
regulation of political parties and management of national and local elections. USAID-funded
anti-corruption interventions will continue to provide targeted technical assistance to
oversight/watchdog mechanisms. USAID also plans to work closely with the Non-
Governmental Organization NGO Affairs Bureau, which approves and monitors the use of
foreign assistance by the non-governmental sector. As a result of USAID’s assistance, the
capacity of GOB officials will be strengthened to practice greater accountability and
transparency in public institutions.
Sub-IR 1.2.2 Enabling Legal Environment for Greater Oversight of Government
Functions: Bangladesh’s legal structure responsible for ensuring transparency in government
exists largely only on paper. Awareness of these laws, their intended purposes, and means of
implementation are lacking among the government, oversight bodies, civil society, the media,
and the public. USAID will continue to promote understanding of how Bangladesh’s legal
environment currently allows oversight and brings stakeholders and decision-makers together
to remedy acknowledged shortcomings in this structure. With appropriate policies in place,
coupled with enhanced human resource capacity, oversight institutions could function more
efficiently to institutionalize the desired systems of checks and balances that foster sustainable
growth across sectors. USAID-funded activities will strengthen government oversight bodies by
enhancing their policy formulation and implementation capacity as well as supporting policy
reforms.
Cross-Cutting Sub-IR: Informed Citizenry Actively Engaging in Democratic Processes:
USAID-supported interventions will focus on increasing the credibility of government oversight
and watchdog bodies by making them more responsive to citizen’s demands and needs. USAID
will continue to support initiatives to orient civil society organizations (CSOs), particularly
involving women and media on the role of the GOB’s institutions of accountability, human
rights, and political governance including events jointly attended by officials of independent
government oversight institutions. The USAID-funded Trafficking-in-Persons (TIP) initiative, for
example, will include advocacy and outreach activities to raise public awareness of TIP-related
human rights abuses and the need for stronger oversight bodies for the prevention, protection,
and prosecution of TIP perpetrators. USAID will continue to establish forums in which CSO
representatives and media are able to exchange views and promote a joint advocacy for policy
reforms. USAID will continue building investigative journalism skills in local journalists, as well
as, continuing to promote the use and enforcement of the Right to Information Act. Likewise,
USAID will continue to support its successful efforts to bring together government oversight
bodies and non-government watch-dog groups to promote and support more active
engagement of citizens in democratic processes.
IR 1.3: Improved Access to Justice
USAID will work to: improve judicial integrity and self-governance, support legal advocacy and
legal aid, raise awareness of human rights’ issues and increase access to community-level justice
and policing.
Sub-IR 1.3.1 improved delivery of legal aid in the formal justice sector: At present, the
GoB has made $100,000 available in each District and Session Court as well as created the

National Legal Aid Cell within the Ministry of Justice to help the poor gain access to the justice
sector. In practice, the poor and disadvantaged find it cumbersome and difficult to take
advantage of these initiatives. Thus, the legal aid fund is currently not well-utilized. USAID’s
anticipated programming will focus on reducing the barriers that discourage people from
accessing these opportunities. To increase leverage between different actors such as lawyers,
lawyers associations, and civil society actors with regards to the delivery of legal aid, advocacy
initiatives will be considered.
Sub-IR 1.3.2 increased self-governance of the judiciary to better serve the public: USAID
support for judicial self-governance will encourage self-examination by members of the judiciary
of their performance, priority needs, and aspirations. Activities will be designed giving special
attention to improving judicial ethics, discipline, budgeting and the operational effectiveness.
Sub-IR 1.3.3 informed citizenry actively engaging in democratic processes: The Rule of
Law assessment indicated that the poor in Bangladesh have limited access to legal information.
Most indigent and disadvantaged citizens view the formal justice system as inefficient, expensive,
and distant. There is also evidence that a psychological barrier prevents the indigent from
accessing the formal system. USAID efforts will develop partnerships with Bangladeshi CSOs to
overcome these hurdles. Support will be provided for a legal literacy campaign that would
provide information to local populations regarding the availability of legal aid funds/services and
how to access them.
IR 1.4 More Responsive Elected Local Government
USAID will promote decentralization of governance, allocations and financial resource
generation, and citizen and elected-officials’ participation in local decision-making and planning.
Sub-IR 1.4.1 Expanded Role of Authority of Elected Local Government: Policy or
structural changes that transfer the balance of development resources and staff capacity to local
governments from central government line ministries will have an enormous effect on the
ability of people to locally determine and implement their own development priorities. USAID
will support advocacy efforts to encourage the national government to adopt legal and policy
reforms to expand the roles, authorities, and resource allocation for local government.
Research on laws, ordinances and practices that govern local governments will be widely
disseminated to create constituencies for reform.
Sub-IR 1.4.2 Increased Ability of Elected Local Government to Effectively Deliver
Services: The functionalities of elected local governments are an obvious reflection of political
will of a national government to deliver its services. The challenge lies in responding to the
growing demands of citizens and taking on plans for future needs. USAID will support efforts to
improve the capacity of local governments and citizenry while also working to strengthen the
legal framework and engage citizens, CSOs, and respective stakeholders.
Cross-Cutting Sub-IR Informed Citizenry Actively Engaging in Democratic Processes: The
local citizenry and forums are indispensable resources of indigenous knowledge and can be the
driving forces for any positive changes. Additionally, they are the determinants of achievements
and failures. USAID will focus on rights and responsibilities of citizenry while engaging them
systematically in the local governance process as service demanders and service providers.

