MALAWI LGAP 
MIDTERM PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION
An Evaluation for Learning, Evaluation and 
Research Activity II (LER II)
KIM YI DIONNE
This Midterm Evaluation of the Local Government Accountability and Performance (LGAP) was 
conducted by a team of international and local consultants fielded and managed by The 
Cloudburst Group, namely Dr. Kim Yi Dionne (International Academic Expert), Christopher 
Maulidi Phiri (Local Capacity Development Expert), Embry Howell, (Sr. Evaluation Specialist), 
and Kate Marple-Cantrell (Tasking Coordinator & Evaluation Specialist).
This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International 
Development, Democracy, Human Rights and Governance Center under the Learning, 
Evaluation and Research Activity II (LER II) contract: GS10F0218U/7200AA18M00017 
Prepared by:
The Cloudburst Group 
8400 Corporate Drive, Suite 550 
Landover, MD 20785-2238 
Tel: 301-918-4400
USAID.GOV MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | i
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 7
PROJECT BACKGROUND 7
METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 9
RESEARCH QUESTION 1 FINDINGS: HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT HAS LGAP 
IMPLEMENTATION INCREASED MALAWI GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AT 
THE LOCAL LEVEL? 15
LGAP ACTIVITIES TO INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY 16
FINDINGS ON ACCOUNTABILITY 18
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ACCOUNTABILITY 23
RESEARCH QUESTION 2 FINDINGS: HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT HAS LGAP 
IMPLEMENTATION CONTRIBUTED TO IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY ACROSS 
SECTORS (HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND AGRICULTURE)? 26
FINDINGS ON SERVICE DELIVERY 26
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON SERVICE DELIVERY 30
RESEARCH QUESTION 3 FINDINGS: WHAT ARE ANY UNINTENDED 
CONSEQUENCES OR EXTERNALITIES OF LGAP SUPPORT? HOW CAN THESE 
CONSEQUENCES BE MITIGATED (IF NEGATIVE) OR EXPANDED (IF POSITIVE)? 32
FINDINGS ON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND EXTERNALITIES 32
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND 
EXTERNALITIES 35
RESEARCH QUESTION 4 FINDINGS: HOW HAS THE LGAP AWARD USED THE 
RESOURCES (FINANCIAL, HUMAN RESOURCES/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE) 
EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY IN RELATION TO THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES, 
OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES, AND SUSTAINABILITY? 36
FINDINGS ON USE OF RESOURCES 36
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE USE OF RESOURCES 39
RESEARCH QUESTION 5 FINDINGS: WHAT LESSONS HAVE BEEN LEARNED TO 
INFORM FUTURE GOVERNANCE PROGRAMMING? IN PARTICULAR, HOW 
RELEVANT ARE THE RESULT AREAS AND SUB-RESULT AREAS IN THE LGAP 
AWARD TO ACHIEVING THE ACTIVITY’S OVERALL OBJECTIVE TO BUILD THE 
CAPACITY FOR RESPONSIVE, EFFECTIVE, AND ACCOUNTABLE SERVICE 
DELIVERY THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN MALAWI? 41
FINDINGS ON LESSONS LEARNED 41
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING FROM LESSONS LEARNED 43
REFERENCES 45
ANNEX A: EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK 47
USAID.GOV MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | ii
ANNEX B: EVALUATION DESK REPORT AND WORKPLAN, INCLUDING A 
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY USED, A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF 
DOCUMENTS CONSULTED, DATA COLLECTION TOOLS, AND LIST OF 
INTERVIEWEES CONSULTED 55
ANNEX C: QUALITATIVE EVENT SUMMARY TABLES 96
ANNEX D: LGAP MIDTERM EVALUATION SURVEY SAMPLING PROTOCOL 105
ANNEX E: SURVEY SUMMARY TABLES 108
ANNEX F: LGAP MID-TERM EVALUATION OUT-BRIEF PRESENTATION 112
USAID.GOV MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | iii
ACRONYMS
ADC Area Development Committee
CAPI Computer-assisted personal interview
CCAP Church of Central Africa Presbyterian
CDF Constituency Development Fund
CPS Citizen Perception Survey
CSO Civil society organization
DAI Development Alternatives Incorporated
DDP District Development Plan
DEN District Education Network
DEYS District Director of Education, Youth, and Sports
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
FCDO Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
GOM Government of Malawi
HR Human resources
HRMIS Human Resources Management and Information System
IFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System
IRB Institutional Review Board
IT Information technology
KII Key informant interview
LAPA Local Authority Performance Assessment
LGA Local Government Act
LGAP Local Government Accountability and Performance
MALGA Malawi Local Government Association
MEDA Malawi Electoral and Decentralization Activity
MG Mothers' group
MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
MP Member of parliament
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
NAP National Advocacy Platform
NCRSH National Committee on Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities
NGO Non-governmental organization
NLGFC National Local Government Finance Committee 
OPC Office of the President and Cabinet
PITA Participation, inclusion, transparency, and accountability
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
SEP Socio-Economic Profile
TA Traditional authority
TPAS Teacher-Performance Assessment System
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VDC Village Development Committee
USAID.GOV MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE
This mid-term performance evaluation of the Local Government Accountability and Performance 
(LGAP) program is intended to measure how the award has performed and guide the United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Malawi in its future governance 
programming. LGAP activities seek to build capacity for responsive, effective, and accountable 
service delivery through local governments in Malawi. The project takes advantage of a unique 
policy window in which the Government of Malawi (GOM) is undergoing a reform process to 
accelerate and deepen ongoing decentralization efforts. To achieve its mission, LGAP strives to 
improve local government performance and transparency, increase citizen engagement, and 
strengthen the enabling environment for decentralization in Malawi. Overall, the evaluation found 
that there was improvement in reported accountability and service delivery at the district level, 
based on interviews. However, that improvement did not extend down to the village level, where 
surveys found little improvement.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
After operating without locally elected leaders for nearly a decade, Malawi held tripartite elections 
(presidential, parliamentary, and ward councilors) in 2014 to reintroduce the election of local 
government leaders. Then, the GOM launched several reform initiatives intended to accelerate 
and deepen an ongoing decentralization process. These reform initiatives created a unique policy 
window in which USAID/Malawi awarded the LGAP contract to build capacity for responsive, 
effective, and accountable service delivery through local governments in Malawi. LGAP is a five￾year activity that provided support to eight district councils in Malawi in the initial three years of 
implementation. In this report, we refer to such districts as “earlier wave LGAP” districts. In 
September 2019, LGAP expanded to support all 28 councils with additional funding from the 
United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO, formerly DFID). 
LGAP support is primarily provided via technical assistance to both national and subnational 
governments, supportive supervision for core local government operations, public financial 
management and accountability, capacity-building for councilors and District Executive 
Committee staff, and support for integration with USAID activities. 
METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
In order to address the above research questions, the evaluation relies on a mixed-methods 
design. The evaluation team conducted desk-based research, individual and group key informant 
interviews (KIIs), and a survey of LGAP beneficiaries. The team then cross-referenced qualitative 
and quantitative data to enhance validity and mitigate methodological limitations. This approach 
offers the most rigorous examination of the data possible, but the conclusions that can be drawn 
are limited without a counterfactual comparison. 
The team collected data in 10 of Malawi’s 28 districts, stratified by LGAP implementation wave, 
region, and local government performance. The team conducted 77 individual and group 
interviews with key informants and stakeholders. Combined, the views of 172 individuals are 
reflected in the interview data. An additional 640 surveys were conducted with LGAP 
beneficiaries, including local officials as well as a random sample of citizens. Due to the purposive 
sampling approach, the results are not nationally representative of Malawian perspectives. 
USAID.GOV MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 2
A key challenge in conducting this research is its timing during the COVID-19 pandemic. For 
example, the team followed protocols on physical distancing and face covering, which may have 
reduced interview rapport, yielding fewer critical perspectives. Preventing infection transmission 
obviously took priority and the team was fortunate that most fieldwork was conducted while 
COVID-19 prevalence was very low and/or utilized phone or video conferencing. The compressed 
timing of fieldwork and the additional coordination requirements, however, made it even more 
challenging to meet with certain government officials (even by phone), especially those in 
positions that experience greater turnover. 
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT HAS LGAP 
IMPLEMENTATION INCREASED MALAWI GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AT 
THE LOCAL LEVEL?
In order to improve government accountability at the local level, LGAP employs both a top-down 
approach through training and mentoring of district officials and a bottom-up approach by 
empowering local citizens to hold elected officials and staff accountable. Important activities 
include training, technical assistance, support to the education sector, support to local 
governments for citizen outreach and market revenue collection, and coordination between 
development actors. 
Interviews showed that there was an improvement in accountability over the implementation 
period at the district level through coordination of development activities, improved financial 
accountability, and improved education accountability. However, the survey results suggested 
that these activities had limited success in improving the view of local government among the 
public. Although there was an increase in citizen satisfaction with how councilors consult citizens 
in some districts, there was greater dissatisfaction with how district councils respond to community 
needs and with the quality of projects implemented by the district council. Consistent with surveys 
previously conducted in Malawi, this survey found low trust in public officials among respondents, 
with some suggestive findings that trust of district councils is higher among citizens in earlier wave 
LGAP districts. In these districts, citizen engagement is higher, which has been linked to greater 
levels of trust in local government.1 Overall, the survey found high civic engagement at the village 
level, particularly in community meetings on school social contracts and village action plans. 
These findings informed the following recommendations:
● USAID should build upon high citizen engagement at the village level to increase trust in 
the district government through continued LGAP (or similar) programming. The findings 
suggest that LGAP activities have increased citizen participation in district government 
activities that should continue to build trust, creating a virtuous cycle of local accountability. 
● LGAP and future USAID programming should establish attainable goals for improving 
outcomes. Focus funding on those activities which have demonstrated success or that 
provide a foundation on which to build in the future. This includes efforts towards 
accountability in the education sector, improved coordination across sectors through work 
with service committees, improved human resources management, and efforts focused 
on financial management and accountability. 
1 Kumagai, Saki and Federica Iorio. 2020. “Building Trust in Government through Citizen Engagement.” World Bank 
Group, available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/33346/Building-Trust-in￾Government-through-Citizen-Engagement.pdf?sequence=5.
USAID.GOV MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 3
● LGAP’s future training and technical assistance in the 20 new districts should focus on
financial management practices. Provide for the sustainability of previous training through 
closer coordination with national partners, particularly with the Ministry of Local 
Government and Rural Development (MLGRD), the National Local Government Finance 
Committee (NLGFC), and the Malawi Local Government Association (MALGA). 
● In its final year, LGAP should further disseminate the citizen budget. Develop new ways 
to share the citizen budget (e.g., via WhatsApp, similar to Ministry of Health 
communications about COVID-19) that could then be used to also disseminate district 
development plans more broadly. 
● In designing future programming, USAID should use the particularly effective 
accountability activities in the education sector as a model for other sectors. For example, 
these lessons could be used to reform the health or agriculture sectors. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 2: HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT HAS LGAP 
IMPLEMENTATION CONTRIBUTED TO IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY ACROSS 
SECTORS (HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND AGRICULTURE)?
Similar to the results for accountability, while interviews found perceived improvement at the 
district level, the survey found citizen views of government service delivery are mixed. When 
asked to compare current services to five years ago, 41 percent said government services have 
gotten worse, 22 percent rated them the same, and 36 percent said services have gotten better. 
However, citizens living in districts with earlier and more intensive LGAP activities provided 
marginally more positive assessments of government service delivery. Both with respect to overall 
and specific characteristics of major service sectors, the survey found there is significant room for 
improvement in service delivery. 
There was relative perceived success in the education sector, which was viewed more favorably 
than other sectors. Examples of successful education initiatives that were mentioned include 
negotiation of contracts between parent groups and teachers and improvements in teacher 
allocation through automation of human resources records. The improved allocation of staff to the 
automation of HR records serves as an important example for other sectors, particularly the health 
sector. In general, respondents had more positive views of workers than of material resources 
(e.g., views of teachers were more positive than they were about availability of books at school). 
Improvement in perceptions of local government service delivery did not feature prominently in 
the KIIs, having been mentioned only 32 times in the 77 interviews (compared to 87 mentions of 
local governance accountability), though 20 of these mentions occurred in KIIs conducted in the 
early LGAP districts. Infrastructure projects such as drilling boreholes, while in high demand, were 
less successful. Finally, due to implementation challenges, analysis of agriculture service delivery 
was set aside. 
The following recommendations are based on these findings:
● Given that survey respondents generally had more favorable views of human resources, 
future USAID programming should focus on ensuring sufficient material resources (with 
relevant associated governance supports). Even with sufficient staff who are adequately 
trained and incentivized, challenges will remain due to a lack of resources. 
● USAID should undertake the more expensive infrastructure projects, such as boreholes 
and other construction projects, through coordination with other development partners, as 
the KIIs identified some of these projects as sources of local discord.
USAID.GOV MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 4
● USAID and LGAP’s provision of material support should be implemented with the 
collaboration of local officials to avoid the potential for envy or suspicion, and ultimately 
conflict. 
● To address sustainability in material resource provision, LGAP and future USAID 
programing should focus on local revenue generation, which would improve local 
government self-sufficiency and, in turn, could reduce Malawi’s reliance on foreign aid. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 3: WHAT ARE ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OR 
EXTERNALITIES OF LGAP SUPPORT? HOW CAN THESE CONSEQUENCES BE 
MITIGATED (IF NEGATIVE) OR EXPANDED (IF POSITIVE)?
The evaluation identified a number of both positive and negative unintended consequences (or 
externalities) of LGAP’s work. Positive externalities included: stimulation of other funders to also 
enter the local governance space; spillover from information technology (IT) systems, reporting,
and skills into other government functions; increased incentives for staff and committees to work 
harder, leading to improved coordination between development partners; increased skills of local 
civil society organizations (CSOs); and, finally, improved public health due to market clean-up 
activities and better COVID-19 preparedness. The key negative unintended consequence is that 
some LGAP activities led to unnecessary conflict. Conflict or concern about potential conflict was 
mentioned in the KIIs (21 times) and these included officials worrying about citizens engaging in 
boycotts or vigilante justice as well as actual reports of demonstrations that became violent. The 
KIIs also identified antagonism between development partners at the district level and the national 
level.
The following recommendations are based on these findings:
● To build on the entrance of additional funders in the governance space, the Mission should 
continue efforts to coordinate activities. 
● Because IT interventions have important spillover effects, these activities should be 
continued and expanded either as part of LGAP or future USAID programming. Examples 
of successful IT efforts include automation of personnel records, particularly in the 
education sector, and automation of district financial information. We also suggest an 
expansion of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) at the district level, to track indicators of 
progress.
● LGAP or other future programs should continue and expand support to service 
committees, which have been instrumental in increasing coordination of services and were 
particularly important for the rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
● Any future program, LGAP or other, should emphasize training in social responsibility of 
all development partners and program staff aimed at methods for avoiding destructive 
conflicts. Future efforts should also ensure more close coordination with all the national 
ministries whose functions overlap with LGAP. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 4: HOW HAS THE LGAP AWARD USED THE RESOURCES 
(FINANCIAL, HUMAN RESOURCES/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE) EFFICIENTLY AND 
EFFECTIVELY IN RELATION TO THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES, OUTPUTS AND 
OUTCOMES, AND SUSTAINABILITY?
The substantial LGAP funding came at a critical time in the devolution of responsibilities from 
national to local government and brought significant resources to a huge task that was beyond 
the resources or political will of national entities. Through its broad-based training program, LGAP 
revitalized local government structures such as the councils, council staff, council committees, 
USAID.GOV MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 5
school governance committees, CSO networks, and Area Development Committees (ADCs). 
Interviewees, for the most part, felt that LGAP activities were an efficient and effective use of 
resources. LGAP also faced challenges due to insufficient time and resources to scale up to all 
districts in Malawi. There was also high staff turnover among LGAP and district staff and 
councilors, COVID-19-related delays, and impracticality of village-level work due to scale and 
distance. Complaints about activities included: incomplete interventions, short and infrequent 
trainings, insufficient transparency from LGAP on its work plans and exit strategy, and insufficient 
follow-up. 
The following recommendations are based on these findings:
● LGAP should implement more comprehensive and more targeted trainings in the new 
districts if resources permit, particularly training in financial management. 
● LGAP or other future programs should improve the tracking of outcomes from LGAP 
efforts, particularly in the education sector. 
● USAID should further develop innovative approaches to local revenue collection to sustain 
LGAP gains. 
● LGAP and future programs can improve the sharing of information and joint planning with 
all national and local ministries and organizations that share similar goals and activities. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 5: WHAT LESSONS HAVE BEEN LEARNED TO INFORM 
FUTURE GOVERNANCE PROGRAMMING? IN PARTICULAR, HOW RELEVANT ARE 
THE RESULT AREAS AND SUB-RESULT AREAS IN THE LGAP AWARD TO 
ACHIEVING THE ACTIVITY’S OVERALL OBJECTIVE TO BUILD THE CAPACITY 
FOR RESPONSIVE, EFFECTIVE, AND ACCOUNTABLE SERVICE DELIVERY 
THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN MALAWI?
Concerning Results Area One (Local Government Performance and Transparency Increased), 
respondents emphasized that trainings of district councils and district staff, particularly financial 
staff, were effective in upgrading skills, fostering ownership of roles and responsibilities, and 
increasing accountability. In Results Area Two (Demand for Accountable Government 
Strengthened at the Local Level), LGAP training of ADCs was frequently credited with 
empowering citizens to question their government and become more involved in development 
activities. However, this training did not disseminate to Village Development Committees (VDCs) 
and survey data showed a lack of citizen engagement in accountability activities at the district 
level. Training of CSO and District Education Networks (DEN) representatives further empowered 
grassroots organizations. For Results Area Three (Decentralization of Policy Environment and 
Systems Improved), LGAP worked closely with some relevant national-level organizations to 
foster changes in decentralization policies. Important accomplishments included: work with district 
councils to update by-laws, work with the Ministry of Finance to develop manuals for district-level 
financial reporting, and devolution of human resources responsibilities to the local level, including 
training staff on use of HRMIS (Human Resources Management and Information System) and 
IFMIS (Integrated Financial Management Information System). However, there was incomplete 
coordination with all relevant national ministries and organizations, putting some of these gains 
at risk.
The following recommendations are based on these findings:
● A continued focus on the LGAP financial interventions such as automation of financial 
records and reports through the IFMIS is critical, along with continued emphasis on broad 
participation in budgeting using the citizen budgets. 
● LGAP should continue IT infrastructure development as a sustainability mechanism. 
USAID.GOV MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 6
● As discussed above, improved monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is needed in all districts 
(particularly in the education sector, where the most effort has been concentrated on 
service improvements). 
● LGAP should continue training in the expansion districts. 
● Retraining requires a train-the-trainer or mentoring approach by LGAP to enhance 
sustainability, with the engagement of national partners. 
● LGAP and future programming should continue coordination across development partners 
and include new partners, such as CSOs. 
● LGAP should continue assistance with by-law development in all districts and continue to 
expand its human resources initiatives to all districts. 
● Engagement with national partners, continued partnership with those successfully 
engaged already, and developing engagement with relevant potential partners, as well as 
frequent communication with all local development partners, is key to successfully 
sustaining the success that has resulted from the first four years of the LGAP project. 
● A sustainability and exit plan should be a clearly defined task for the LGAP program going 
forward.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 7
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 
The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation of the LGAP program is to measure how 
the award has performed and guide USAID/Malawi regarding future programming. The evaluation 
team has identified the following five core questions to guide the evaluation:
1. How and to what extent has LGAP implementation increased Malawi Government 
accountability at the local level?
2. How and to what extent has LGAP implementation contributed to improved service 
delivery across sectors (health, education, and agriculture)?
3. What are any unintended consequences or externalities of LGAP support? How can 
these consequences be mitigated (if negative) or expanded (if positive)?
4. How has the LGAP award used the resources (financial, human resources/technical 
assistance) efficiently and effectively in relation to the planned activities, outputs and 
outcomes, and sustainability?
5. What lessons have been learned to inform future governance programming? In 
particular, how relevant are the result areas and sub-result areas in the LGAP award to 
achieving the activity’s overall objective to build the capacity for responsive, effective, 
and accountable service delivery through local governments in Malawi?
These questions were informed by the desk review during the preparatory phase for this 
evaluation (available in Annex B—Desk Report). Following each of these core questions, the team 
has developed a set of sub-questions, which are also listed in Annex B.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
After operating without locally elected leaders for nearly a decade (Chasukwa et al. 2014), Malawi 
held tripartite elections (presidential, parliamentary, and ward councilor) in 2014 to reintroduce 
the election of local government leaders. Then the GOM launched several reform initiatives 
intended to accelerate and deepen an ongoing decentralization process. These reform initiatives 
created a unique policy window in which USAID/Malawi awarded the LGAP contract to build 
capacity for responsive, effective, and accountable service delivery through local governments in 
Malawi. To achieve this goal, LGAP strives to improve local government performance and 
transparency, increase citizen engagement, and strengthen the enabling environment for 
decentralization in Malawi. LGAP is a five-year initiative that runs from October 2016 through 
September 2021. Development Alternatives Incorporated (DAI), the implementing partner, 
received a contract that started at $23 million but increased to almost $40 million. 
In the first three years, LGAP provided support to eight district councils in Malawi. Districts 
included in the initial LGAP wave were: Balaka, Blantyre, Kasungu, Lilongwe, Machinga, Mulanje, 
M’mbelwa, and Zomba. In September 2019, LGAP expanded to support all 28 districts with 
additional funding from the United Kingdom’s FCDO. LGAP support is primarily provided via 
technical assistance to both national and subnational governments, supportive supervision for 
core local government operations, public financial management and accountability activities, 
capacity-building for councilors and District Executive Committee staff as well as ADCs and other 
grassroots committees, and support for integration with USAID activities. Awards are intended to 
achieve results in the following five areas:
1. Local government performance and transparency increased;
2. Demand for accountable government strengthened at the local level;
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 8
3. Decentralization policy environment and systems improved;
4. Public service performance management systems improved and implemented;
5. Public financial management related to human resources enhanced.
LGAP activities build on the work of a previous democracy and governance initiative by USAID in 
Malawi in three districts, called the Malawi Electoral and Decentralization Activity (MEDA), which 
LGAP expanded to eight pilot districts, and eventually to all 28 districts. Earlier decentralization 
and local governance initiatives were instituted in the wake of multiparty reforms in 1994, but were 
regularly plagued by inconsistent, ad hoc implementation motivated more by strategic political 
calculation than development needs (Chinsinga 2008). An important context for LGAP’s work is 
the return to local elected government in 2014, with a new round of elections in 2019 in which 
new district councilors were elected (and some councilors re-elected).
LGAP is structured around three primary Results Areas: (1) Local Government Performance and 
Transparency Increased; (2) Demand for Accountable Government Strengthened at the Local 
Level; and (3) Decentralization Policy Environment and Systems Improved. Each primary Result 
has several Sub-Results. These drive the activities of the LGAP program, which is multi-faceted 
and complex. As laid out in the FY 2020 LGAP Annual Report, the theory of change for LGAP 
activities is as follows:
FIGURE 1: LGAP THEORY OF CHANGE
There has been significant change in Malawi’s political context from 2014, when LGAP was 
designed, to 2020, when this evaluation took place. In 2014, Peter Mutharika had just been 
elected to the presidency, returning the Democratic Progressive Party as the ruling party after two 
years out of power. Peter Mutharika’s presidency continued a longer period of what political 
analyst Diana Cammack (2017) termed a “political settlement,” wherein Malawi’s elite would 
achieve a minimal level of economic performance and political stability in exchange for popular 
assent to less-than-democratic governance and stalled development. Mutharika was an 
unpopular president, having only won office with a minority of the vote in 2014 (Dulani and Dionne 
2014) and again failing to win majority support in 2019 (Dionne and Dulani 2020a). Nearly a year 
of mass protests challenged, among other things, the veracity of the 2019 elections (Pensulo 
2020). Those demonstrations, the court decision overturning the 2019 elections, and the 
subsequent election of opposition candidate Lazarus Chakwera offered a unique window of 
opportunity for governance interventions hoping to build an alternative to Malawi’s political 
settlement (Dionne and Dulani 2020b).
The importance of Malawi’s political opening notwithstanding, scholarly research examining the 
impact of governance interventions encourages moderating expectations. Transparency and 
accountability interventions have provided mixed results, with some being highly effective and 
others having no impact (Kosack and Fung 2014). Often governance challenges require multiple, 
complementary interventions. For example, transparency interventions that sought to increase 
citizen knowledge and awareness did not subsequently motivate or inspire action among citizens 
to hold local governments accountable (see, e.g., Lieberman et al. 2014; Banerjee et al. 2010). 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 9
Scholars and development practitioners are still working to design interventions that solve both 
supply- and demand-side challenges. A recent systematic review of participation, inclusion, 
transparency, and accountability (PITA) initiatives found that interventions aimed at promoting 
citizen engagement can stimulate citizen engagement in service delivery, thereby improving 
access to services and quality of service provision; however, without complementary interventions 
to address bottlenecks around service provider supply chains and service use, citizen 
engagement interventions alone may not improve economic or democratic development 
outcomes (Waddington et al. 2019). 
Perhaps most relevant to the outcomes of interest in this performance evaluation is the potential 
impact of an accountability program on service delivery. Rigorous research on transparency and 
accountability interventions conducted in low-income countries often shows that these 
interventions fail to significantly impact service delivery and wellbeing outcomes of intended 
beneficiaries. Although one study heralded as an exemplary model of transparency and 
accountability under challenging circumstances demonstrated powerful effects on health service 
delivery and health outcomes (Bjorkman and Svensson 2009), few others have shown similar 
results. Studies examining similar interventions in the same or similar settings and in the same 
sector have not found such significant results regarding health outcomes, and weak (or no) results 
on health service delivery (Raffler, Parkerson, and Posner 2019; Dionne and Camacho 2020). To 
be sure, some sectors may offer more potential for improvement in response to transparency and 
accountability interventions (Bauhr and Carlitz 2020) and, thus, it is important to capture 
information about multiple sectors. In sum, it remains important to modulate optimism about the 
impact of accountability programming on service delivery.
METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
This evaluation relies on a mixed-methods design to examine activity outcomes to date. The 
evaluation team used a combination of desk-based research, individual and group KIIs, and a 
survey conducted among LGAP beneficiaries. The evaluation team analyzed quantitative and 
qualitative data, cross-referencing findings against each other to enhance validity and to mitigate 
any methodological limitations of each method.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
As part of the background research, the team conducted a desk review of relevant policy and 
background documents and considered prior evaluations, studies, and analysis, as well as 
relevant commentary and analysis. The team also reviewed program work plans, quarterly and 
annual reports, and M&E records. Please refer to Annex B—Desk Report for the full list of 
documents reviewed.
DISTRICT SAMPLING
Qualitative and quantitative data collection for the LGAP performance evaluation took place in 10 
of Malawi’s 28 districts. Districts were stratified and then randomly selected to ensure 
representation across: 
1. Wave of LGAP implementation (first or later), to capture the effects of LGAP 
programmatic decisions on outcomes;
2. Region (north, center, and south), to control for regional effects; and
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 10
3. Performance of local government (as measured in the Local Authority Performance 
Assessment [LAPA]), to control for “within group” characteristics that may affect LGAP 
outcomes.
The final district sample (see Figure 2 below) includes four districts from LGAP’s first wave and 
six districts from the later implementation. Regionally, there are three districts from the north, 
three districts from the center, and four districts from the south. Finally, the evaluation includes 
six high-performing districts, according to LAPA score, and four low-performing districts. While 
we were limited by the few districts available to study and thus could not consider additional district 
characteristics in our research design (e.g., extent of local political unrest), the districts ultimately 
selected for study in the performance evaluation ranged in the degree of citizen political 
engagement.
Figure 2: LGAP Midterm Evaluation Districts
REGION LGAP 1ST WAVE LGAP LATER
High LAPA Scores (2018–
2019)
North M’mbelwa Nkhata Bay
Center Lilongwe Dowa
South Mulanje Mangochi
Low LAPA Scores (2018–
2019)
North - Karonga
Center - Nkhotakota
South Balaka Chikwawa
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 11
INTERVIEWS AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS
The team conducted interviews and group discussions from October 26, 2020–January 13, 2021. 
There were 77 in-depth interviews and consultations with key informants and stakeholders, 
including the main stakeholder groups listed below. The interviewees were selected to represent 
the views of key players, stakeholders, and beneficiaries at all levels of governance. This list 
includes representatives of the following:
● ADCs, 
● District Council Management, 
● District Directors of Education, Youth, and Sports (DEYS),
● DENs, 
● Council Service Committees, 
● National Local Government Finance Committee (NLGFC), 
● CSOs,
● Public Service Reform Management Unit, 
● Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD), 
● Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, 
● Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, 
● Malawi Local Government Association (MALGA), and
● Past and present management personnel from LGAP (USAID and DAI).
The team also conducted small group discussions to obtain data on perceptions at specific group 
levels. Community-based group discussions also provided a better understanding of the 
normative perceptions of LGAP interventions and outcomes. The evaluation team targeted groups 
that have received specific LGAP interventions, such as CSOs that received support on advocacy 
interventions and village leaders in focus districts to understand the roles of ADCs and DENs. 
Group discussants were grouped by respondent type to ensure groups felt comfortable speaking 
openly. 
Accounting for both individual interviews and group discussions, our qualitative data include 
perspectives shared by 172 individuals. Please refer to Annex C—Qualitative Event Summary 
Tables for two tables that summarize the number of interviews and interviewees by type of 
interview (individual or group), location (district and national level), and type of respondent. An 
illustrative guide of themes these interviews and small group discussions covered, as well as an 
expanded discussion of the qualitative methodology, can be found in Annex B—Evaluation Desk 
Report. Tables summarizing findings from qualitative interviews are contained in Annex C.
SURVEY
Additional quantitative data were collected through a survey of intended beneficiaries in the same 
sample of 10 districts in order to reach a larger number of stakeholders and further address the 
research questions. A team of four enumerators conducted face-to-face survey interviews, 
capturing responses using computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) software on mobile 
phones. The CAPI surveys provided efficiencies in post-survey tasks by reducing the time to 
aggregate, clean, and analyze data.
The Cloudburst team trained enumerators via WhatsApp over a period of two days in late October. 
Enumerators then collected pilot survey data to test the CAPI software and survey instrument. 
The pilot data were examined to identify needed changes in the survey instrument, but were not 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 12
used in the analysis in this report. Survey data collection occurred over a period of almost six 
weeks, from October 30–December 8, 2020. The survey instrument is available in Annex B—
Evaluation Desk Report.
The population of interest in the survey was LGAP’s intended beneficiaries, including local 
officials, local civil society actors, as well as ordinary citizens – the latter also having a stake in 
good local governance, even if they may be indirect beneficiaries of LGAP. In each of the 10 
districts covered by the performance evaluation, the survey team sampled participants from four 
primary sampling units: one survey site was the seat of district government (i.e., the boma); and 
the remaining three sites in each district were randomly selected using data from the 2018 Malawi 
Population and Housing Census. Enumerators conducted 16 interviews in each site, yielding a 
sample of 640 survey interviews. Teams were instructed to sample half of the survey respondents 
in each site (eight respondents) to represent the voices of local officials and civil society (e.g., 
village headmen, members of school management committees, faith-based organizations, etc.) 
and the other half (8 respondents) to be drawn from citizens resident in the survey site that were 
sampled using a random walk procedure, alternating the gender of the respondent (additional 
details are available in Annex D—LGAP Midterm Evaluation Survey Sampling Protocol). In some 
cases, the random walk procedure identified residents in the survey site who may have held a 
leadership or civil society role in the area. Listed below are the areas where surveys were 
conducted.
SURVEY SITES BY DISTRICT: 
● Balaka: Balaka Town, Traditional Authority (TA) Msalamala, TA Nkaya, TA Kalembo
● Chikwawa: Chikwawa Boma, TA Katunga, TA Lundu, TA Makhwira
● Dowa: Dowa Boma, TA Chakhaza, TA Chiwere, TA Msakambewa
● Karonga: Karonga Town, TA Kilipula, TA Kyungu, TA Wasambo
● Lilongwe: Area 7 (City), TA Chimutu, TA Kabudula, TA Kalolo
● Mangochi: Mangochi Town, TA Chilipa, TA Jalasi, TA Katuli
● M’mbelwa: Mzimba Boma, TA Jaravikuba Munthali, TA Kampingo Sibande, TA Khosolo 
Gwaza Jere
● Mulanje: Mulanje Boma, TA Chikumbu, TA Nkanda, TA Nthiramanja
● Nkhata Bay: Nkhata Bay Boma, TA Kabunduli, TA Malanda, TA Malenga Mzoma
● Nkhotakota: Nkhotakota Boma, TA Kanyenda, TA Malenga Chanzi, TA Mwadzama
SURVEY RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
The team conducted 640 survey interviews; of the 320 interviews targeting citizens resident in the 
survey sites listed above, some respondents sampled in the random walk procedure identified as 
local community leaders. Citizens’ understanding of being a local community leader was broad 
and included, for example, Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) members, faith leaders, and forest 
committee members. When we refer to the “citizen subsample” in the forthcoming analysis, we 
are referring to the 244 respondents (of the sample of 640) who did not identify as holding any 
position of influence in their community.
Most (73 percent) of our survey respondents resided in rural areas. While men make up the 
majority (62 percent) of our respondents in the survey sample, among the citizen subsample, 
women make up half of the respondents. All of Malawi’s major ethnic and religious groups are 
represented in the survey sample, though not in the exact proportions that they make up in 
Malawian society. While the largest ethnic groups represented are Chewa (24 percent), Yao (17 
percent), and Tumbuka (13 percent), Lomwe (9 percent) were a much smaller proportion and 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 13
Tonga (10 percent) were a much larger proportion when compared to Malawi’s 2018 Population 
and Housing Census. Likewise, while Christians make up the majority of our survey sample (as 
they do in Malawian society), the exact proportions of Church of Central Africa Presbyterian 
(CCAP) (23 percent) and Roman Catholic (15 percent) did not match their respective proportions 
in the latest census, and Muslims (18 percent) were overrepresented in our sample.