USAID will use an approach that seeks to engage citizens with other sector-specific initiatives at
the local level, such as community-based natural resource management initiatives, local health
management support groups, and community-driven school oversight committees.
C. JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
A baseline is the value of a performance indicator before implementation of projects or
activities, while a target is the specific, planned level of result to be achieved within an explicit
timeframe. Baselines help managers determine progress in achieving outputs and outcomes.
They also help identify the extent to which change has happened at each level of result.
This study will collect, through a national opinion survey and other methods, democracy and
governance (DG) data necessary to establish a reliable reference point and provide USAID an
understanding of conditions, which exist at the time DO-1 begins. The study is necessary to
establish a baseline for the 11 indicators by which USAID’s success over the next five years will
be judged. These indicators were established in the mission’s Performance Management Plan
with the support of US and Bangladeshi evaluation experts. Although the indicators have been
selected, targets cannot be established until a baseline of pre-implementation conditions is
determined. This baseline will be used to determine the progress of all programs under
USAID’s Bangladesh’s Office of Democracy and Governance.
D. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The principal objective is to establish a baseline for DO1 indicators which will be used, along
with other studies, to measure progress of DG programs and to gather DG sector-wide
information that can inform DO1 interventions and allow an analysis of results within the
appropriate context.
E. SCOPE OF THE STUDY:
Through this baseline study, various data will be collected that will establish a point of reference
for the performance indicators selected to measure the results of activities performed under
DO1. The data will be collected through a national public opinion survey in addition to a
number of other methods addressed further in the SOW. The baseline study will collect
information for the following indicators:
1. Percentage of citizens reporting increased confidence in targeted institutions of governance
2. Percentage of citizens engaged in governance initiatives
3. Capacity of BEC to conduct elections based on international standards
4. Degree to which political parties reflect the voices of their constituents
5. Number of executive oversight functions exercised by the parliament
6. Degree to which civil society groups participate in monitoring transparency and
accountability activities of targeted public institutions
7. Level of efficiency of targeted public institutions to provide oversight of government
functions
8. Number of human rights’ advocacy activities conducted by targeted stakeholders
9. Degree of effectiveness of service delivery by District Legal Aid Committees

10. Changes in citizen perception regarding local governments effectiveness in delivering
selected services
11. Degree of responsiveness of government institutions to decentralization
The precise definitions of the indicators are described in the DO1 PMP (attached as Annex-1)
F. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
Different methods will be using to collect baseline information for different indicators:
1. Public opinion survey: A national survey with a representative sample of Bangladeshi
adults who will be randomly selected to statistically represent the adult population. The
survey should be designed to achieve the highest practical rates of response,
commensurate with the importance of survey uses, respondent burden, and data
collection costs, to ensure that survey results are representative of the target
population so that they can be used with confidence to inform decisions. Nonresponse
bias analyses must be conducted when unit or item response rates or other factors
suggest the potential for bias to occur. The survey design must define the target
population, sampling plan, specify data collection methodology, and select samples using
statistically acceptable methods. Survey results will be disaggregated by gender, age,
socio-economic classification, political affiliation, and rural versus urban residency. The
Public Opinion Survey will be conducted to collect data for the indicators: 1) Percentage
of citizen reporting increased confidence in targeted institutions of governance, 2)
Percentage of citizen engaged in governance initiatives, 3) Capacity of the BEC to
conduct elections based on international standards, 4) Degree to which political parties
reflect the voices of their constituents, 5) changes in citizen perception regarding local
governments effectiveness in delivering selected services. The Public Opinion Survey will
be designed to estimate the opinions of the general population. The tools/questionnaire
will be designed to collect data disaggregated by gender, socio-economic classification,
rural/urban and political affiliation. For sampling, the survey firm will focus mainly on the
geographic areas where the DG programs are being implemented (attached Annex-2:
DG programs implementing areas).
2. Mini-Surveys: The baseline study will include two mini-surveys:
a. Political Party Leaders: The mini-survey with political party leaders will be
conducted to collect information that will be used as a starting point by which to
measure project performance through the performance indicator - degree to which
political parties reflect the voices of their constituents. The survey respondents will
be political party leaders from four political parties: Awami League, Bangladesh
Nationalist Party, Jatiya Party and Jamat. The respondents will be selected from
different levels of party organization such as upazila, district and national level.
b. Elected Local Government Members: This survey will be administered in each
of the municipalities and Union Parishads where the public opinion survey will be
conducted. This survey will be designed to measure: degree of responsiveness of
government institutions to centralization.