Our survey sample had achieved greater educational attainment than the sample of Malawi’s 
most recent Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) in 2016, with only 7 percent of the citizen 
subsample (4 percent men and 9 percent women) reporting having never attended school; only 
5 percent of women in the citizen subsample had completed secondary school, which is 
consistent with the 2016 DHS, but almost 20 percent of men in the citizen sample reported 
completing secondary school, which is more than double the proportion in the 2016 DHS. These 
proportions are higher among the broader survey population, as the respondents in the “leader” 
subsample had higher educational attainment (32 percent of men and 11 percent of women 
reported having completed secondary school). 
Survey respondents struggled in the 12 months prior to the survey to meet their basic needs, 
especially when compared to the most recent wave of the nationally representative Afrobarometer 
survey. While 53 percent of Malawians surveyed by Afrobarometer in 2018 reported having gone 
without a cash income either many times or always in the preceding 12 months, that proportion 
was higher (66 percent) in our survey sample, and even higher (77 percent) in the citizen 
subsample. We surmise the survey data collected for this performance evaluation reflected a 
broader economic slowdown in the country made acute by the COVID-19 pandemic. We use 
questions about meeting basic needs (access to water, food, cooking fuel, essential medicines, 
and cash income) to create a “lived poverty index” typically used in analyses of survey data 
collected in African countries in the absence of reliable data on wealth and income (Mattes 2008). 
Table A.10 provides descriptive statistics comparing the survey sample to the 2018 census and
2016 DHS.2
DATA ANALYSIS
After the creation of a cleaned data set, the evaluation team used multiple techniques to obtain 
findings relevant to the evaluation questions. For the survey data, the team examined descriptive 
statistics (e.g., means, crosstabs) to obtain statistical profiles of the samples and to identify 
significant results. To try and identify potential trends or trajectories, the analysis includes 
comparisons between the survey data collected for this performance evaluation and data 
collected through the Citizen Perception Survey (CPS) conducted by GeoPoll in 2017.3 When 
appropriate, the team used more rigorous methods such as conducting t-tests or regression 
analysis. Multiple regression allowed us to estimate how multiple factors (simultaneously) 
correlate with the outcomes of interest.
For the qualitative data collected through interviews and group discussions, the team organized 
data into a structured set and coded data to identify common responses and significant themes 
to answer the evaluation questions. The evaluation team drew from these data patterns as well 
2 Of course, there are sampling and reporting differences between the survey conducted for this performance evaluation and both the 
2018 census and 2016 DHS. The 2018 census includes the entire population of Malawi, figures reported by the DHS include 
Malawians aged 15–49 selected in a nationally representative sample, and the survey details reported here are based on a 10-district 
sample of adult Malawians, aged 18 years or older. When reporting, for example, marital status of the population, the 2018 census 
includes all Malawians aged 12 years and older.
3
From April 13 through April 25, 2017, GeoPoll conducted 12,000 surveys via short message service in the eight early-wave LGAP 
districts. These surveys measured citizen satisfaction with decentralized public service and many of the questions appearing on the 
CPS were repeated in the survey collected for this performance evaluation.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 14
as illustrative quotes and organized findings in tabular structures. These tables are contained in 
Annex E—Survey Summary Tables. 
For both qualitative and quantitative data, the team disaggregated findings along relevant 
dimensions such as gender, location, local affiliation, and assistance received to conduct 
subgroup analyses and identify significant outcomes among the beneficiaries. 
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The evaluation followed all ethical practices for human subject research, protecting respondent 
confidentiality and sensitive information. This included applying for and receiving research ethics 
and regulatory approval for the study from the primary Institutional Review Board (IRB) in Malawi, 
the National Committee on Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities (NCRSH), part of 
the National Commission for Science and Technology (PROTOCOL NO. P.10/20/524) prior to 
commencing data collection. 
For in-person fieldwork, all evaluation team members followed current health promotion 
guidelines on COVID-19. Evaluation team members and participants in the KIIs, interviews, and 
in-person surveys were instructed to wear masks, maintain two meters of distance, and conduct 
all interaction outdoors whenever possible. The evaluation team made a sanitizing station 
available for arriving participants, provided masks to all participants, and advised local 
stakeholders and participants in advance of precautions in place to protect the participants and 
researchers. 
LANGUAGE
The English versions of the data collection resources were translated into Chichewa and 
Chitumbuka, and interviews, discussions, and the survey were conducted in the interviewee’s 
preferred language (Chichewa, Chitumbuka, or English). Most survey interviews were conducted 
in Chichewa (89 percent) and the key survey results presented in the analysis did not differ based 
on interview language.
TEAM
The evaluation team consisted of Kim Yi Dionne (International Academic Expert); Chris Phiri 
(Local Capacity Development Expert); Embry Howell (Senior Evaluation Specialist); Kate Marple￾Cantrell, (Tasking Coordinator & Evaluation Specialist); Mordechai Wellish (Research Assistant); 
and Bright Mleta, Sandra Latif, Eliphaz Kuseni, and Hastings Nthungo (Enumerators/Research 
Assistants).
RISKS & LIMITATIONS
The evaluation team also considered several budget and management risks when planning work 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation team closely tracked the changing nature of the 
local epidemic when coordinating travel and in-person meetings and modified plans according to 
the latest conditions. The timing of fieldwork and the nature of Malawi’s experience with COVID￾19 allowed for face-to-face interviews, with the exception of a few interviews conducted in early 
January. The team conducted all survey fieldwork while Malawi was experiencing very few 
COVID-19 cases and enumerators and respondents adhered to COVID-19 protocols, even when 
infection rates were very low. 
While the sampling approach captures beneficiary characteristics based on the LGAP phases, 
regions, and district performance, the selection of the 10 districts was still based on a purposive 
approach. The purposeful selection of districts, as opposed to random selection, could have 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 15
introduced bias into the data on measurable results. Therefore, the qualitative and quantitative 
findings can speak for the sampled group but will not represent a broad range of the Malawian 
population.
The high turnover of personnel in local government offices raised the possibility that the evaluation 
team would be unable to conduct interviews, discussions, or surveys with LGAP beneficiaries, 
particularly those who participated in the activity’s early stages. The evaluation team incorporated 
techniques to address this during the data collection phase, such as applying snowball sampling 
and requesting interviewed beneficiaries to refer the team to other possible respondents or give 
their contact information. While the research team had hoped to interview more members of 
parliament (MPs) and District Commissioners, due to the challenges of scheduling interviews with 
these stakeholders, we only managed one MP interview and two interviews with District 
Commissioners.
A limitation of the methodology used for this performance evaluation is that findings are often 
based on stakeholder perceptions, rather than on objective measures. For example, some 
individuals interviewed were not able to provide data to support their views. What is more, 
interviewees and survey respondents may not always be forthcoming with their honest views if 
they feel unsafe in doing so or may respond out of self-interest or tell the evaluators what they 
think the evaluators want to hear. The ET made every effort to mitigate this risk by triangulating 
findings with alternative sources of information and interviewing stakeholders with varying 
motivations and perceptions, establishing rapport with interviewees, and clearly communicating 
the anonymity of interviews and the survey. The ET found no evidence to suggest that this biased 
results. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 1 FINDINGS: HOW AND TO 
WHAT EXTENT HAS LGAP IMPLEMENTATION INCREASED 
MALAWI GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE 
LOCAL LEVEL?
LGAP employs a “three-pronged approach to advocate for, and operationalize, sustainable 
governance reform—through district council functionality, demand for accountability, and an 
enabling policy environment.”4 This work is hypothesized to promote greater government 
accountability as a short-term outcome. Our evaluation approach to understanding the extent to 
which LGAP implementation increased Malawi government accountability at the local level relied 
on both qualitative and quantitative data, including comparing our survey data with previously 
collected survey data. We examined citizen satisfaction with district council response to 
community needs, trust in public officials, awareness of and engagement in participatory planning 
and external oversight processes, and transparency and consultation initiatives. In this section, 
we report on these data measuring accountability issues and identify the factors contributing to 
LGAP achievements, as well as obstacles confronted.
4
2020 Annual Report, p. 6. 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 16
LGAP ACTIVITIES TO INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY
In order to foster accountability, LGAP takes both a top-down approach, with efforts to improve 
the functioning of government through training and mentoring of elected district councilors, service 
committees, and staff (Results Area 1), as well as a bottom-up approach, with efforts to empower 
local citizens to make elected officials and staff accountable (Results Area 2). Engagement with 
citizens is accomplished through work with ADCs and other citizen groups, such as CSOs/non￾governmental organizations (NGOs) and school committees. While VDCs were considered 
important as well, resources were not sufficient to work directly with them. LGAP complements 
these local efforts with work on by-law development and strengthening the enabling environment 
through work with national actors (Results Area 3). 
The LAPA was a pre-existing GOM tool that LGAP adopted as a primary data source for M&E 
because it measures district performance across a variety of functional areas including planning, 
budgeting, human resources management, and sector service delivery. The LAPA scores for the 
initial eight first-wave districts reflected a low level of local government performance at the 
program’s outset. In 2016/2017, none of the scores in the eight first-wave districts were above 2 
(“Average Performance”) for the four categories of Planning, Human Resources, Public Financial 
Management, or Governance, save one in Kasungu District, which scored 3 (“Above Average 
Performance”) for Human Resources. Adding to the challenges, many citizen committees—for 
example, ADCs and VDCs—were reported by interviewees as inactive when LGAP began its 
work. LGAP annual reports document the activities it undertook to foster accountability, and these 
reports are reinforced by accounts of individuals interviewed during this evaluation (see Table 
A.3). 
When asked about the most significant LGAP activities, interviewees mentioned several under 
Results Areas 1 and 2. Just over half (43) of those regarded some aspect of the trainings that 
LGAP provided to District development partners (ADCs, councils and staff, CSOs, 
service/market/school committees, members of parliament [MPs]). The activity was designed with 
the intention of “Smart” capacity building5 and problem-solving approaches that deemphasize 
traditional training. Those we interviewed reported that the most important topics of the trainings 
were as follows: governance (how to conduct meetings and produce minutes); roles and 
responsibilities of different development partners; financial management; human resources 
management; ADC empowerment; and other aspects of accountability. 
These trainings began in the initial eight districts. For example, by the end of FY 2018, LGAP 
reported that they had completed trainings of the ADCs in all eight pilot districts. The FY 2019 
Annual Report gave examples of the number of other trainings provided in three of the eight pilot 
districts. For example, in that year in M’mbelwa district, LGAP trained 22 councilors, 5 MPs, 6 
TAs, 5 representatives of interest groups, and 13 council staff members, for a total of 51 
individuals. Patterns were similar in the other two districts.
Trainings did not begin in the additional 20 later-wave LGAP districts until late 2019 and then 
were delayed for several months by the COVID-19 pandemic. By the time our in-depth interviews 
5
“Smart” approaches mean designing programs that extend beyond “business as usual.” “Smart” capacity building requires innovative 
and/or evidence-based methods to strengthen organizational and individual capacity without relying entirely on traditional training 
approaches. An over-reliance on group training events has questionable effectiveness in building and sustaining capacity. Utilizing 
the various field offices, a creative, “smart” approach to capacity development includes a multipronged approach that is thoughtful, 
targeted, and sustainable and does not come at the expense of other services. Approached must extend beyond one-time off-site 
trainings. In addition, “smart” problem solving involves supporting districts to identify priority gaps so that the Contractor can tailor 
interventions that have the highest impact and provide feedback to both GOM and USAID partners to address challenges outside of 
the Activity scope. This approach will respond to the greatest needs of a district and harness the power of innovative technology to 
maximize the effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and scale-up-ability of interventions.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 17
began in November 2020, most LGAP trainings had not yet been completed in the later-wave 
LGAP districts covered by this performance evaluation.
Interviewees also highlighted activities LGAP undertook to foster financial accountability, such as 
training of district staff in financial management and particularly in adopting the IFMIS. As 
described in the FY 2019 annual report, LGAP used a coaching, mentoring, and peer-to-peer 
approach in IFMIS training. In FY 2020, LGAP trained 359 council staff in using IFMIS. As of the 
end of FY 2020, 20 of 28 districts had produced draft year-end financial statements using IFMIS. 
In addition, by FY 2020 LGAP was working in all districts to develop “citizen budgets,” which are 
documents understandable to a layperson audience that tracks budgets and expenditures for use 
by councils and ADCs.
Market revenue collectors were also supplied with handheld devices that were designed to 
improve market revenue collection by generating receipts to prevent the issuance of fake receipts 
and providing real-time data to the district council so underreporting collections was also 
automatically detected.
Another accountability intervention that our interviewees frequently cited as important was 
LGAP’s intervention in the education sector. LGAP began this work in late 2019 in the 20 later 
wave districts, so this work also was delayed due to the pandemic. DENs were revitalized, 
engaged, and funded to travel to schools in their district and meet with PTAs, mothers’ groups 
(MGs), school governance committees, and teachers, as well as carry out additional duties for 
which they are responsible. They then developed social contracts signed by all partners. These 
are documents used to hold teachers, parents, and pupils accountable. They track how funds are 
spent and stipulate key activities that schools require of communities in support of pupils’ learning 
such as making sure that pupils are ready to learn and available for classes, have needed 
supplies, and complete academic home assignments. The contracts also address areas that 
communities would like the Senior Primary School Management Team to be responsible for such 
as increasing teacher-to-pupil contact time and ensuring that schools track curriculum 
implementation and learners’ outcomes consistently improve across all grades.
However, since February 2020, due to the coronavirus pandemic, plans (including monitoring of 
implementation of the social contracts) were put on hold until the operating environment improved 
(it is also universally acknowledged that it is too early to talk about improved outcomes). Another 
LGAP school accountability activity was related to identifying “ghost workers” (persons on payroll 
who are not actually teaching), and to rationalizing the allocation of teachers and pay to improve 
productivity and retention.
LGAP also provided technical assistance to districts for the development of Socio-Economic 
Profiles (SEPs), District Development Plans (DDPs), and by-laws. The creation of SEPs and 
DDPs is part of the devolution of planning and funding development projects to the districts from 
the national government, and the two documents go hand-in-hand. The SEP acts as a source of 
baseline data for the design of project proposals that are incorporated in annual investment plans. 
It also provides an overview of the general physical, social, and economic situation in the district. 
The DDP lays out a plan for development projects in the district, in order to coordinate planning 
across funders. One interviewee stated that this was very important work of the LGAP.
LGAP helped to finalize the SEP and DDP, including quality control and technical 
assistance. They attended District council meetings related to the SEP and 5-year 
DDP. Local leaders now know what is in the DDP and will be able to track project 
implementation, leading to more accountability. (District Councilor)
LGAP activities also sought to improve communication between development partners by 
sponsoring meetings that bring those partners together. Through these meetings, partners 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 18
learned of each other’s initiatives and the progress of all development projects in the district. 
Below is one example that an interviewee cited concerning linkages between CSOs and the 
District Council. 
Integration meetings helped to group all the CSOs in the district into thematic 
areas…So there is improved two-way communication between the CSOs and the 
government. (District Councilor)
To increase citizen engagement with local government under Results Area 2, LGAP engaged in 
outreach using mobile phone messages, radio spots, and billboards. The purpose of these 
activities was to empower citizens and educate them about local government and the elections 
that were being held. LGAP reported reaching over a million people in this way.
Under Results Area 3, LGAP worked with national ministries and agencies to improve resource 
management. For example, LGAP supported the Ministry of Finance in developing three manuals 
to be used in financial management at the district level: an accounting procedure manual, an 
International Public Sector Accounting Standards manual, and an audit policy manual. Likewise, 
in improving human resources (HR) management, LGAP developed five HR manuals in 
consultation with national HR officials, and provided technical assistance in updating personnel 
files, conducting payroll audits, reallocating staff, and revamping the Human Resources 
Management and Information System (HRMIS). These were important efforts in the devolution of 
HR efforts and payroll. Finally, LGAP also worked with the Ministry of Education to develop a 
Teacher Performance Assessment System (TPAS), revamp the school inspection system to 
uphold national standards, and develop professional certification for teachers. 
This national-level work also includes assistance to the MLGRD and GOM on key legislative 
reforms to further decentralization. Specifically, LGAP supported efforts to revise the Local 
Government Act (LGA), which currently does not mention ADCs/VDCs, by developing briefing 
notes and convening consultations with the MLGRD. This includes facilitating local consultations 
on these issues through local structures (ADCs and VDCs) and working with the National 
Advocacy Platform (NAP) consortium of CSOs to gather input from organizations across the 
country. These proposals and comments will be submitted to the Office of the President and 
Cabinet (OPC) during the legislative drafting process. LGAP has also engaged MPs directly on 
these issues. 