3. Structured Interviews: The baseline study will include structured interviews with:
a. Parliament Members: Structured interviews will be conducted to collect partial
data for the performance indicator - number of executive oversight functions
exercised by the Parliament. The baseline study team will conduct interviews with
representative sample of parliament members to collect information.
b. Members of District Legal Aid Committee (DLAC): Structured interviews
with members from DLACs will be conducted to collect partial data for the
indicator: degree of effectiveness of service delivery by District Legal Aid
Committees (DLAC).
4. Indices:
a. DLAC Scored Index: By looking at DLAC records, this will measure the degree
of effectiveness of their legal service delivery to the poor. Effectiveness of service
delivery of District Legal Aid Committees refers to their efficiency in dealing cases in
a timely manner and their ability to reach out a large number of poor population. A
scale will be developed around timeliness of case disposal, proportion of cases
disposed and proportion of legal aid funds disbursed to measure the effectiveness of
DLACs.
b. SCORED ELECTORAL INDEX: Using the Election Index adapted from the
work of Jørgen Elklit and Andrew Reynolds and the EISA ACE Capacity Needs
Assessment Development Tool for EMBS, selected experts will rate the capacity of
the BEC to conduct elections based on international standards. This tool will be
designed to measure part of the indicator: Capacity of BEC to conduct elections
based on international standards.
c. PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS SCORED INDICES: These measurements will rely
on a review of public institutions records (internal and external GOB performance
and financial audits), to track the following two indicators: Degree to which civil
society groups participate in monitoring transparency and accountability activities of
targeted public institutions, and the level of efficiency of targeted public institutions
to provide oversight of government functions.
5. Civil Society Organization (CSO) Survey: The baseline study includes a CSO survey
to collect data for the indicator – number of human rights advocacy activities conducted by
targeted stakeholder. The survey will be conducted among the CSO’s that are working
under DO1’s human rights projects such as; Protecting Human Rights, Action for
Combating Trafficking in Persons, Community based Policing and labor project.
6. Document Review: The baseline study will include a document review for instrument
design, data collection and verification.
BDGPE may contract with a data collection firm to obtain data through the some methods
mentioned above.

G. DELIVERABLES
BDGPE will be responsible for providing the following deliverables to USAID/Bangladesh:
Design Phase:
1. Work plan: Detailed draft work plan (including task assigned to selected survey firm,
detailed methodology plan to be used to collect data, team responsibilities, training of
interviewers and enumerators, data collection and analysis timeline for each
methodology mentioned in the methodology section, reporting timeline for each
section, such as survey report, index report, mini-surveys’ reports etc.): Within 5
working days after commencement of the baseline survey;
2. Briefing meeting: After submission of the work plan the survey team leader along with
selected team members will provide in-brief to USAID/Bangladesh staff members.
3. Data Collection Methodology: BDGPE will design and submit to USAID/Bangladesh all
data collection instruments for the methods included in the methodology section. The
methodology must include a data processing plan showing how the survey will conduct
data coding, nonresponse analysis, entry, editing, quality, and protection.
4. Copy of the agreement with survey firm.
5. Pre-test of data collection instruments to minimize measurement error.
6. A code of standards and ethics for the survey
Data Collection Phase:
1. Regular Updates - The survey Team Leader or her delegate will brief the BDGPE
COR on progress with the data collection on at least a weekly basis, in person or by
electronic communication. Any delays or complications must be quickly communicated
to USAID/Bangladesh as early as possible to allow quick resolution and to minimize any
disruptions to the survey.
2. A brief data collection completion report of 3 or 4 pages will be submitted to
USAID/Bangladesh. This report must include the steps taken to ensure data quality
during data collection at field level and organized indicator by indicator.
Data Analysis and Reporting Phase:
1. Regular Updates: The study Team Leader or her delegate will brief the BDGPE COR
on progress with data processing and analysis on at least a weekly basis, in person or by
electronic communication. Any delays or complications must be quickly communicated
to USAID/Bangladesh as early as possible to allow quick resolution and to minimize any
disruptions to the study.
2. Debriefing with USAID/Bangladesh: BDGPE COP residing in Bangladesh will be
responsible for presenting preliminary data analysis findings to USAID/Bangladesh.

Others who may have been part of the team from other locations, but not present at
that time will not participate. In developing the findings, the survey must use accepted
theory and methods when deriving direct survey-based estimates and inferences. The
survey results should reflect an appropriate use of statistical tests.
3. Detailed hard and soft copy of ALL data collected during the survey,
including both qualitative and quantitative data: All quantitative data, if gathered,
should be provided in an electronic, easily readable file format consistent with USAID/B
practices. Data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully
familiar with the activity. When submitted, this meta-data should be include the
standardized attribute fields that are required by USAID when collecting project
and activity data. A thumb drive or other suitable device, with all the data shall be
provided to the COR
4. Field notes and other relevant documents.
5. Draft Study Report: The draft report will present preliminary findings from the study
6. Final Report - The BDGPE Team will submit a final report that incorporates the
Mission’s comments and suggestions no later than 15 working days after
USAID/Bangladesh provides written comments on the team’s draft report.
H. TEAM COMPOSITION:
Since the methodology for collecting the baseline data for the eleven indicators is diverse, a
variety of skills are necessary from the baseline study team. The following positions will
comprise the survey team.
Survey Team Leader: This person requires sound knowledge in different research
methodologies and at least ten (10) years of experience in research. Experience in the
democracy and governance sector in Bangladesh preferred. This person requires experience in
training people on different research methodologies.
Survey Team Member-1: Sound knowledge in different research methodologies particularly
in quantitative methods and at least 8 years working experience in research projects.
Survey Team Member-2: Sound knowledge in different research methodologies, particularly
qualitative methods included in this SOW and at least 8 years of experience in working in
research projects.
Technical Experts: The baseline team requires team members as follows:
 Expert in parliamentary affairs: 5 to 8 years of experience in parliamentary affairs
preferably in Bangladesh required. Sound knowledge on research methodologies is also
required. Ability to conduct interviews and discussions and write well in English is
essential.
 Expert in political parties: 5 to 8 years of experience in political party activities
preferably in Bangladesh required. Sound knowledge on research methodologies is also