FINDINGS ON ACCOUNTABILITY 
Our survey data offer a few measures of citizen reports of their engagement in holding public 
officials accountable; we then compared districts with earlier and later LGAP implementation to 
provide evidence as to LGAP’s impact on citizen engagement in this area. We asked citizens how 
satisfied they were with how their councilor consults citizens and just over 40 percent reported 
being satisfied or very satisfied while another 40 percent reported being dissatisfied or very 
dissatisfied (the remainder were neutral or did not say). There were no statistically significant 
differences between districts with earlier and later LGAP implementation. Focusing only on those 
districts with earlier LGAP implementation, a comparison to data collected via citizen participation 
surveys in 2017 suggests some districts have demonstrated increased satisfaction with councilor 
consultation, but this was not universal. Table A.11 shows increases in citizen satisfaction 
between 2017 and 2020 in Lilongwe and Mulanje, but mixed results in Balaka and M’belwa.
Overall, citizens in evaluation districts were largely dissatisfied with how their district council 
responds to community needs (62 percent dissatisfied or very dissatisfied) and with the quality of 
projects implemented by their district council (53 percent dissatisfied or very dissatisfied). There 
were no statistically significant differences in these measures between districts with earlier and 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 19
later LGAP implementation. Focusing only on those districts with earlier LGAP implementation, a 
comparison to data collected via citizen participation surveys in 2017 suggests citizens are 
generally more dissatisfied today than in 2017 when asked about council responsiveness and 
projects (see Table A.12 and Table A.13).
Trust of public officials is generally low in Malawi, and our survey sample is not exceptional 
regarding these measures. Respondents were asked how much they trusted their MP, their 
district council, their traditional leader, CSOs, and their VDC (Figure 3, below). Of these, 
traditional leaders and VDCs had the most citizen trust, with 65 percent of respondents saying 
they trust traditional leaders “a lot” and 64 percent saying they trust their VDCs “a lot.” Most 
challenging for LGAP and any future local governance programming in Malawi is the relatively 
low trust that citizens have in district councils. 
Figure 3: Citizen Trust in MPs, District Councils, Traditional Leaders, CSOs, and VDCs
The difference in the average response to trusting district councils by LGAP wave does not meet 
conventional standards of statistical significance, but a graphical comparison suggests that 
districts that implemented LGAP earlier (and to a greater extent) have greater citizen trust in their 
councils (Figure 4, below).
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 20
Figure 4: Citizen Trust in District Councils by LGAP Wave
To measure citizens’ awareness of and participation in participatory planning and external 
oversight processes, we asked a series of questions about their perceived access to information 
and their recent participation in community meetings or trainings. Many survey respondents (59 
percent) report being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with access to information from their district 
council; however, there was some important variation in how they characterized the likelihood 
they would be able to access certain public information. For example, while half of our survey 
respondents thought it would be somewhat likely or very likely that they could find out what the 
local school’s budget was and how funds have been used, only 20 percent thought it was 
somewhat or very likely that they could find out about the district development plan and budgets 
if they went to their district council office. Slightly more (27 percent) said it was somewhat or very 
likely that they could go to the district council to find out who owns a piece of land in their 
community. There were no statistically significant differences on any of these four measures of 
citizen access to information related to timing of LGAP programming or to respondent gender. 
However, respondents in the citizen subsample reported more dissatisfaction with access to 
information from their district council and even lower likelihood that they would be able to access 
school budgets, land ownership information, and district development plans; all of these 
differences were statistically significant.
Our survey focused on six different participatory activities: community meetings to discuss the 
village action plan, district meetings to discuss the district development plan, community meetings 
to discuss social contracts between the primary school and the community, community meetings 
to discuss collection and spending of market fees, trainings in the district on managing community 
resources, and trainings in the district on recordkeeping. Survey respondents reported high 
participation in community meetings on school social contracts (84 percent) and village action 
plans (66 percent), but very low participation in meetings about market fees (11 percent) or district 
development plans (11 percent), which were even lower than reported participation in training 
activities on managing community resources (22 percent) and recordkeeping (18 percent). There 
were no statistically significant differences in any of these measures of civic participation related 
to timing of LGAP programming or respondent gender. However, respondents in the citizen 
subsample participated at a lower rate for all of these civic activities and all of these differences 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 21
were statistically significant (see Table A.14). Using multiple regression analysis that contains 
controls for respondent gender, LGAP wave, and the lived poverty index, we find three statistically 
significant factors associated with civic engagement: respondents in the citizen subsample 
engage less, more educated respondents engage more, and respondents with higher trust in 
public officials engage more.
In our open-ended interviews, we asked interviewees about perceived effects of LGAP’s activities 
on district government accountability and learned of numerous ways that LGAP has had such 
effects on specific areas of accountability (see Table A.4). In approximately equal numbers, 
interviewees cited: (1) improved accountability through coordination of development activities, (2) 
improved financial accountability, and (3) improved education accountability as being important 
effects. Improvement in HR management was also mentioned, though less often.
Communication: We learned that ADCs, market committees, and councils are now, following 
LGAP training, feeling empowered to ask questions about the budget and development progress.
As the secretariat, we are now on our toes. There are people who are following what 
we are doing. It has improved checks and balances. (District Management Team)
We were told that both the councilors and district staff (often referred to by interviewees as “the 
secretariat”) are more responsive to community input and that there is improved communication 
between partners. 
Lately, the secretariat has been frantically trying to complete projects funded from the 
DDF that stalled for some time. This is attributed to the fact that the ADCs are now 
beginning to follow up on development projects in their area with a newly found sense 
of ownership and authority. (District Councilor)
Financial Accountability: In the area of improved financial accountability, we learned that there 
is broader participation in planning and budgeting, and that the citizen budget is an important tool 
in tracking the use of funds. In particular, the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) is a potential 
source of disagreement concerning development. 
The MPs make it abundantly clear that the CDF is a no-go zone for the councilors. 
(District Councilor)
However, we were told that some citizens now are more involved in examining that funding, which 
has been under the purview of MPs.
ADCs now have a better understanding of projects in their localities (for example, the 
CDF projects). When an official has misused funds, he is taken to task. Some MPs 
have been arrested for this, and one is behind bars. (MP)
Improved financial management has led to more timely reporting, which provides a tool for 
councilors, ADC members, and CSOs to question the use of funds and the progress of 
development.
Until LGAP came to work with the council, getting details about funding for the various 
sectors was impossible and a very emotive subject. (CSO/DEN member)
This increased financial oversight has apparently led to improved accountability, to the point of—
in some cases—the involvement of law enforcement.
People at the secretariat apparently swindled some money. The communities 
mobilized and demanded the removal of the directors implicated. (CSO/DEN member)
However, interviewees expressed the view that there is more work to be done.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 22
LGAP capacity-building empowered the councilors to be aware of their oversight role; 
however, the majority of the councilors are still fearful of challenging MPs and the 
secretariat. (District Councilor)
There are reports of gross misuse of funds at the district council, leading to questions 
about whether LGAP has yet made a difference. (CSO Network)
Finally, in the area of financial accountability, respondents indicated that LGAP has improved the 
security of market revenue collection through mobile phone financial transfers. Consequently, 
local revenue collection has increased in some districts, although it remains relatively low 
compared to national revenue transfers and development funding.
Education Accountability: The LGAP education work, through training school committees and 
developing social contracts, was mentioned frequently as a source of increased accountability in 
schools, especially in the eight first-wave districts.
The social contracts between local school governance structures and teachers is 
leading to improved learning and teaching outcomes. (DEYS official)
When people know their roles, they have made the teachers more accountable. They 
are talking to the teachers, saying ‘We expect you to do ABCD.’ It gives the learners 
a conviction that their parents are supporting them, and it gives the school personnel 
the feeling that the community supports them. (DEYS official)
Teacher absenteeism is now minimal, and complaints against teachers’ conduct and 
behavior has been drastically reduced. (DEYS official)
Other outcomes mentioned by interviewees include reduced delay in salaries, improved allocation 
of teachers, and school committee involvement in tracking school improvement funds. LGAP 
support also has helped revive an inspection system for schools.
Learner achievement can only be enhanced if there is a system of monitoring 
performance, which leads to accountability. Where there is an inspector, there is 
increased accountability. The inspectors become role models, because of the high 
standards they hold. (National official)
Overall, by 2018/2019, the LAPA scores in the eight first-wave districts had all improved relative 
to their respective earlier scores, although none scored 4 (“Above Average Performance”) in any 
of the four categories, and all scored either 1 (“Needs Improvement”) or 2 (“Average 
Performance”) in the Governance category. Thus, the LGAP activities appear to have helped in 
these key governance areas, but still with substantial need for more improvement. 
In our survey, we analyzed open-ended responses to the question “What are the most important 
improvements needed in local government in your district?”.6 This question was asked early in 
the fifth year of LGAP, so it reflects the opinions of citizens in two pilot districts where LGAP has 
been in operation for four years, and four new districts where LGAP has been in operation for 
only a year (with COVID-19 interruptions). Overall, citizens in the two original districts appear to 
note better functioning government than citizens in the four newer districts, although there is room 
for improvement in both (see Table A.5). 
The perceived need for improved government functioning spanned the range of problems that 
LGAP has targeted, with notably more mentions (proportionally) in the four new districts. Citizens 
6
The 326 citizens in these six districts mentioned 398 improvements that are needed (some citizens mentioned more than one 
improvement). About three-fourths (77.6 percent) of mentions concerned improvements needed in government functioning, with 8.6 
percent mentioning improvements needed to LGAP specifically (particularly the need for more frequent training), and the remainder 
citing critical development needs not being met in their community.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 23
mentioned needs for: (1) Improved community engagement in development, (2) improved 
coordination between development partners, (3) less corruption, (4) more monitoring and 
reporting on progress, (5) less politicization of development funding, and (6) improved quality of 
staff and officials. This indicates that, while there has been progress, there is still much room for 
improvement and continued intervention, especially in the later LGAP wave districts. Most of the 
mentions of the need for more LGAP trainings (25 of 28) were in the later LGAP wave districts, 
reflecting a prevalent view among citizens there and perhaps a lack of exposure given how new 
and relatively less substantial LGAP implementation has been in those districts. The responses 
reflect some disconnect between citizens at the village level and their district governments.
Below are some direct quotes from the survey data concerning some of these issues.
I am the chair of the ADC, one of the signatories of the Community Development Fund. 
However, the funds are being released by the district council without my approval. 
(Male in rural area of expansion district)
Members of parliament and the ward councilor have never visited the area since the 
general elections in 2019. (Female in rural area of expansion district)
LGAP should follow up on a project they started at the market. The project has 
stopped. It may be that someone stole the money meant for the project. (Male in urban 
area of pilot district)
The authorities who receive development funds are corrupt. (Female in urban area of 
expansion district)
Educated people must be elected to the ADCs for easy understanding and taking 
those in authority to task. (Male in rural area of expansion district)
The ADC has not yet been trained. We need to be trained to know how to work with 
politicians such as members of parliament. (Male in rural area of pilot district)
Below are two quotes from citizens reflecting this sentiment when asked for feedback in the 
evaluation survey:
I am hoping for a change, especially for the end of corruption and greed at the [District] 
Council. (Male in urban area of expansion district)
Development in this area is not working. Many things are at a standstill. (Female in 
rural area of expansion district)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ACCOUNTABILITY
The survey data illustrate high participation and engagement at the local level (e.g., in school 
social contract meetings, and meetings about village action plans) and suggest citizens are eager 
to participate in development activities in which they will be heard. Engagement is greater among 
citizens who have higher trust in public officials; additionally, the survey data suggest citizens of 
earlier-wave LGAP districts may have greater trust in district councils than later-wave LGAP 
districts. Taking these findings together, we might expect that continued LGAP programming (or 
expanded LGAP programming or programming similar to LGAP in promoting local accountability) 
could build trust in district councils, which is quite low. That increased trust could then motivate 
citizens to engage more in district development planning, creating a virtuous cycle of local 
accountability.
To be sure, we must also consider that extending or expanding local governance and 
accountability programming will not ultimately improve the outcomes donors, officials, and citizens 
care about, especially when faced with data suggesting a limited impact on outcomes to date. 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 24
The prudent way forward would be to consider continued support for programming that has 
demonstrated success and/or will provide a foundation to build on in the future. For example, the 
IFMIS trainings were not just popular, but also built a foundation on which local councils can 
modestly improve revenue generation. More specifically, it was reported in the KIIs that financial 
technology improvements enhanced local revenue collection. While small in comparison to central 
government revenue transfers to districts, this local revenue collection would be independent of 
the whims of national politics and informed and overseen by local civil society and citizens. 
While perhaps designed to be wholly “smart” capacity building activities, LGAP also offered 
substantial traditional trainings and technical assistance in multiple districts. Doing so seemed 
appropriate for, initial IFMIS training for example, especially given the relative success of such 
activities. There was also more sustainable activity related to “smart” capacity building, including 
the work with the Ministry of Finance to develop training manuals, which can be utilized (and 
expanded) even after LGAP activities end. Other “smart” capacity building efforts included 
mentoring, which were mentioned by respondents but with less frequency than training activities.
Trainings and technical assistance related to financial management were highlighted as important 
and their impact will have follow-on effects through a potential increase in local resources, as a 
result of improved financial management. To realize these benefits, a future USAID activity should 
continue this focus on financial management training, with the goal of ensuring that financial 
management practices are universally adopted across Malawi’s 28 districts. Additionally, future 
work should include institutionalizing training responsibilities within the national government and 
building national government capacity and planning for ongoing retraining. 
The findings do not suggest, however, an endorsement of further decentralized training activities, 
even if these were mentioned by multiple stakeholders interviewed in the course of this 
performance evaluation. While interview respondents pointed to the lack of training of VDCs, for 
example, the survey data show these trainings lacked significant local-level citizen engagement. 
There are other potential tools to build on existing citizen engagement, such as the citizen budget.
If additional trainings are undertaken, stronger monitoring and evaluation of these activities would 
provide more insight into the efficacy of such trainings for improving government accountability. 
Pre- and post-training surveys, including three, six, and 12 months after the training, would 
provide evidence of whether and how government functioning had changed and attribute that to 
a specific training. 
The citizen budget was a popular information tool that could be disseminated to and used by a 
broader audience, since it made financial information understandable to a broader audience such 
as councilors and ADC members. Future activities should support local government initiatives to 
share the citizen budget more widely. Districts or development partners could draw upon Malawi’s 
recent successful experience disseminating reliable information about COVID-19 through new 
media technologies, especially the Malawi Ministry of Health’s use of WhatsApp. LGAP or its 
successor could facilitate local government partnerships with CSOs, including community-based 
organizations, in the production and dissemination of citizen budgets. Given the relatively low 
likelihood that survey respondents reported they could access district development plans, new 
methods to disseminate the citizen budget tool could also serve as a model for initiatives to 
increase access to DDPs as well.
Accountability activities in the education sector—especially the HR automation tool—were also 
highlighted and could serve as models for other sectors. Perhaps what is most appropriate or 
urgent is improving information and accountability in Malawi’s health sector, which suffers from a 
serious HR shortage (Palmer 2006) and limited training at the facility level in health information 
management systems (O’Hagan et al. 2017).
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 25
Achieving full accountability requires more than the capacity of local governments to be 
accountable and citizen capacity to hold them accountable. The long history of lack of government 
accountability in Malawi will require sustained action to reverse. Even if the aforementioned 
recommendations are adopted and donors and government seek to expand or enhance 
accountability initiatives, the scholarly literature referenced above suggests that improving other 
important outcomes—in the words of LGAP’s theory of change, “improved quality of life for 
Malawians”—will also require complementary interventions to address bottlenecks in service 
provider supply chains and service use. We thus turn to service delivery in the next research 
question.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 26
RESEARCH QUESTION 2 FINDINGS: HOW AND TO 
WHAT EXTENT HAS LGAP IMPLEMENTATION 
CONTRIBUTED TO IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY 
ACROSS SECTORS (HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND 
AGRICULTURE)?
LGAP’s theory of change proposes that its combined top-down and bottom-up approach to 
fostering government accountability will eventually (in the longer term) lead to Malawians 
experiencing more effective service delivery in line with community needs. However, as discussed 
above, expectations about LGAP having an impact on service delivery should be tempered given 
the lack of robust research showing a consistent impact of governance interventions on public 
service provision and development outcomes. Nevertheless, we collected both qualitative and 
quantitative data to measure citizen perceptions of and experience with public service delivery 
and what kinds of assistance or activities initiated or supported by LGAP may be responsible for 
any improvements in service delivery.
FINDINGS ON SERVICE DELIVERY
Our surveys asked respondents to evaluate service delivery in their communities broadly and in 
specific sectors. First, we asked respondents to assess whether service delivery had improved in 
the last five years, and 41 percent said government services have gotten worse or even much 
worse, 22 percent rated government services as the same, and 36 percent said government 
services have gotten better or much better.7 Survey respondents living in districts with earlier and 
more intensive LGAP activities had marginally more positive assessments of government service 
delivery, but the differences do not meet conventional standards for statistical significance (in a 
two-tailed t-test, p=0.10). It is possible an evaluation with greater statistical power (e.g., more 
survey respondents and/or better balance across LGAP waves) would result in more meaningful 
differences between districts in different LGAP waves.
To measure perceptions of service delivery, we asked respondents about specific characteristics 
in the major service sectors that are important proxy measures for those respective sectors. For 
example, in education, we asked respondents to assess teacher availability and attendance as 
well as the materials available for learning. Likewise, in the health sector, we asked about health 
worker behavior and medicine availability. The data show significant areas requiring 
improvement. Perhaps more important, however, is that citizens had distinct views about human 
resources and material resources. More specifically, citizens had more satisfactory views of 
health worker, health committee, teacher, and PTA behaviors compared to their views on the 
availability of material resources like medicines and learning materials.
Combined in Figure 5, below, are simple dotplots of respondents’ reported satisfaction with 
different service characteristics. In the health sector, 48 percent of respondents report being 
dissatisfied with health worker behavior, but even more (67 percent) are dissatisfied with the 
availability of medicines in their local healthcare facility. Importantly, only 30 percent of 
respondents are dissatisfied with the work of their local health advisory committee. Likewise, in 
the education sector, only 21 percent of survey respondents reported dissatisfaction with the work 
of their PTA, while 38 percent reported dissatisfaction with teacher availability, and 77 percent 
reported dissatisfaction with the availability of materials for teaching and learning at their local 
7 One percent indicated that they do not know whether service delivery had improved in the last five years.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 27
school. In sum, citizens are more satisfied with characteristics related to human resources and 
less satisfied with characteristics related to material resources. We asked two questions about 
the agricultural sector—Malawi’s economic engine—and we see relatively more satisfaction, at 
least in assessing agricultural extension efforts (a second survey question we asked related to 
agriculture was about the distribution of fertilizer subsidy coupons, but given serious political 
challenges in the implementation of the fertilizer subsidy program ongoing during survey 
fieldwork, we set aside any analysis of data on that question).
Figure 5: Service Delivery Satisfaction by Topic
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 28
Examining survey respondents’ evaluations of these service delivery characteristics, we did not 
find statistically significant differences between respondents in early and late LGAP districts, with 
one exception: the average satisfaction with availability of materials for teaching and learning was 
higher in early LGAP districts (in a two-tailed t-test, p=0.015), which have received more sustained 
support. To be sure, dissatisfaction is still high, though the degree of dissatisfaction is lower and 
the proportion of respondents satisfied with the learning materials available at their area school 
is also higher in early LGAP districts. There were no statistically significant differences in 
satisfaction with these service delivery characteristics based on gender. There were, however, 
statistically significant differences among the citizen subsample, who expressed higher 
satisfaction with teaching materials (in a two-tailed t-test, p=0.005) and lower satisfaction with 
agricultural extension services (in a two-tailed t-test, p=0.03) when compared with the rest of the 
sample.
Figure 6: Satisfaction with Learning and Teaching Materials by LGAP Wave
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 29
Our survey questions evaluating these characteristics of important public sectors mirror those 
asked by the CPS and thus also allow for some comparison to the early LGAP districts. 
Comparisons to CPS data from 2017, however, do not suggest there have been significant 
improvements in service delivery. As Table A.15 shows, satisfaction with service delivery in the 
early LGAP districts (Balaka, Lilongwe, M’belwa, and Mulanje) has either held steady or declined, 
with the exception of a slightly higher proportion of respondents in our 2020 survey stating they 
were satisfied with the work of their health advisory committee.
In KIIs, we asked about impressions of service improvements as a result of LGAP. Interviewees 
were rarely mentioned being aware of any service improvements that could be tied to LGAP 
interventions (see Table A.6). While there were 87 mentions of interventions tied to improving 
local governance accountability and evidence of increased accountability (an average of more 
than one mention per interview), there were only 32 mentions of improved service delivery. Of the 
service improvements mentioned, about a third (9) concerned improvements in education 
services, half (15) in health services (almost all in the rapid response to COVID-19 attributed to 
LGAP assistance), and the remainder (7) in infrastructure improvements, with a single mention of 
improvement in agriculture. Importantly, we note that most (20) of the mentions were in four of 
the first-wave districts, even though more interviews (in absolute terms) were conducted in the 
newer LGAP districts.
Most people in the evaluation districts (regardless of LGAP wave) replied that it was too soon to 
detect any improvements, as in the following quotes:
It is too soon to know whether social contracts have improved service delivery in 
schools. (DEYS Director)
It is too early to tell if educational services have been improved, but since the DEN 
and local school governance structures have been empowered, it is expected that they 
will ensure improved service delivery. (CSO Network/DEN member)
A variety of improvements were mentioned concerning education, including improved teacher 
performance, improved pupil performance, reduced absenteeism of teachers and pupils, and 
reduced primary school dropout. Again, these were impressions of the interviewees, since hard 
data are lacking on these indicators.
There has been significant reduction in primary school dropouts due partly to the work 
of an empowered education service committee. (District Councilor)
With increased tracking of the School Improvement Plan and School Improvement 
Grants, communities are witnessing improved teaching and learning outcomes. This 
results from increased commitment from teachers, reduced absenteeism by teachers 
and learners, reduced dropouts, and parents being more involved in the affairs of the 
schools. (District Councilor)
Concerning health services, almost all of the service improvements mentioned (11 of 15 
mentions) were about the improved response to the COVID-19 pandemic due to LGAP’s efforts. 
These increased efforts were in both the first-wave LGAP districts and the later-wave districts 
where we collected data, even though LGAP initiatives were still quite new in the later-wave 
districts as the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. This shows that the recent trainings and 
empowerment of service and school committees was very timely in responding to a totally 
unanticipated health challenge.
LGAP facilitated a multi-stakeholder COVID-19 response. (DEYS Director)
LGAP supported coordination of district COVID-19 response. (District Councilor)
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 30
The two other mentions of health service improvements concerned the work of health service 
committees in coordinating services across the sector, resulting in improved service delivery and 
public health education.
The qualitative data also show presence of nontraditional activities and programs that were 
tailored to identified needs in subnational areas. For example, small infrastructure projects were 
initiated after local consultations. Interviewees mentioned the construction of boreholes, market 
sheds, bridges, and concrete paths with LGAP support. Almost all of these (6 of 7) were in the 
first-wave districts. These activities were responding to respective districts’ needs and had the 
potential for sustainability after the program ended but, these were also activities about which 
respondents provided more negative feedback. For example, some of the boreholes did not 
function after drilling, and these “dry boreholes” were viewed by some interviewees as a poor 
investment by LGAP. To be sure, these failed efforts to improve access to an essential public 
good are largely outside of the control of implementers, but still raise caution to manage 
expectations about the inevitable variation in activity success.
Going forward, the citizens surveyed cited a range of future development needs when asked 
about improving local government, with the implication that they expect their government to 
deliver better services, as exemplified by the following response of one of our interviewees:
Development in this area is not working. Many things are at a standstill. (Female in 
rural area of expansion district)
In order of number of mentions, the development needs they cited are: (1) health services, (2) 
infrastructure improvements, (3) market improvements, (4) water access, (5) education, and (6) 
food security. While LGAP was not set up to address all development needs, the expectation 
reflected in the theory of change is that LGAP activities, if successful, would lead to service 
improvements through improved local government functioning and coordination of service 
delivery. However, consistent with the analysis from the other data sources outlined above, these 
citizen reports indicate that LGAP activities have not yet succeeded, given that mentions of 
needed service improvements were as frequent in the pilot districts (proportionately) as in the 
new districts.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON SERVICE DELIVERY
Given that survey respondents had generally more favorable views of human resources than 
material resources in evaluating service delivery, future programming and initiatives may need to 
focus on the deficiencies in material resources (with relevant associated governance supports). 
This comports with the aforementioned scholarly research on the need for multiple, 
complementary interventions to improve governance. Even if sufficient staff are adequately 
trained and incentivized to carry out their responsibilities under the watchful eye of engaged 
citizens, public servants will remain challenged by the lack of material resources (e.g., medicines, 
teaching and learning materials) essential to doing their work. The relative success in the 
education sector identified in the research for this performance evaluation likely reflects, at least 
to some extent, the additional infusion of financial and technical support.8
8
It is important to note this type of complementarity was a goal in all LGAP first wave districts, as six of those districts (1. Blantyre 
Rural, 2. Zomba Rural, 3. M'mbelwa, 4. Kasungu, 5. Mulanje, 6. Lilongwe rural) were already serving as GoM hub districts for the HR 
devolution process, building upon prior World Bank investments in Education Sector devolution. The final two districts (7. Machinga, 
8. Balaka) together with Lilongwe rural (which overlapped with 1 of the 6 GoM pilot districts), were the 3 focus districts prioritized under 
USAID’s 2013 - 2019 CDCS. They were selected based on the integration 3 C's (co-location, coordination, and collaboration) criteria, 
and were recognized as the districts having the most saturated USAID investments, as well as saturated developmental needs / 
indicator data - across the missions portfolio. 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 31
Our recommendation is not simply for greater complementary material support, but also for 
donors providing material support for service delivery to seek the perspectives of local officials as 
they plan budgets and allocations. Donors regularly consult, for example, district-level data 
aggregating information about health, education, and other development indicators to identify 
districts with significant development needs as priority areas for programming. When working with 
national partners, donor agencies can seek input from district officials through and with these 
national partners and seek information from SEPs and DDPs to better understand the specific 
resources communities are lacking in order to support local needs. This recommendation would 
thus require sustaining the production of SEPs and DDPs.
Of course, donor interests in the sustainability of governance interventions can limit the potential
to improve service delivery. Given the scholarly research suggests governance interventions will 
be more successful when supported with complementary interventions targeting service provider 
supply chains, providing financial support for material resources may be necessary. If USAID or 
FCDO purchase, for example, the essential medicines that local health facilities are lacking in 
addition to providing trainings to health sector personnel in tracking resources, it would improve 
service delivery in the healthcare sector. This may be more obvious if compared to a governance 
intervention where trainings on tracking health sector resources are made available but there are 
few medicines or other resources in stock to be tracked. Donors and development partners 
providing financial support meant for complementary interventions aimed at increasing material 
resources in the public sectors targeted with governance interventions, however, results in – at 
least – the temporary reliance of the Malawi government on donors in providing for the needs of 
its citizens. Local revenue generation is one primary avenue to reduce local service providers’ 
reliance on national budgets, with the potential to reduce Malawi’s reliance on foreign funding to 
support its service delivery as well. LGAP and/or its successor should support local revenue 
generation, including following through on our recommendation in the accountability section 
regarding continued support of IFMIS training as well as other emerging opportunities to engage 
information and communication technologies in financial management, like automated phone￾based financial transactions to pay for public services.
Finally, another reason that interviewees could not assess improvements in service delivery is a 
lack of valid and reliable data to track outcomes. There is considerable local interest in project 
M&E information sharing and/or instituting systems to independently monitor service 
improvements. For example, in the education service delivery area, uniform teacher and pupil 
attendance data could be tracked and compared across schools and districts. The improvements 
in the HRMIS should make this tracking more feasible and should be a high priority. 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 32
RESEARCH QUESTION 3 FINDINGS: WHAT ARE ANY 
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OR EXTERNALITIES OF 
LGAP SUPPORT? HOW CAN THESE CONSEQUENCES BE 
MITIGATED (IF NEGATIVE) OR EXPANDED (IF POSITIVE)?
This evaluation also explored whether LGAP activities led to unintended consequences or 
externalities, both good and bad. These unintended consequences include spillover effects within 
the broader government beyond the staff who directly benefited from LGAP, as well as any effects 
on the other responsibilities of beneficiary personnel in local governments. This spillover affected 
government functioning and staff effectiveness, thereby impacting civilians. Perceived unintended 
consequences/ externalities of LGAP activities were grouped into themes reflecting seven positive 
consequences/ externalities (with 22 mentions—see Table A.7), and 3 negative 
consequences/externalities (21 mentions). The mentions were almost evenly divided between the 
4 pilot districts (15), the 6 other districts (12), and national level interviewees (15). 
FINDINGS ON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND EXTERNALITIES
POSITIVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES/EXTERNALITIES
The evaluation identified positive unintended consequences/externalities from LGAP’s work on a 
number of levels ranging from donor priorities to national and local government operations. 
In terms of donor priorities, USAID’s LGAP stimulated other funders—such as FCDO, the World 
Bank, the Embassy of Ireland, and the United Nations Children's Fund (to a smaller extent)—to 
enter the local governance space in Malawi. Donors had not been working in this area because 
of challenges faced by earlier decentralization initiatives and donors’ discouragement concerning 
the commitment of the GOM towards reform. LGAP changed donor thinking because of its initial 
progress in revitalizing local government. Some of the significant LGAP activities that paved the 
way, such as the development of socio-economic profiles and district development plans, are 
highlighted by one interviewee below. 
Having the SEP and DDP in each district is critical because donors look for these tools 
in order for them to be involved. Councils with DDPs and SEPs have better LAPA 
scores. (District Commissioner)
LGAP’s support for automated systems has potentially long-ranging positive consequences. A 
number of interviewees cited spillover from improved IT systems, reporting, and skills that improve 
government functioning overall beyond those individuals trained by LGAP. In other words, the 
LGAP trainings led to improved district staff skills that will spill over into other government 
functions, as cited below. 
The introduction of automated systems has helped to speed up processes. For 
example, where there was no computer and things were done manually, now things 
are automated and done faster. (MALGA)
To reduce corruption, it is necessary to switch from manual processes to automation. 
It will help monitor accountability. (CSO)
Resource materials are now mostly in electronic format and very accessible. (DEN)
The existence of LGAP’s activities and reporting structure also appears to have increased 
incentives for staff and committees broadly to work harder (e.g., produce more timely reports). 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 33
There is increased eagerness of the councilors to perform, and better cooperation 
between councilors and MPs (e.g., councilors filling in their MPs who might have been 
absent to a particular meeting). There are better working relationships between MPs 
and councilors of opposing political affiliations. (Councilor)
Partners are working harder because they know they must present tangible results 
during monthly/weekly coordination meetings. (DEN)
Additionally, LGAP activities in some cases smoothed the way for development partners to better 
coordinate their activities and avoid overlap or misunderstandings.
Councilors are now able to demand financial reports. (MLGRD)
LGAP has funded lots of meetings that would not have happened otherwise, even 
when it wasn’t in their work plan. (DEYS)
The CSOs have the information they need and this has reduced conflicts with the 
council which, in the past, led to demonstrations. CSOs are now partners in 
development. (District Commissioner)
A positive externality that was also mentioned was the support and mentoring by local CSOs that 
undertook some of the LGAP education activities, leading to organizational capacity-building 
successes such as constituency building and greater ability to conduct advocacy. These small 
and mid-size organizations will remain in the community, and their skills will transfer to other 
activities.
LGAP has given our CSO excellent mentorship on social accountability. It has allowed 
us to achieve a closer working relationship with the District Commissioner’s office, 
particularly the Director of Planning and Development. (CSO)
LGAP grants to CSOs for training increased these organizations’ profiles in the 
community. (DEN)
When these organizations are brought together, each CSO encourages the others in 
ways to advocate for their cause. Organizations are free to critique each other and 
learn from each other. (Chief Education Officer)
Finally, two people mentioned positive externalities for improved public health due to market 
clean-up activities sponsored by LGAP and the addition of toilets in some markets and schools. 
This was also true for the rapid COVID-19 response facilitated through LGAP support and 
infrastructure discussed in the prior section, where local governments were better prepared to 
respond to a completely unanticipated event of major consequence across Malawi.
NEGATIVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES/EXTERNALITIES
While, as mentioned above, some of the LGAP activities led to reduced conflict, the key negative
unintended consequence of LGAP that this evaluation identified is that some LGAP activities led 
to increased conflict among development partners and citizens, again on several levels ranging 
from national to local. 
The first type of conflict was social conflict, including conflicts between local development partners 
in some districts. Specifically, conflicts sometimes arose between MPs, district councilors and 
staff, market committees, ADCs, and/or school governance structures on roles and 
responsibilities for development funding and project implementation. In other cases, citizens 
empowered with greater information would sometimes respond with demonstrations. Increased 
conflict was noted in all evaluation districts and by national interviewees (cited 21 times). Below 
is a selection of the opinions that were expressed on this topic:
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 34
The MPs feel they are being overtaken. People think that the MPs bring development 
funds (funded by the CDF). Where the councilors have political ambition, it becomes 
difficult to clarify roles and responsibilities for development funding. If not carefully 
done, the MPs may think that the councilors are taking over their roles. (CSO)
It has made people hyper-sensitive and inquisitive, as if they are auditors. This might 
lead to mistrust and unnecessary antagonism. (District Commissioner)
There is conflict between elected officials (councilors) and ADCs concerning roles and 
responsibilities. (ADC)
Because people feel empowered, it’s easier/common for people to boycott and take 
the law into their own hands; there is a need for understanding of balanced rights and 
responsibilities (social accountability). (Education Committee)
There are incidents of citizens taking the law into their own hands in the name of 
empowerment and rights. (DEN)
Our Traditional Authorities got into conflicts about how to distribute the funds for 
transportation. (CSO)
Feeling empowered, people in the district have resorted to demonstrations to voice 
their concerns. The demonstrations have been violent, requiring armed police 
interventions. (CSO/DEN)
There were three mentions of LGAP coordination activities reducing conflict through greater 
coordination (as described in the preceding subsection), but the predominant view was that LGAP 
activities led to increased conflict. It is understandable that conflicts may arise when new partners 
are empowered to question the activities and decisions of other partners regarding development 
plans and funds. And, while uncomfortable, sometimes conflict can be productive. Accountability 
is increased when citizens have a greater awareness of what CDFs are and how their MP is 
spending their respective allocation, especially if citizens challenge MPs whom they believe are 
not serving the public’s interest. The delicate balance, however, is in promoting responsible citizen 
engagement that does not turn violent. 