required. Ability to conduct interviews and discussions and write well in English is
essential.
 Expert in electoral process: 5 to 8 years of experience in electoral process preferably in
Bangladesh required. Sound knowledge on research methodologies is also required.
Ability to conduct interviews and discussions and write well in English is essential.
 Expert in public institutions: 5 to 8 years of experience in public institutions preferably
in Bangladesh required. Sound knowledge on research methodologies is also required.
Ability to conduct interviews and discussions and write well in English is essential.
 Expert in judiciary: 5 to 8 years of experience in judiciary preferably in Bangladesh
required. Sound knowledge on research methodologies is also required. Ability to
conduct interviews and discussions and write well in English is essential.
 Expert in human rights and civil society: 5 to 8 years of experience in human rights and
civil society preferably in Bangladesh required. Sound knowledge on research
methodologies is also required. Ability to conduct interviews and discussions and write
well in english is essential.
 Expert in local governance: 5 to 8 years of experience in local governance preferably in
Bangladesh required. Sound knowledge on research methodologies is also required.
Ability to conduct interviews and discussions and write well in English is essential
SCHEDULING AND LOGISTICS TIMELINE
Task/ Deliverable Dates
SOW developed and approved for local data collection firm Dec-02-2012
Local data collection firm selected Dec-12-2012
SI subcontract completed with local data collection firm Dec-19-2012
Finalize methodology and draft data collection instruments Jan-6-2013
Debrief to USAID/Bangladesh staff Jan-9-2013
Pre-test data collection instruments Jan-14-2013
USAID/Bangladesh provides comments on data collection
instruments
Jan-16-2013
Finalize data collection instrument Jan-16-2013
Data collection starts Jan-17-2013
Data collection ends Feb-20-2013
Data collection completion report including electronic copy of
final data set, including code book of variable names and value
labels
March-21-2013
Debriefing with USAID/Bangladesh March-14-2013
Detailed hard and soft copy of quantitative and qualitative data March-17-2013
Draft report with Field notes and other relevant documents March-17-2013
SI delivers final report March-31-2013

ANNEX II: DO-1 PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEETS
A. DO-Level Indicators
Performance indicator Reference Sheet : Indicator 1
Name of Development Objective 1: Citizen Confidence in Governance Institutions Increased
Name of Intermediate Result: N/A – this is a DO-level indicator
Name of Indicator: Percentage of citizens reporting confidence in targeted institutions of governance
Classification: Custom Indicator
Is this an Annual Report indicator? No ___ Yes √__, for Reporting Year(s) _2013 to 2016_______
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This multi-faceted indicator will track citizen confidence on governance institutions that they have
capacity to influence the direction of Government’s initiatives for better socio-economic condition of the country. Targeted
institutions will be Bangladesh Election Commission (BEC), Parliament, political parties, local government institutions (Union
Parishad, Upazilla Parishad, and Municipal Corporations), oversight institutions (Office of Comptroller, Auditor General and
Anti-Corruption Commission), Information Commission and judiciary (District Courts and NLASO).
The issues on which citizens’ perceptions will be measured are as follows:
BEC – BEC’s ability to conduct of elections according to international standards
Parliament – Parliament’s performance a) provision of oversight to the Executive, and b) responsiveness to citizen needs
Political Parties – Responsiveness of political parties to citizens’ concerns
Local government institutions – Responsiveness to constituents’ needs and effectiveness
Targeted Oversight Institutions – Public perceptions of the effectiveness of government in combatting corruption and
increasing governmental transparency
Information Commission – effectiveness in monitoring compliance with the Right to Information Act
District Courts – Effectiveness of district courts to administer cases in a fair and timely fashion
Legal Aid Services Organization – Effectiveness of NLASO and DLAC to provide legal aid services
Each of the targeted institutions will be scored against a Likert scale of 1 – 5. The Likert scale to be used is:
2 = Disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
Each respondent will score all targeted institutions against a maximum of 40 (number of institutions (8) under review
multiplied by the maximum points possible {5}).
Respondents confidence levels will defined as follows:
≤ 8 – very low confidence
9-16- low confidence
17-24 - medium confidence
25-32 – high confidence
33≥ very high confidence
The indicator value for each reporting year will be calculated from the frequencies of these respondents’ confidence levels in
governance institutions.
Unit of Measure Percentage of citizen