Another source of conflict is the duplication of activities between LGAP and local and national 
development partners and agencies (7 mentions, 2 from the new districts and 5 from national￾level respondents) arising from inadequate coordination with national-level ministries and 
organizations. Below are examples of comments on this by respondents:
Overlapping agendas with national ministries led to conflict and duplication. Some 
council staff stopped being accountable to local government and aligned themselves 
with LGAP staff. Some councils started rejecting LGAP’s presence in their meetings. 
(MLGRD)
There was unanticipated conflict between LGAP and the National Local Government 
Finance Committee. LGAP destabilized the relationship between the NLGFC and the 
Ministry of Finance, due to a lack of collaboration around producing a manual for local 
government. (NLGFC)
LGAP appears to compete with NLGFC. We would have expected the two entities to 
work together so that the council could submit one report that satisfies both entities. 
(Councilor)
The LGAP activities have disrupted the activities of the secretariat. This affects work 
schedules and plans. (Councilor)
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 35
Some people felt looked down upon by the implementers; if a consultant came in, they 
would play second fiddle. (HR Official)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES 
AND EXTERNALITIES
On the positive externality side, since LGAP has brought new funding into the democracy and 
governance space in Malawi, efforts should continue to support coordination between funders. 
This will reduce overlap between development efforts.
It is also clear that the LGAP IT interventions have important spillover effects and lead to the 
sustainability of governance interventions when fully integrated into government operations, by 
leaving automated systems in place that will carry on after LGAP activities are complete. These 
should be continued and expanded in future USAID efforts, particularly in the 20 new districts that 
have not yet fully benefited from the LGAP automation efforts. Without continued support, there 
is a risk that the gains to date could be lost due to turnover in staff and lack of maintenance of 
equipment.
The work of service committees has been strengthened under LGAP. These committees have 
led to increased coordination of services and were particularly important during the rapid response 
to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, service committees that had been revitalized by LGAP 
were able to quickly meet and plan a uniform COVID-19 response across the district. Future 
efforts should continue supporting the work of these committees and their regular convening.
Going forward, any future program should emphasize the social responsibility of all development 
partners and program staff, aimed at avoiding destructive conflict. Governments are at risk of 
increased protests with the initiation of transparency initiatives (Hollyer et al. 2015). Particularly 
in the current context—in which Malawian citizens are increasingly participating in demonstrations 
in order for their voices to be heard (Pensulo 2020; Dionne and Dulani 2020a)—it will be 
imperative that local officials respond promptly and meaningfully to citizen concerns regarding 
governance and accountability. All future training programs that target local officials should 
emphasize the potential for conflict, providing specific historic examples in the local context or 
from neighboring areas. To avoid potential violence, training programs could incorporate 
peacebuilding processes (see, e.g., Kudzas et al. 2015), whereby participants actively plan 
procedures for promptly responding to citizen action so that officials will have these plans in place 
to enact before citizens take to the streets.
Future efforts should also ensure more close coordination with all national ministries and agencies 
whose functions overlap with LGAP. This is critical for sustainability because, without buy-in, the 
government entities responsible for implementing improved practices may not retain them. 
Viewing the national-level conflicts reported in interviews conducted for this evaluation through a 
political economy analysis prism, we see that a handful of stakeholders are essential to improving 
local governance and accountability and a lack of buy-in from those stakeholders can challenge 
governance and accountability initiatives. Any continued work in that improves financial 
management at the local level, for example, requires coordination with and buy-in from the 
NLGFC.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 36
RESEARCH QUESTION 4 FINDINGS: HOW HAS THE LGAP 
AWARD USED THE RESOURCES (FINANCIAL, HUMAN 
RESOURCES/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE) EFFICIENTLY AND 
EFFECTIVELY IN RELATION TO THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES, 
OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES, AND SUSTAINABILITY?
This evaluation question concerns whether LGAP used its resources effectively and efficiently to 
accomplish the goals of the program. This includes how resources were distributed across 
different technical areas (e.g., human resources process improvements, institutional capacity￾building) of focus, as well as the efficiency measures put in place in the distribution of resources. 
FINDINGS ON USE OF RESOURCES
LGAP was implemented through a contract with DAI. According to DAI annual financial reports, 
the initial contract was for five years (October, 2016 through September, 2021) with a budget of 
$22,975,909. This amount was increased over time to $39,966,832, in order to expand to 20 new 
districts and take on new initiatives in the education sector. During the first three years, 
expenditures averaged approximately $6 million per year. With the addition of new funds, and the 
expansion into 20 new districts and the education sector, expenditures are averaging almost $11 
million per year for the final two years.
The project’s large scale can be put into context, by noting that the total contract budget amounts 
to about 14.6 percent of the total budget for health in Malawi for fiscal year 2020–21. Thus, much 
was expected from such a large expenditure of resources.
While the annual financial reports do not report expenditures by Results Area, they do report that, 
for example, in FY 2019, fully 97.9 percent of the budget up to that time had been used for either 
Good Governance activities (84.7 percent) or Civic Participation activities (13.2 percent). These 
categories are certainly consistent with the LGAP Scope of Work, but unfortunately, financial 
reports do not provide more specificity about how expenditures match to specific activities.
In the FY 2017 Financial Report, an indication of staff functions was provided. At that time (at the 
end of the first year of the project), in addition to the Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party, the 
central LGAP staff included 11 positions for managers or specialists in the following specialties: 
public financial management; local government; decentralization; social accountability; 
organizational capacity; monitoring, evaluation, and learning; grants; finance; procurement; and 
infrastructure. All of these specialties are consistent with the Scope of Work. In addition to the 
central LGAP staff, in the first year, LGAP established three regional offices with seven staff 
positions per office, a program manager, four specialists or coordinators, and two drivers. The 
number of regional offices was increased when LGAP expanded into new districts. These regional 
offices gave LGAP the ability to work directly and frequently with the district government, CSOs, 
and ADCs, and thus are consistent with the emphasis on strengthening local government 
functions and accountability.
Most of those whom we interviewed believed that the trainings, along with coordination meetings 
and mentoring of local staff, were an efficient and effective use of resources, especially in the new 
districts, as cited below. 
The most effective LGAP activities are the trainings. (DEYS)
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 37
The relationship between the councilors and the secretariat has greatly improved. Now 
the emphasis is on dialogue. Councilors now know how to run council meetings. The 
conduct of the current cohort of councilors, which were trained by LGAP, cannot be 
compared to the previous round which was like a mob. Councilors are getting more 
information from the secretariat, which is now more responsive, such as information 
on procurements which was previously a source of conflict. (Councilor)
The empowerment of the ADCs is the most important component of the LGAP 
concept. (CSO/DEN)
Chairpersons of all local school governance structures have been incorporated into 
the teams managing the funds. (DEN)
The training in financial management was viewed as particularly effective, as there was a marked 
improvement in financial management due to LGAP training and mentoring of finance staff and 
councilors. 
The LGAP Project has done a lot to improve local government accountability. For 
instance, LGAP has provided training to accounting staff in the councils and also 
supported the devolution of the human resource (payroll devolution). LGAP has also 
supported some councils to put in place mechanisms and systems to increase local 
revenue generation. (MALGA)
However, extensive training is expensive, especially when it is not fully targeted to the knowledge 
base of those trained. Despite LGAP’s stated goal to provide smart capacity-building9
that extends
beyond one-time off-site training, some felt the trainings were too brief or infrequent. 
The training of school stakeholders was initially a mere orientation session; there is a 
need for it to be proper capacity training. (DEN)
All of the training, especially on the IFMIS, was really useful, but it needs to be ongoing. 
(Councilor)
While improving revenue collection is viewed as a critical way to sustain an effective local 
government, LGAP work in this area yielded mixed results. LGAP attempted to automate market 
revenue collection through mobile phone banking. In some districts, secure market revenue 
collection is improving, but this has not taken hold in most places as yet. This is largely due to 
logistical implementation issues (relating to transportation of and accounting for the cash collected 
and the cost of the handheld devices). Additionally, the system faced resistance at all levels 
because it stopped people from accessing "supplementary" income.
The electronic revenue collection system is not fully functional. The ideas were brilliant, 
but it was not done successfully. (MLGRD)
However, others gave a more optimistic assessment and expressed the opinion that LGAP’s 
approach to developing a functional electronic market fee collection system should continue. 
Indeed, revenue collection is a critical challenge for LGAP and future governance interventions to 
continue trying to address it.
We established baseline targets for revenues from the markets. There has been a 
deliberate effort to get feedback on how much has been collected and what has been 
done with the money for development. Our revenue collection has gone up by 50 
9
“Smart” capacity-building refers to approaches that rely less on traditional training approaches such as 
group trainings that have questionable effectiveness and instead would involve multiple field offices that 
tailor capacity building interventions to the greatest needs in the respective districts.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 38
percent. We used to get a lot of misinformation from the Finance Committee around 
revenue collection. (Counselor)
Also, efforts to improve market infrastructure through new sheds and boreholes occasionally 
raised expectations that were not met.
80 percent of the boreholes were incomplete; no water was found, but the contractor 
was paid. (Service Committee)
Promised infrastructure development at markets occurred at only a few markets. 
(Service Committee)
It is unclear whether the infrastructure development efforts of LGAP, some of which were 
unsuccessful, constituted the best use of funds. While it was deemed necessary to show the 
market vendors that the revenue generated in the markets led to improvement, it might have been 
more efficient to collaborate with another funder when meeting the districts’ infrastructure needs, 
which are extensive and expensive to address efficiently and effectively. These findings on 
infrastructure improvement efforts suggest that it may be a more efficient use of resources going 
forward if future local governance interventions coordinate with other projects to provide this type 
of assistance rather than providing it directly. 
We also heard in KIIs of several other implementation challenges and problems that negatively 
affected the efficiency and effectiveness of LGAP activities. The interviewees mentioned 90 
challenges and problems, as summarized in Table A.8.
In terms of the challenges faced by LGAP, interviewees mentioned, in approximately equal 
numbers: (1) staff turnover of district and LGAP staff, (2) insufficient time and resources to scale 
up to 28 districts, (3) COVID-19 delays in the schedule, and (4) that village-level work was 
impractical due to the scale (number of villages) and distance to villages. Of the 36 mentions of 
challenges, fully 19 were in the six new districts where interviews were conducted.
The challenge (weakness), however, is that, midway through the project, LGAP 
decided to increase its geographical coverage from the initial 8 district councils to 
cover all the 28 district councils (the whole country). This diluted its impact as the 
resources were spread thinly. (MALGA)
In general, the pilot districts received much more attention than the remaining districts due to time 
and resource constraints. LGAP reports that this was a deliberate strategy to take a “shorter route 
to the same destination” in the 20 expansion districts through more targeted investment. In the 20 
expansion districts, LGAP sought to apply lessons from the eight pilot districts, as well as focus 
on the main needs as agreed upon with each district in the fall of 2019, based on an assessment 
of each council. However, based on interviewee feedback, it appears that this approach may not 
have been clearly communicated to all stakeholders and some of those in expansion districts still 
expected to receive what the pilot districts did. At the same time. it is also worth noting that many 
of those more limited planned activities were also then delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. 
Interviewees also pointed out six problems, with 54 mentions (over half in the six new districts), 
in how LGAP implemented the program. These were, in ranked order of number of mentions: (1) 
promised interventions were incomplete (for example, all promised trainings were not received, 
especially in the new districts); (2) there was a lack of engagement or regular communication with 
key individuals/organizations; (3) allowances or transportation and refreshments were too small 
given distances; (4) trainings were too short or infrequent; (5) LGAP did not share its work plans 
or exit strategy; and (6) there was sometimes insufficient follow-up by LGAP staff. These are 
referenced below. 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 39
It was not what we expected, and we do not know how they are using the funds (or 
how much they have). (CSO/DEN)
We never saw the LGAP work plan or budget. (Councilor)
LGAP stopped consulting the ministry, and the project changed its brand from a 
Ministry of Local Government project to an LGAP project. This led to duplication of 
effort since LGAP hired staff into areas where there were already existing staff. 
(MLGRD)
The ADCs cover huge geographic areas. LGAP did not provide an allowance for 
transportation and lunch. They were given a Fanta and a biscuit. That does not make 
for a quality training. (Councilor)
After developing the social contracts in schools, there was little follow-up by LGAP 
staff to assure that what was signed was put into practice. (DEYS)
Thinking about whether LGAP’s use of resources to-date may yield sustainable advancements in 
governance, interviewees shared broad opinions concerning the sustainability of LGAP efforts. 
Some felt that knowledge had been gained that would be passed on to others by those who had 
been formally trained.
Those with knowledge should be able to continue to use it even if LGAP stops. 
(Councilor)
However, the dominant opinion was that, due to the need for ongoing retraining (especially acute 
in this environment of high personnel turnover) and lack of complete intervention in the 20 new 
districts, sustainability was at risk.
The problem is that skills will continue to exist only as long as those that have them 
are still in the system. Elected officials have a five-year tenure, and service committee 
members have only a one-year tenure. (District Commissioner)
The service management committee's term is for one year, so there is a need for 
continual training of new members. (Service Committee)
Another concern with sustainability implications, highlighted above, is that relevant national 
ministries and organizations have not been fully incorporated into LGAP efforts, and are currently 
unlikely to be able to continue LGAP initiatives in the future. 
When projects come from the outside and stand on their own, and do not work with 
existing institutions, there can be no sustainability. People have been trained in certain 
business practices, but we don’t know who has been trained in what way. So we 
cannot fill the gaps when they go away. (NLGFC)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE USE OF RESOURCES
LGAP’s substantial funding occurred at a critical time in the devolution of responsibilities from 
national to local government in Malawi and brought significant resources to a huge task that 
exceeded the resources of national entities. Especially given the recent absence of elected local 
governments, the initial participating institutions—if present—were likely oriented around 
patronage rather than a commitment to serving the community (Chasukwa et al. 2014). Through 
its broad-based training program, LGAP strived to address this orientation to patronage through
revitalized local government structures such as the councils, council staff, council committees, 
school governance committees, CSO networks, and ADCs. While the program was expensive, 
LGAP was serving an important role and greatly helping to address a significant gap in 
governance at the local level. In interviews at the district level, we heard consistent positive 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 40
feedback about their experiences with LGAP, particularly in the four pilot districts studied. While 
the research conducted for the performance evaluation did not involve a formal cost-benefit 
analysis, the scale of the challenging initial context and the counterfactual — how might local 
governance and accountability in Malawi look today in the absence of LGAP? — led the evaluation 
team to judge the program worthy of significant investment.
Going forward, it is clear that there is a demand for greater training of development partners that 
have been targeted by the LGAP in its first four years. Those we interviewed would like the 
trainings to be more comprehensive, longer, and more frequent. To be sure, these respondents 
represent a population that would benefit from additional trainings, as they offer the potential for 
small financial incentives (e.g., per diems, transport reimbursements, etc.), which have become 
increasingly scarce in recent years following harmonization among donors of allowance policies 
(Ngwira and Mayhew 2020). Recognizing the delicate politics surrounding per diems in Malawi in 
the current period, and with an eye to the sustainability of governance and accountability 
programming, we recommend that retraining be accomplished through national-level partners 
such as the MLGRD, the NLGFC, and MALGA. There is still a need in the short term, however, 
for training in the expansion districts, where the COVID-19 pandemic created delays. These 
trainings should evolve to incorporate comments of participants tailored to the respective 
audiences. The evidence does not suggest that longer and more frequent trainings would lead to 
improved service delivery, even if they would yield greater satisfaction of participants (who, again, 
stand to financially benefit from longer trainings).
There should be more dissemination of existing monitoring data and budget information, such as 
the citizens' budget, to improve village-level engagement with district-level development planning 
and implementation. It may also be beneficial for future local governance projects to explore 
innovative strategies to efficiently expand their geographic presence in the field since a desire for 
more local offices to improve access to all districts was raised during this evaluation. 
The education initiatives show promise, but better tracking of outcomes is needed, particularly 
monitoring of the implementation of social contracts in schools. For example, a list of indicators 
such as absenteeism of teachers and pupils, pupil/teacher ratios, and school inspection scores 
could be tracked and publicized by school and district.