Disaggregated by: Age, Gender, Rural/Urban, socio-economic classifications, political affiliation and by governance
institution (as listed in definition above)
Criteria for Milestone or Index:
Justification & Management Utility: Program components under DO1 have been designed to make governance
institutions and practices more effective by creating positive influences on the government whose actions are important for
improved governance. Positive changes by governance institutions involve the institutions taking full cognizance of, responding
to, and being monitored by public opinion. An increase in the percentage of citizens reporting higher confidence in
governance institutions will indicate the success of USAID programs in making the institutions more effective.
PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID
Data collection method: A representative performance survey will be conducted on an annual basis to measure
confidence of citizen toward targeted institutions of governance
Data Source(s): Respondent
Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually
Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: Cost included in the Democracy and Governance Programs’ Evaluation Project
(DGPE)
Responsible Individual(s) at USAID: COR of DGPE
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Date of Initial and Future Data Quality Assessment: December, 2013
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Survey results can suffer from inaccuracies stemming from
systematic bias or measurement error, e.g., the sample might not represent the entire population of Bangladesh or
respondents may misinterpret some questions.
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: A strong sampling frame assiduously carried out, careful
questionnaire construction, and recognition of the limits of surveys when interpreting the data is essential and will limit
characteristic threats to validity.
PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING
Review and Reporting of Data: Data will be reviewed annually with partners and USAID technical experts to refine
methodology, as needed, based on findings.
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Target will be set after Baseline Survey completed in March 2014
Location of Data Storage: USAID
Other:
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES
Year Target Actual Notes
2012 TBD TBD
Target will be set after Baseline Survey completed in March
2014
2013 _________ 15.6
2014 _________
2015 _________
2016 _________
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 02/02/2014

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet: Indicator 2
Name of Intermediate Result: N/A — this is a DO-level indicator
Name of Indicator: Percentage of citizens engaged in governance initiatives
Is this an Annual Report indicator? No Yes -1 for Reporting Year(s) 2013 to 2016
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Engagement will be measured through citizen participation in defining the issues, identifying
solutions, and developing priorities for action and resources related to initiatives of targeted governance institutions.
Respondents are regarded as having participated if they have engaged in any of the above activities at least once in the
previous twelve months through formal (meetings called by government) or informal structures (participation in town hall
meetings). Targeted institutions of governance would be Bangladesh Election Commission (BEC), Parliament, local
government institutions (Union Parishad, Upazilla Parishad, and Municipal Corporations), oversight institutions (Office of
Comptroller and Auditor General Anti-Corruption Commission, and Information Commission) and judiciary (District
Courts). Specific questions will be developed for each institution. Governance initiatives refer to reforms/changes to make
selected government institutions more transparent, corruption free and efficient.
Unit of Measure: Percentage of citizen
Disaggregated by: Age, Gender, Rural/Urban, socio-economic classifications, political affiliation
Criteria for Milestone or Index: N/A
Justification & Management Utility: Support for increased citizen engagement will generate increased demand for
democratic practices and better services, which in turn, will culminate in improved accountability and
responsiveness to citizen needs, thereby increasing citizen confidence in governance institutions. It is
important to measure citizen participation in different stages of decision making of selected governance
institutions.
Data collection method: A national performance survey will periodically measure the engagement of citizens in
targeted institutions of governance.
Data Source(s): Respondent
Frequency and timing of data acquisition by USAID: Annual
Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: Cost included in the DGPEA project
Responsible Individual(s) at USAID: COR of DOPE
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Date of Initial and Future Data Quality Assessment: February 2013
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Data will be collected from multiple sources and different
governance institutions have different mechanisms to include citizens in their activities. It will be difficult to present results
precisely.
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: To minimize the problem, standard definitions will be
used
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Target will he set after Baseline Survey in October, 2012
Other:
Year Target
Actual (%
engaged in the
last year)
Notes
2013
15.3 Targets will be set after the completion Baseline Survey in 2013
2014
2015
2016

B. Intermediate Result Level Indicators
Name of Development Objective: Citizen Confidence in Governance Institutions Increased
Name of Intermediate Result 1.1: Strengthened Political Processes
Name of Indicator: Percentage of respondents who say that BEC has the capacity to conduct fair elections
Is this an Annual Report indicator? No ___ Yes √__, for Reporting Year(s) ___2013 to 2016______
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s):
The capacity of BEC to conduct fair elections will be measured through a key informant assessment. Key informant refers to
BEC officials. The indicator will track key informant perception about BEC’s capacity to comply with standers of campaign
finance, electoral security, transparency and monitoring as a result of USAID elections assistance. Perceptions on capacity will
be scored (out of 5) for each of the following components:
 Oversight of and implementation of existing campaign finance regulations;
 Electoral security,
 Electoral transparency
 Election monitoring.
Respondents will score BEC’s capacity against each component using a scale of 1-5. Each respondent’s total score against all of
the four components will be divided by four to find the final score. Anyone who scores above 3 out of a possible 5 will be
regarded as saying BEC has the capacity to conduct fair elections. The percentage value of the indicator will be based on the
frequency of people who scored BEC 3 and above.
As a way of assuring the quality of the data, perceptions of some key informants who are external to the BEC, including
international assistance providers, Bangladeshi political scientists, and experts on legal framework, will be compared with
responses from BEC officials. In cases where there is a significant variation, it will be explained in narrative accompanying the
indicator.
Unit of Measure: percentage
Disaggregated by: NA
Criteria for Milestone or Index: N/A
Justification & Management Utility: An improvement in the percentage will show the progress of Bangladesh’s electoral
system towards meeting international standards specifically campaign finance compliance, election monitoring and
reporting, which will facilitate efficient and credible elections.
Data collection method: Key informant interviews
Data Source(s): Primary- Respondent
Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: Cost included in DGPEA project
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: May 2014
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Scores depend on subjective understanding of participants. As key
informants include BEC officials, data could be biased.
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID will compare data collected from BEC officials and
from other key informant interviewees.