Despite some setbacks, innovative approaches to local revenue collection are critical to 
sustaining LGAP gains. LGAP should employ a more nimble strategy to identify and test 
potentially promising approaches to expand revenue collection of market fees. This has yielded 
some gains and judicious expansion of it would help to provide funding that is greatly needed for 
funding local government services. 
However, any future infrastructure improvements should be undertaken in coordination with other 
development partners better positioned to succeed. Outsourcing this work to another actor 
dedicated solely to (or with greater expertise in) the provision of infrastructure will hopefully 
produce more even results. 
Finally, for sustainability of the LGAP gains, there is a critical need to improve information sharing 
and joint planning with all national and local ministries and organizations with similar goals and 
activities. This kind of coordination is absent from LGAP’s theory of change, even though one of 
LGAP’s Results Areas is “Decentralization Policy Environment and Systems Improved.” Co￾creation with national stakeholders through continuous coordination, in addition to producing an 
enabling national policy environment, is necessary for success, and future related programming 
should be incorporated as part of the theory of change.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 41
RESEARCH QUESTION 5 FINDINGS: WHAT LESSONS 
HAVE BEEN LEARNED TO INFORM FUTURE 
GOVERNANCE PROGRAMMING? IN PARTICULAR, HOW 
RELEVANT ARE THE RESULT AREAS AND SUB-RESULT 
AREAS IN THE LGAP AWARD TO ACHIEVING THE 
ACTIVITY’S OVERALL OBJECTIVE TO BUILD THE 
CAPACITY FOR RESPONSIVE, EFFECTIVE, AND 
ACCOUNTABLE SERVICE DELIVERY THROUGH LOCAL 
GOVERNMENTS IN MALAWI?
Finally, this evaluation considers what we have learned from LGAP’s experience to date that will 
inform future governance programming. In particular, this section discusses the relevance of the 
result areas and sub-result areas in the LGAP award to achieving the activity’s overall objective 
to build capacity for responsive, effective, and accountable service delivery through local 
governments in Malawi.
FINDINGS ON LESSONS LEARNED
In the Statement of Work for the LGAP, USAID outlined three Results Areas: (1) Local 
Government Performance and Transparency Increased (approximately 50 percent of effort), (2) 
Demand for Accountable Government Strengthened at the Local Level (approximately 20 percent 
of effort), and (3) Decentralization Policy Environment and Systems Improved (approximately 30 
percent of effort). The Scope of Work provided flexibility for defining specific activities within 
Results Areas and Sub-Results Areas, as well as “illustrative activities” with suggested indicators 
for tracking those results.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND TRANSPARENCY INCREASED
Interviewees gave their impressions of the most significant LGAP activities (see Table A.3 and 
discussion above under the four prior findings sections). Concerning Results Area One, 
respondents emphasized that trainings of district councils and district staff, particularly financial 
staff, were effective in upgrading skills, fostering ownership of roles and responsibilities, and 
increasing accountability. The upgrading of IT skills and equipment was especially critical. The 
financial interventions, particularly the automation of financial reports, increased accountability 
and reduced corruption in some instances. However, we heard that problems remain with 
transparency in many places.
The majority of the councilors are still fearful of challenging MPs and the Secretariat. 
(Councilor)
There are reports of gross misuse of funds at the District Council, leading to questions 
about whether LGAP has yet made a difference. (CSO)
The audit report shows gross mismanagement of funds. This means that the issues of 
accountability are far from over. (CSO)
The development of DDPs and SEPs in almost all districts through LGAP technical assistance 
was a critical LGAP accomplishment that improved the ability of local governments to plan and 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 42
implement their development activities. A missing ingredient continues to be the lack of good M&E 
systems to track development outcomes. For the most part, we heard that districts do not have a 
robust M&E system in place and, especially that it is not currently possible to compare across 
districts using common metrics.
DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT STRENGTHENED AT THE LOCAL 
LEVEL
Concerning Results Area Two, LGAP training of ADCs was frequently credited with helping to 
empower citizens to question their government and become more involved in development 
activities. 
ADCs feel more empowered. For example, we stopped a bridge-building project in a 
village. The design and quality were poor. (ADC)
While there were insufficient resources to directly train VDCs, each ADC contained VDC 
representatives who were expected to bring their knowledge to their local committee. We were 
told that this was insufficient to reach most VDCs but, as noted previously in the Accountability 
Findings section, the evaluation team believes LGAP made a reasonable decision to forego 
village-level training due to the preexisting robust governance structures at the village level.
The membership in VDCs is so huge that it is hard to do training for those members. 
So skills gained by ADCs cannot be cascaded to the VDCs. (ADC)
The training of CSO and DEN representatives further empowered grassroots organizations and 
other community groups such as market committees and school committees. In particular, the 
education initiative has led to the training and empowerment of citizens to develop social contracts 
in schools and monitor the performance of teachers. Further, LGAP sponsored media outreach 
to citizens, informing them of how to get involved in local government.
LGAP sponsored programs on decentralization on the community radio. This has been 
effective in letting people know their rights, and they are beginning to hold the council 
to account. (CSO/DEN)
Still, data from our citizen survey reflected a continued gap between local citizens at the village 
level and their district governments that has not been repaired through LGAP, as suggested by 
some of the quotes from citizens provided in the previous results sections. 
While training of ADCs and school committees was underway in some of the new districts at the 
time of our interviews, the process was not complete. So, as with Results Area One, much of 
LGAP’s effort to empower citizens to hold their government accountable has not occurred, 
especially in the new districts. Given that this work was greatly appreciated in the pilot districts, 
this should be continued if resources are available. Now that the foundation from the pilot districts 
is in place, USAID should incorporate the lessons learned from the pilot districts, particularly that 
of the importance of training and mentoring in financial management. 
DECENTRALIZATION POLICY ENVIRONMENT AND SYSTEMS IMPROVED
Concerning Results Area Three, LGAP worked closely with some—although not all—relevant
national-level organizations to foster changes in decentralization policies. A particularly important 
accomplishment was to work with district councils to update by-laws, which have the force of law 
at the local level.
LGAP facilitated the development of by-laws, and now local people are aware of the 
by-laws, making enforcement easier. By-laws included: raising market fees, child 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 43
marriage prohibition, no selling alcohol during school hours, and a ban against selling 
alcohol to school children. (Councilor)
Another important accomplishment was to work with the Ministry of Finance to develop manuals 
for district-level financial reporting. However, the impact of developing these materials was 
diminished due to a lack of coordination with other important organizations that can help to sustain 
effective financial reporting, such as NLGFC and MALGA.
LGAP work has also led to a devolution of HR responsibilities to the local level, focusing 
particularly on the education personnel system. 
LGAP supported the human resources management teams with revamping the HR 
Management Information System (HRMIS), including updating personnel files and 
making available the folders for all the teachers in the district. (District Education Staff)
However, given that USAID anticipated that 30 percent of its work would be devoted to this 
Results Area, there is more work to be done to achieve the results at the national level required 
for a full devolution of responsibilities to local government. In addition, we were told that the flow 
of funds to local governments from the national government is insufficient for the responsibilities 
that have been devolved to them and, to date, the increase in local revenue generation does not 
yet meet the increased need. 
Finally, as noted previously in the findings on unintended consequences and externalities, the 
evaluation recommends expanding the third results area to ensure that the critical coordination 
among government entities necessary for project sustainability is a core program objective going 
forward. 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING FROM LESSONS 
LEARNED
Concerning Results Area One (Improving Local Government Performance and Transparency), a 
continued focus on the LGAP financial interventions—such as automation of financial records and 
reports through the IFMIS—is critical, along with a continued emphasis on broad participation in 
budgeting using the citizen budgets. IT infrastructure development should also continue as a 
sustainability mechanism. As discussed above, there is a need for improved M&E in all districts 
(particularly in the education sector, where the greatest effort has been concentrated on service 
improvements). While results to date are mixed concerning local revenue enhancement, this is 
viewed as key to sustaining local government improvement. The SEPs and DDPs are viewed as 
extremely valuable and efforts to develop them in the new districts and updating those in the pilot 
districts should continue. 
Concerning Results Area Two (Accountable Government Strengthened at the Local Level), there 
is broad support for expanding training of the type offered by LGAP, and we recommend that 
LGAP training activities in all districts should continue, especially in the 20 new districts. However, 
this is very expensive. Going forward, after the expansion districts have received targeted training, 
the retraining could be accomplished using a train-the-trainer/mentoring approach, and through 
coordination with national partners. LGAP should consider expanding its CSO partners, another 
method of broadening and sustaining its work to achieve its objectives. Respondents also would 
like coordination meetings across development partners to continue and be expanded to new 
partners, including new CSOs. Results from the citizen survey have shown that, while citizens are 
engaged in accountability activities at the village level, they are considerably less engaged in 
district-level accountability. More effort is needed to connect those two levels of government 
through information and other targeted strategies. Some of the interviewees want an expanded 
focus on infrastructure development, which is a critical development need, although there are 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 44
questions about whether this is reasonable to do under LGAP’s mandate (as discussed above). 
A better approach would be to engage other development partners in these efforts.
Concerning Results Area Three (Decentralization Policy Environment and Systems Improved), 
LGAP should continue providing assistance with by-law development in all districts and continue 
to expand its HR initiatives to all districts. LGAP should also improve and expand its 
communication with national- and district-level partners, and future programs should make this a 
central to their theories of change. The engagement with national partners, and frequent 
communication with all local development partners, is key to successfully sustaining the 
considerable success that has been achieved during the first four years of the LGAP project. 
Finally, we recommend that the LGAP program develop a clear sustainability and exit plan going 
forward.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 45
REFERENCES
Banerjee, Abhijit V., Rukmini Banerji, Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster, and Stuti Khemani. 2010. 
Pitfalls of participatory programs: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in education in 
India. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2(1): 1-30.
Bauhr, Monika, and Ruth Carlitz. 2020. When does transparency improve public services? Street‐
level discretion, information, and targeting. Public Administration (early view).
Björkman, Martina, and Jakob Svensson. 2009. Power to the people: evidence from a randomized 
field experiment on community-based monitoring in Uganda. The Quarterly Journal of 
Economics 124(2): 735-769.
Cammack, Diana. 2017. Malawi's Political Settlement: Crafting Poverty and Peace, 1994–2014. 
Journal of International Development 29(5): 661-677.
Chasukwa, Michael, Asiyati Chiweza, and Mercy Chikapa-Jamali. 2014. Public Participation in 
Local Councils in Malawi in the Absence of Local Elected Representatives-Political 
Eliticism or Pluralism? Journal of Asian and African Studies 49(6): 705–20.
Chinsinga, Blessings. 2008. Decentralization and Poverty Reduction in Malawi–A Critical 
Appraisal. In Decentralisation in Africa: A pathway out of poverty and conflict? Gordon 
Crawford and Christof Hartmann (eds.). Amsterdam University Press.
Dionne, Kim Yi, and Luis Camacho. 2020. The Effects of Capacity Building and Community 
Building on Health in Eastern Congo. Unpublished working paper.
Dionne, Kim Yi, and Boniface Dulani. 2020a. A Malawi court just ordered a do-over presidential 
election. Here’s what you need to know. The Washington Post (February 4). 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/malawi-court-just-ordered-do-over￾presidential-election-heres-what-you-need-know/
Dionne, Kim Yi, and Boniface Dulani. 2020b. Malawians elected a new president in Tuesday’s 
historic election. The Washington Post (June 28). 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/28/malawians-elected-new-president￾tuesdays-historic-election/
Dulani, Boniface, and Kim Yi Dionne. 2014. Presidential, parliamentary, and local government 
elections in Malawi, May 2014. Electoral Studies 36: 218-225.
Hollyer, James R., B. Peter Rosendorff, and James Raymond Vreeland. 2015. Transparency, 
protest, and autocratic instability. American Political Science Review 109(4): 764-784.
Kosack, Stephen, and Archon Fung. 2014. Does transparency improve governance? Annual 
Review of Political Science 17: 65-87.
Lieberman, Evan S., Daniel N. Posner, and Lily L. Tsai. 2014. Does information lead to more 
active citizenship? Evidence from an education intervention in rural Kenya. World 
Development 60: 69-83.
Mattes, Robert. 2008. The material and political bases of lived poverty in Africa: Insights from the 
Afrobarometer. In Barometers of quality of life around the globe, pp. 161-185. Springer, 
Dordrecht.
Ngwira, Chikosa, and Susannah Mayhew. 2020. Donor-driven harmonised payment of 
allowances policy and NGOs’ community engagement in Malawi. Development in Practice 
30(1): 3-14.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 46
O'Hagan, Richael, Melissa A. Marx, Karen E. Finnegan, Patrick Naphini, Kumbukani Ng'ambi, 
Kingsley Laija, Emily Wilson, et al. 2017. National assessment of data quality and 
associated systems-level factors in Malawi. Global Health: Science and Practice 5(3): 367-
381.
Palmer, Debbie. 2006. Tackling Malawi's human resources crisis. Reproductive Health Matters, 
14(27): 27-39.
Pensulo, Charles. 2020. “It’s the year of mass protests”: Malawi awaits crucial election ruling. 
African Arguments (January 30). https://africanarguments.org/2020/01/year-mass￾malawi-protests-election-ruling/
Raffler, Pia, Daniel Posner, and Doug Parkerson. 2020. Can citizen pressure be induced to 
improve public service provision? Unpublished working paper.
Waddington, Hugh, Ada Sonnenfeld, Juliette Finetti, Marie Gaarder, Denny John, and Jennifer 
Stevenson. 2019. Citizen engagement in public services in low‐and middle‐income 
countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency 
and accountability (PITA) initiatives. Campbell Systematic Reviews 15(1-2): e1025.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 47
ANNEX A: EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK
DRAFT STATEMENT OF WORK FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 
ACCOUNTABILITY (LGAP) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ACTIVITY 
FEBRUARY 28, 2020
C.1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In 2016, USAID/Malawi awarded $39.9 million Local Government Accountability and Performance 
(LGAP) Contract to DAI to build the capacity for responsive, effective and accountable service 
delivery through local governments in Malawi. LGAP was designed in response to a reform 
window created by several Government of Malawi (GOM) policy reform initiatives, following the 
2014 election of local government leaders. These reforms were intended to accelerate and 
deepen the decentralization process which was initiated in 1998. Consequently, USAID/Malawi 
sought to support the full implementation of GOM’s decentralization reforms to address decades 
of partial and fragmented policy implementation, which has driven suboptimal public service 
delivery outcomes.
This five-year activity, awarded in August 2016, provided support to eight (8) of the twenty-eight 
(28) district councils across Malawi in the initial 3 years of implementation. Subsequently, the 
activity has been expanded to all 28 district councils in September 2019, with additional funding 
from the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID). LGAP works to 
improve local government performance and transparency, increase citizen engagement, and 
strengthen the enabling environment for decentralization in Malawi. This activity is also designed 
to assist the USAID/Malawi mission in its efforts to advance the integration of democracy and 
governance concepts of accountability, representation, and policy reform, with programming in 
the service sectors, i.e. health, education, etc. 
LGAP award intends to achieve results in the following five (5) areas.
1. Local government performance and transparency increased (across 28 Local councils)
2. Demand for accountable government strengthened at the local level
3. Decentralization policy environment and systems improved
4. Public service performance management systems improved and implemented
5. Public finance management related to human resources improved
LGAP support is provided primarily through technical assistance to the national and subnational 
governments, which is delivered through five (5) regional offices across Malawi and one (1) head 
office in Lilongwe. The LGAP award offices are expected to include permanent and short-term 
field staff, and the offices are either located within the government offices or within the vicinity of 
government offices. LGAP was also encouraged to co-locate with other projects and or regional 
offices, in furtherance of USAID’s integration development approach. These offices are expected 
to provide technical assistance to accomplish the results identified above including providing 
technical assistance and supportive supervision for core local government operations (i.e. 
planning, budgeting, administration), public financial management and accountability, capacity 
building for councilors and District Executive Committee staff, and support for integration with 
USAID activities, as well as assistance to USAID Mission coordination with district 
government.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 48
C.2. PURPOSE OF THE LGAP PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID/Malawi requires the services of a Contractor to conduct a performance evaluation of the
LGAP award. The final Contractor’s report will inform USAID/Malawi on how the LGAP award has 
performed, and guide USAID/Malawi for future programming. The Contractor will at a minimum 
be expected to:
1. Assess the LGAP’s performance to date and to determine whether the project’s activities 
are achieving the intended results as outlined in the agreement
2. Assess the extent to which LGAP award is achieving the overarching goal of supporting 
GOM in the fulfillment of the decentralization policy, including both changes to the form 
of government (policies, regulations, organizational structures), as well as function of 
government through improved performance.10
3. Assess the extent to which the LGAP approach drawing on political economy analysis 
has increased the effectiveness of the USG/UK investments in decentralization and local 
governance in Malawi.
4. Document lessons learned, good practices and points for improvement to make possible 
adjustments for current implementation of LGAP award and to inform future project 
designs.