methodology, as needed, based on findings
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Targets will be set after Baseline Survey completed in March 2014
Location of Data Storage: USAID/Bangladesh & DGPEA program office
Other:
2013 81.5 Targets will be set after Baseline Survey in March 2014
2014
2015
2016

Name of Intermediate Result 1.1: Strengthened Political Processes
Name of Indicator: Percentage of respondent who say that political parties reflect the voices of their constituents
Classification: Custom
Is this an Annual Report indicator? No ___ Yes _√_, for Reporting Year(s) 2013 to 2016
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): “Reflection of constituents’ voices” will be determined based on whether constituents regard their
political party leaders as having performed the following actions: a. Held meetings with their constituency; b. Received citizen
input; and c. Implemented citizen input. Political party leadership refers to leaders of Bangladesh Awami League, Bangladesh
Nationalist Party and Bangladesh Jatiya party at different levels such as district, regional and national.
For each of the three questions, respondents will receive one (1) for a YES response and zero (0) for a NO response,
resulting in a score of between 0 and 3. The indicator will present the percentage of total respondents who scored 2 or
higher (i.e. responded YES to at least two of the three questions.
Disaggregated by: sex, age, urban/rural,
Criteria for Milestone or Index: NA
Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will help USAID to understand improvements in democratic practices
within the political party.
Data collection method: Public Opinion Survey
Data Source(s): Primary: respondent ; Secondary: Project document, party manifesto, political party documents etc.
Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected through USAID’s DGPE project
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: May 2014
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Survey results can suffer from inaccuracies stemming from systematic
bias or measurement error, e.g., the sample might not represent the entire population of Bangladesh or respondents may
misinterpret some questions.
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Targets will be set after Baseline Survey report completed in March 2014
Other:
2013 41
Targets will be set after Baseline Survey report completed in
March 2014
2014
2015
2016

Performance Indicator• Reference Sheet: Indicator 5
Development Objective: Citizen Confidence in Governance Name of Institutions Increased
Intermediate Result 1.1: Strengthened Political Processes
Name of Indicator: Number of executive oversight functions exercised by the Parliament
Is this an Annual Report indicator? No Yes V for Reporting Year(s) 2013 to 2016
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Oversight functions refer to formal, watchful, strategic and structured scrutiny exercised by
parliament in respect to the implementation of laws, the application of the budget, the strict observance of statutes and the
Constitution, The mechanism for Parliament to conduct oversight of the organs of state would be through parliamentary
committees —
1. labor and employment committee,
2. fisheries and livestock committee,
3. power energy and mineral resources committee,
4. local government road development and cooperative committee and
5. women & children welfare committee.
Exercise of oversight functions will be tracked through the committee activities related to:
 The number of parliamentary committee requests for explanation/information to relevant ministries;
 The Number of Parliamentary committee site visits; and
 The number of times parliamentary committees request and utilize research for conducting oversight
Unit of Measure: Number of oversight actions
Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will allow the team to understand the change in the legislative
environment in terms of oversight of selected government organs. The assumption is that a committee system that
exercises its oversight functions will lead to greater legislative transparency and more accountability to citizens
Data collection method: An elite survey will be conducted with legislature staff, international assistance providers,
Bangladeshi political scientists and other key informants on the legal framework
Data Source(s): Primary: respondent ; Secondary: project document, document related to parliamentary affairs etc.
Frequency/Timing of data acquisition by USAID: Annually
Responsible Individual(s) at USAID: COR of DGPEA
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Multi methods for data collection may cause problem with data
reliability
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: data collected from different sources will be cross-checked
and consistent data collection method will be developed
Review and Reporting of Data: Data will be reviewed annually with partners and technical experts to refine
OTHER NOTES
Other:
2013
TBD - Data collection and analysis for this indicator are in abeyance by the
DG Office.
2014
2015
2016

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet : Indicator 6
Name of Intermediate Results 1.2: Greater Accountability & Transparency in Public Institutions
Name of Indicator: Degree to which civil society groups participate in monitoring transparency and accountability activities
by targeted public institutions
Is this an Annual Report indicator? No Yes 4 for Reporting Year(s) 2013 to 2016
DESCRIPTION
In this indicator civil society groups include non-government organizations (NGOs), media, academia and trade associations.
The degree of CS participation will be measured through the number of times CS is included in monitoring activities of
targeted oversight institutions to monitor transparency and accountability of public institutions. Monitoring activities will
include internal and external GOB performance and financial audits.
Frequency of CS participation:
< 5 times in a quarter = 1
5-10 times in a quarter= 2
11-15 times in a quarter = 3
16- 20 times in a quarter = 4
20 times> in a quarter= 5
Number of CS participated in monitoring activities in a quarter for particular public institution:
<3 CS0s = 1
3- 6 CSOs = 2
7- 10- CSOs = 3
11-12- CSOs = 4
12 > CSOs = 5
CSO participation will be measured through a scale of 0-10.
The targeted institutions under this indicator will be identified once the USAID program has been designed.
Unit of Measure: Number
Criteria for Milestone or Index:
Justification & Management Utility: Civil society participation in the oversight and monitoring of governmental
institutions is a proven mechanism to make public institutions more transparent and accountable to the public. Thus, this
indicator explains the depth of accountability and transparency of public institutions to the Agency.
Data collection method: Survey
Data Source(s): Primary: respondent; Secondary: In, partner data
Responsible Individual at USAID: COR of DGPEA
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Transparency and world bank corruption data are highly
subjective and have well known biases. Survey data suffer measurement error and can be biased is samples are not well
constructed
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Triangulating between the aggregate indicators and survey-
based measures will compensate for their different limitations. Dependent on outcome of data quality analysis
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Target will be set after Baseline Survey in October, 2012
Other:

2013
Target will be set after the completion of the Baseline Survey in 2013. The DG
Office will separately collect data on number of CSOs.
2014
2015
2016

Name of Intermediate Results 1.2: Greater Accountability & Transparency in Public Institutions
Name of Indicator: Level of efficiency of targeted public institutions to provide oversight of Government functions
Is this an Annual Report indicator? No _ Yes __NI for Reporting Year(s) 2013 to 2016
DESCRIPTION
Level of efficiency refers to measurable activities that exhibit public institutions specifically Information Commission and
Office of Comptroller and Auditor General (OCAG) are effective in oversight function, such as timely submission of audit
reports, timely supply of information against RTI requests, proactive disclosure of information, etc. The list of targeted
institutions will be finalized once the relevant USAID program has been designed.
The level of efficiency will be measure around the following issues:
OCAG:
 Conduct timely audit of public expenditure
 Timely submission of audit report Information Commission:
 Monitor timely supply of information against RTI requests
 Monitor proactive disclosure of information
Unit of Measure: Score
Disaggregated by: Institution; type of action
Justification & Management Utility:
Data collection method, Document Review,
Data Source: Secondary: project and public institutions documents
Frequency and timing of data acquisition by USAID: Annually
Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: Cost is included in DGPEA project
Responsible Individual(s) at USAID: COR of DGPEA
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Date of Initial/Future Data Quality Assessment: February 2013
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: None
Review and Reporting of Data: Data will be reviewed annually with partners and technical experts to refine methodology,
as needed, based on findings.
OTHER NOTES
Other:
2013
TBD The DG Office has held data collection and analysis for this indicator in
abeyance.
2014
2015
2016

Name of Intermediate Results 1.4:
Name of Indicator: Number of individuals who received legal aid or victim’s assistance with USG support
Is this an Annual Report indicator? No __ Yes __√__ for Reporting Year(s) ___2013 to 2016______
DESCRIPTION
Here, legal aid refers to the services provided by District Legal Aid Committees in Bangladesh, such as legal advice, legal
representation, counseling, legal education and provide lawyer. Victim assistance refers to services provided under USAID’s
ACT, PHR, CBP and Labor projects. These projects identify trafficking and domestic violence victims, provide survivors with
life skills and training in income generation, help victims of domestic violence to get justice through Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), and provide physical and mental health education and vocational training.
The indicator will track number of victims supported by USAID assistance.
Unit of Measure: Number
Disaggregated by: Urban/rural, Gender, Age, Socio-Economic Classification; type of local service delivered
Justification & Management Utility: Availability of legal aid or victim’s assistance for individual indicates some degree of
effectiveness in providing access to justice, a key component of rule of law and human rights. This data indicates level of
effort and when compared to number of individuals that do not receive legal and victim assistance will be useful in
program planning and allocation of resources. An increase in the number of individuals receiving legal and victim
assistance suggests USAID support is improving access to justice.
Data collection method: Document Review
Data Source: CSO documents
Responsible Individual(s) at USAID: DGPEA manager
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Date of Initial and Future Data Quality Assessment: May 2014
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): The project listed in the definition has geographic and programmatic
overlap. In some cases, one organization implements multiple projects listed here. Thus, there are possibilities of double
counting.
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Specific question will be asked and documents reviewed for
specific service to avoid double counting.
OTHER NOTES
Other:
2013 46,877 Targets will be set after Baseline Survey report completed in March 2014
2014
2015
2016

Name of Intermediate Results 1.3: Improved Access to Justice
Name of Indicator: Degree of effectiveness of service delivery by District Legal Aid Committees (DLAC)
Is this an Annual Report indicator? No _X_ Yes _'4 for Reporting Year(s)2012 to 2016
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Effectiveness of service delivery of District Legal Aid Committees refers to their efficiency in dealing
cases in a timely manner and their ability to reach out a large number of poor populations. A scale will be developed around
timeliness of case disposal, proportion of cases disposed and proportion of legal aid funds disbursed to measure the
effectiveness of DLACs.
The DLACs will be rated against each of the element mentioned:
a. Acceptance of application to DLAC per quarter:
1 = <10 files
2 = 11- 15 files
3 = 16- 20 files
4 = 21-25 files
5 = 26> files
b. Timeliness of appointing Lawyer by DLAC per quarter:
5 = < l week
4 = 1-2 weeks
3 = 3-4 weeks
2 = 4-5 weeks
1 = 5 weeks>
c. Case filed for the victim
5 = < 5 days
4 = 6-12 days
3 = 13-18 days
2 = 19-24 days
1 = 25 days>
d. Cases disposed of per year
1 = <5 cases
2 = 5- 10 cases
3 = 11-15 cases
4 = 16-20 cases
5 = 20 cases>
e. Percentage of legal aid funds disbursed per year
1 = <20%
2 = 21-40%
3 = 41-60%
4 = 61-80%
5= 81-100%
DLACs will be scored against the score of 1-25.
1-5 = Bad
6-10 = Need to improve
11-15 = Good
16-20 = Satisfactory
21-25 = Excellent

Unit of Measure: Index Score
Criteria for Milestone or Index: TBD
Justification & Management Utility: If services are available to poor/if poor people access the services when needed, if
justice institutions are fully functional (in terms of timely case management and case disposal) and if actors are available/willing
to serve the poor — this will tell management that the justice sector is effective and an effective justice sector ensure/improve
access to justice for citizens.
Data collection method: Interview and document review
Data Source(s): DLAC members
Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: Cost is included in DOPE project
Responsible Individual(s) at USAID: COR of DOPE project
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: February 2012
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: based on Data Quality Analysis
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Target will be set after Baseline Survey in October, 2012
Other:
2013
Mean
effectiveness
score of 20.7
of 25
(“Satisfactory”)
Targets will be set after the completion of the Baseline Survey in 2013.
2014
2015
2016

Name of Intermediate Results 1.4: More Responsive Elected Local Government
Name of Indicator: Percentage of people who say that local government is responsive to constituent’s needs in the targeted
area.
DESCRIPTION
Local government’s responsiveness refers to:
1. Accessibility of elected members of local government,
2. Elected members’ willingness to listen to common people’s needs, and
3. Action taken by elected members to address these needs. Each respondent will score their LGU on the three above-
mentioned areas.
Each of the areas will be scored by the respondent against a Likert scale of 1 – 5. The Likert scale to be used is:
2 = Disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
Each respondent’s score will then be combined from each area for a total score (not to exceed15).
Local Government’s responsiveness levels will defined as follows:
≤ 6 – Not responsive
7-9 – Neutral
10-15 – Responsive
The indicator (percentage) will be calculated by the number of people who fall into each category (Not responsive, neutral,
and responsive) divided by the total number of respondents.
Unit of Measure: Percentage
Justification & Management Utility:
Data Source: Respondent
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Date of Initial and Future Data Quality Assessment: May 2014

OTHER NOTES
Other:
2013 49.6
March 2014
2014
2015
2016

Name of Intermediate Results 1.4: More Responsive Elected Local Government
Name of Indicator: Percentage of people who express satisfaction with the quality of Local Government Services in their
locality
DESCRIPTION
Satisfactory refers to adequate and excellent quality of the services delivered by the Local Government following the
prescribed guidelines. While USAID support is to enhance local government’s capacity to effectively deliver all services, this
indicator will track a limited number of services with which citizens are more familiar. These services are a. social safety net,
b. distribution of certificates, c. maintenance of law and order, d. prevention of crime, e. agricultural input, f. fisheries input, g.
livestock input, h. irrigation, i. community health care, j. family planning, k. flood protection, l. infrastructure development, and
m. education.
Each of the areas will be scored by the respondent against a Likert scale of 1 – 4. The Likert scale to be used is:
1 = poor
2 = needs improvement
3 = adequate
4 = excellent
Each individual will be given and individual score in the following manner: (sum of scores of each area divided by number of
services scored). This score will then fall into one of the four categories in the Likert scale shown above. The indicator
will show the percentage of people who score 2.5 or above on the Likert scale.
Justification & Management Utility: Quick and efficient service delivery is one ways to demonstrate local government
responsiveness to citizens.
Data Source: Respondent
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
OTHER NOTES
Other:

2013 83.4
March 2014
2014
2015
2016

ANNEX III: DISCLOSURE OF
CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR
USAID EVALUATION TEAM
MEMBERS
(See attached PDF).

ANNEX IV: SURVEY DATA
COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
(See attached PDF).
Public Opinion Survey
Bangladesh Election Commission Survey
Political Party Leadership Survey
Parliament Member Survey
Oversight Institution Survey
Human Rights Civil Society Organization Survey
DLAC Survey
Elected Local Leader Survey

U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523

20140521 DO-1 Baseline Report_FINAL

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 20140521 DO-1 Baseline Report_FINAL (20)

More from sbasgall (7)

20140521 DO-1 Baseline Report_FINAL