C.2.1. TARGET AREAS AND GROUPS 
The Contractor must conduct the performance evaluation at different levels (national, district and 
community), targeting different stakeholders involved in the activity implementation. LGAP award 
targets include but are not limited to 28 local councils in Malawi and their structures i.e. Area 
Development Committees (ADCs), District Executive Committee (DEC), Village Development 
Committees (VDC), Council Service Committees; Ministry of Local Government and Rural 
Development; Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, National Local Government Finance 
Committee; Malawi Parliament; Civil Society Organizations; Public Service Reform Directorate; 
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Agriculture; Local 
Government Service Commission; and Malawi Local Government Association. 
USAID supports district governments through a variety of programs, and beneficiaries are often 
unsure which interventions are associated with which programs. The Contractor must explain how 
it will ensure that the qualitative data collected is attributable to the LGAP activity. If clear 
attribution is not possible, the contractor must explain how and why LGAP contributed to desired 
outcomes. 
C.3.1. LGAP PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The Contractor must, at a minimum, address the following questions:
1. To what extent has LGAP implementation increased Malawi Government accountability 
at the local level, if so how? 
2. To what extent has LGAP implementation contributed to improved service delivery 
across sectors (health, education and agriculture), if so how?
3. What are any unintended consequences or externalities of LGAP support? How can 
these consequences be mitigated (if negative) or expanded (if positive)?
10 [1] See Bridges and Woolcock “How (Not) to Fix Problems that Matter: Assessing and Responding to Malawi’s History of Institutional 
Reform. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/349361513957973588/pdf/WPS8289.pdf
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 49
4. How has LGAP award used the resources (financial, human resources/technical 
assistance) efficiently and effectively in relation to the planned activities, outputs and 
outcomes and sustainability?
5. What lessons have been learned to inform future governance programming? In 
particular, how relevant are the result areas and sub-result areas in the LGAP award to 
achieving the activity’s overall objective to build the capacity for responsive, effective 
and accountable service delivery through local governments in Malawi?
C.3.2. TASKS
The Contractor must perform the following tasks as part of this scope of work:
1. Draft inception report
2. Develop the performance evaluation methodology
3. Test and verify the performance evaluation methodology
4. Deploy a field team
5. Collect the relevant data to inform the performance evaluation
6. Conduct oral debrief meetings with USAID on the preliminary findings of the 
performance evaluation
7. Host a stakeholder workshop to present the draft performance evaluation findings for 
their validation and inputs
8. Draft Final Report
C.4. RESULTS: DELIVERABLES AND OUTPUTS
The Contractor must furnish the following deliverables and reports:
1. INCEPTION REPORT 
The inception report must describe the conceptual framework the evaluator will use to undertake 
the performance evaluation and the justification for selecting this approach. It must detail the 
performance evaluation methodology (i.e. how each question will be answered by way of data 
collection methods, data sources, and sampling). The Inception report must also contain a work 
plan, which indicates the phases in the performance evaluation with key deliverables and 
milestones. USAID/Malawi will review this report and the Contractor must receive COR’s approval 
of the report before it begins implementing the performance evaluation plan. The Inception Report 
must at least contain the following: 
a. A work plan, which indicates the phases in the performance evaluation with key 
deliverables and milestones and key personnel responsibilities. 
b. Complete set of performance evaluation questions and elaborate on them as necessary. 
Any questions added during the contract negotiations must be clearly indicated and any 
deleted questions must be mentioned with a reason as to their exclusion.
c. Discussion of the overall approach of the performance evaluation, highlighting the 
conceptual model (s) adopted. 
d. Discussion of risks and limitations that may undermine the reliability and validity of the 
performance evaluation results.
e. Discussion of the data collection and data analysis methods that will be used for each 
question. State the limitations for each method. Include the level of precision required for 
quantitative and qualitative methods and value scales or coding used for qualitative 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 50
methods. Standard data collection methods for USAID evaluations are: surveys, 
questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, document review, and observations.
f. Detail key data sources that will be selected to answer each performance evaluation 
question. 
g. Explanation of how existing data will be incorporated and used to answer the 
performance evaluation questions.
h. Discussion of the sampling methods and details. Include area and population to be 
represented, rationale for selection, mechanics of selection, sample size (for each unit of 
analysis), sample precision, and confidence and limitations.
i. Summarized performance evaluation methodology in an evaluation planning matrix that 
must contain the following column headings: performance evaluation question, measure 
(s) or indicator(s), data collection method(s), data source, design strategy / framework 
for each question, sampling methodology, data collection instrument(s) for each question 
and data analysis methodology on each performance evaluation question.
j. Timeline showing the performance evaluation phases (data collection, data analysis and 
reporting) with their key deliverables and milestones.
k. Specific roles and responsibilities of each team member for each performance 
evaluation phase. Include any changes in the performance evaluation team.
l. Discussion of logistics of carrying out the performance evaluation. Include specific 
assistance that will be required from USAID/Malawi, such as providing arrangements for 
key contacts within the Mission or Government of Malawi. 
m. Data collection instruments specific to questions and indicators in the performance 
evaluation.
2. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The performance evaluation must utilize the mixed-methods research design employing both 
quantitative and qualitative methods to strengthen the validity of the findings and provide room 
for data triangulation. The Contractor must describe and document the methodological approach 
that will be used, and this should follow USAID Evaluation best practices. The approach must 
include an evaluation framework and assessment tools for each performance evaluation question 
and highlight the conceptual model (s); specify the measurement criteria to be used to respond 
to each question. It must discuss any risks and limitations that may undermine the reliability and 
validity of the performance evaluation results. In order to ensure the maximum value for learning 
and use, a description of the proposed performance evaluation methodology must include the 
following, at a minimum:
a) Methods of data collection: The Contractor must clearly highlight the different methods 
and tools that will be utilized to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.
b) Sampling: The Contractor must propose how sampling will be done and propose the 
appropriate sample sizes required to ensure scientific rigor. 
c) Data analysis: The Contractor must provide the plan for analysis of all qualitative and 
quantitative data collected. This should include how different secondary sources of data 
collected during the LGAP implementation (e.g. Perception Surveys; M&E reports; 
Quarterly narrative reports; and Local Authority Performance Assessment-LAPA) will be 
utilized to answer the performance evaluation questions.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 51
3. EVALUATION PLAN
The Contractor will prepare a detailed work plan in response to SOW requirements and evaluation 
questions. The purpose of the Evaluation Plan is, in part, for the Contractor to present their 
evaluation design which includes, in part, research questions, methodology for quantitative and 
qualitative data collection and data analysis, work plan, timeline and proposed domestic and 
international travel. The Evaluation Plan must be approved by the USAID before the Contractor 
can travel and begin their field work. USAID/Malawi will provide approval or request changes. 
4. DEBRIEFING MEETING 
The Contractor must debrief USAID/Malawi on the preliminary findings of the performance 
evaluation. This debrief meeting must provide a summary of any analytical results; discuss 
challenges, successes, and the way forward. The Contractor must deliver an oral presentation of 
the LGAP performance evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations for each question 
to USAID/Malawi, prior to finalizing the draft performance evaluation report. The team leader of 
the performance evaluation team will be required to update the point of contact at USAID/Malawi 
on the progress at every phase of the performance evaluation. 
5. FINDINGS/VALIDATION WORKSHOP
The Contractor must present the key findings, conclusions and recommendations at a half-day 
stakeholder workshop in Lilongwe. The Contractor shall be responsible for costs, logistics and 
managing invitations to this workshop. The Contractor shall produce a summary/brief (max. 3 
pages) of key findings, conclusions and recommendations to be distributed to stakeholders during 
the workshop. 
6. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
The Contractor must submit a final performance evaluation report that is based on analyzed facts 
and evidence and fully addresses all the performance evaluation questions. The report must be 
no more than 30 pages in length (excluding annexes). The Contractor must ensure that Appendix 
I of the USAID Evaluation Policy – Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report is 
followed. This includes: 
● The performance evaluation report must represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well 
organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why;
● The performance evaluation report must address all evaluation questions included in the 
scope of work;
● The performance evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All 
modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, performance 
evaluation questions, performance evaluation team composition, performance evaluation 
methodology or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the technical officer at 
USAID/Malawi;
● Performance evaluation methodology must be explained in detail and all tools used in 
conducting the performance evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion 
guides will be included in an Annex in the final report;
● Limitations to the performance evaluation must be disclosed in the report, with particular 
attention to the limitations associated with the performance evaluation methodology 
(selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.); 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 52
● Performance evaluation findings must be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data 
and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings 
must be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence; 
● Sources of information must be properly identified and listed in an annex;
● Recommendations must be supported by a specific set of findings; and should be action￾oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action.
The final performance evaluation report must contain the following sections:
● Executive Summary: This section shall be 3-5 pages in length and must summarize the 
purpose, project background, performance evaluation design and methodologies 
including performance evaluation questions, key findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations and lessons learned from the evaluation. 
● Background: This section must provide a brief description of the LGAP that highlights the 
scope of the development hypothesis, activities undertaken in the program, and key 
performance indicators of the program. 
● Methodology: This section must detail the methodology and related research protocols 
undertaken in conducting the performance evaluation, data collection, analysis, selection 
criteria/sampling, and related constraints or limitations encountered during the LGAP 
performance evaluation. 
● Findings: Empirical facts collected during the performance evaluation: This section must 
present findings from the performance evaluation. The performance evaluation findings 
must assess key outcomes as structured around the organizational framework of the 
performance evaluation questions. The findings must be specific, concise and supported 
by strong quantitative and qualitative evidence analyzed through scientifically plausible 
methodologies. Sources of information used in arriving at the findings must be properly 
acknowledged and listed in an annex. 
● Conclusions: Performance evaluation conclusions must be presented for each key finding. 
The conclusions must logically follow from the gathered data and findings. These must be 
explicitly justified. If and when necessary, the evaluator must state his/her assumptions, 
judgments and value premises so that readers can better understand and assess them. 
● Recommendations (Proposed actions for management): This section must precisely and 
clearly present recommendations that must be drawn from specific findings. The 
recommendations must be stated in an action-oriented fashion, must be practical, specific, 
and with defined responsibility for the requisite action. The recommendations presented 
in this section must follow the performance evaluation questions as the organizational 
framework. 
● References: This section should include all documents reviewed, including background 
documentation and records of technical data application and decision-making.
● Annexes: These may include, but not limited to, statement of work, tools used in 
conducting the performance evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists, discussion 
guides, sources of information, etc.
C.5. LGAP PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION
The Contractor must propose a performance evaluation team which should be diverse with 
expertise in different key components of the LGAP award. As a means of building local capacity 
to undertake performance evaluations, the team composition should at least have one local expert 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 53
as a key member of the performance evaluation team. The local expert will also help to provide 
context and linkages to key stakeholders in the agricultural sector. At a minimum, the team should 
comprise the following key personnel: Expatriate Expert, and Local Capacity Development Expert. 
Below is a list of the proposed key personnel for the evaluation team and their roles and 
responsibilities. 
1. THE EXPATRIATE EXPERT (TEAM LEADER):
KEY DUTIES: 
● Oversee all the performance evaluation activities and provide overall oversight and 
management of the performance evaluation team. 
● Ensure quality of performance evaluation outputs and timely submission of each 
deliverable. 
● Plan and coordinate stakeholder meetings, field visits, and be responsible for payments 
of local logistical needs and local staff working with the performance evaluation team. 
● Lead the preparation of the performance evaluation reports and presentation of the key 
performance evaluation findings and recommendations to the USAID/Malawi team 
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE:
● Advanced degree in Social Sciences or other relevant field with at least 10 years of 
experience evaluating international development programs, preferably local governance 
in Africa. 
● In-depth knowledge of USAID evaluation requirements preferably for governance 
programs.
● Strong program evaluation experience in public sector capacity building programs.
● Strong management and administrative skills with experience of evaluating integrated 
programs.
● Demonstrated knowledge of political economy and institutional analyses.
● Excellent communication and writing skills, analytical skills, interpersonal skills, team 
management and leadership skills. 
● Demonstrated ability to meet deadlines.
2. LOCAL EXPERT- CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT 
● Advanced degree in relevant subject development economics, local development, public 
administration, or equivalent qualifications with over 7 years of experience. 
● Minimum of 7 years of regional or international experience in the field of institutional 
capacity development and proven track record of working on design of capacity 
development programs for public institutions.
● Proven experience in conducting studies or evaluations on LCD in Southern Africa, 
preferably in Malawi.
● Good analytical, writing and presentation skills.
● Demonstrated ability to meet deadlines.
The successful performance evaluation team will work closely with Mission’s Democracy Rights 
and Governance (DRG) and M&E specialists in all tasks such as development of instruments and 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 54
piloting, data collection, data analysis and synthesis of results. The DRG team is also expected 
to collaborate with the performance evaluation team to provide key documents. 
C.6. PLACE AND DURATION OF THE LGAP PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The place of the LGAP Performance Evaluation activity is Malawi. The extent of in-country travel 
and data needs will be determined by USAID/Malawi’s performance evaluation design team and 
the Contractor. The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is the contact person for the 
LGAP Performance Evaluation. The COR contact information will be shared with the Contractor 
in due course. 
The performance evaluation is expected to last 45 working days and the start date is on/or around 
the beginning of April 2020.
C.7. LOGISTICS
The Contractor will be responsible for all logistics including coordinating all travel to districts and 
local councils, lodging, printing, office space, equipment and car rentals, and managing 
dissemination of results. The USAID/Malawi’s DRG team will provide support to set up initial 
meetings with key government officials and all relevant stakeholders.
C.8. EXISTING SOURCES OF INFORMATION
USAID Mission Malawi will share the following documents with the LGAP Performance Evaluation 
Team to facilitate the desk review. The applicable documents are listed below: 
1. LGAP Scope of Work (SoW)
2. Quarterly Progress Reports (FY2016 – FY2019)
3. Local Authority Performance Assessment Survey Report (1st & 2nd Rounds)
4. LGAP Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (PMEP)
5. LGAP Annual Work Plans (FY2016 – FY2019) 
6. Citizen Perception Survey Reports
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 55
ANNEX B: EVALUATION DESK REPORT AND WORKPLAN, 
INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT 
METHODOLOGY USED, A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF 
DOCUMENTS CONSULTED, DATA COLLECTION TOOLS, 
AND LIST OF INTERVIEWEES CONSULTED
MALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DESK 
REPORT AND WORKPLAN
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Evaluation Desk Report and Work Plan includes research questions, updated explanation of 
the evaluation methodology, proposed desk review document list, list of proposed stakeholders 
to interview, survey instruments, and a tentative schedule of milestones that includes an 
illustrative schedule of proposed meetings, groups, and visits.
The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation of the LGAP program is to measure how 
the award has performed and guide USAID/Malawi for future programming. This will include:
1. Assess LGAP’s performance to date and determine whether the program’s activities are 
achieving the intended results as outlined in the agreement.
2. Assess the extent to which LGAP is achieving the overarching goal of supporting the 
GOM in the fulfillment of the decentralization policy, including both changes to the form 
of government (policies, regulations, organizational structures), as well as the function of 
government through improved performance.
3. Assess the extent to which the LGAP approach of drawing on political economy analysis 
has increased the effectiveness of the USG/UK investments in decentralization and local 
governance in Malawi.
4. Document lessons learned, good practices, and points for improvement to make 
possible adjustments for current implementation of the LGAP award and to inform future 
activity designs.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
After operating without locally elected leaders for nearly a decade, Malawi held tripartite elections 
in 2014 to reintroduce the election of local government leaders. Then the Government of Malawi 
(GOM) launched several reform initiatives intended to accelerate and deepen an ongoing 
decentralization process. These reform initiatives created a unique policy window in which 
USAID/Malawi awarded the Local Government Accountability and Performance (LGAP) contract 
to build the capacity for responsive, effective, and accountable service delivery through local 
governments in Malawi. To achieve this, LGAP works to improve local government performance 
and transparency, increase citizen engagement, and strengthen the enabling environment for 
decentralization in Malawi.
LGAP is a five-year activity that provided support to eight district councils in Malawi in the initial 
three years of implementation. In September 2019, LGAP expanded to support all 28 councils 
with additional funding from the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development 
(DFID). The overall goal of LGAP is to improve the performance of local government in Malawi 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 56
by improving capacity and accountability of local governments in Malawi’s districts, strengthening 
citizen engagement and oversight, and improving the broader national policy and systems 
environment for decentralization. LGAP support is primarily via technical assistance to both 
national and subnational governments, supportive supervision for core local government 
operations, public financial management and accountability, capacity building for councilors and 
District Executive Committee staff, and support for integration with USAID activities. Awards are
intended to achieve results in the following five areas:
1. Local government performance and transparency increases;
2. Demand for accountable government strengthened at the local level;
3. Decentralization policy environment and systems improved;
4. Public service performance management systems improved and implemented;
5. Public financial management related to human resources improved.
There has been significant change in Malawi’s political context from 2014, when LGAP was 
designed, to 2020, when this evaluation takes place. In 2014, Peter Mutharika had just been 
elected to the presidency, returning the Democratic Progressive Party as the ruling party after two 
years out of power. Peter Mutharika’s presidency continued a longer period of what political 
analyst Diana Cammack (2017) termed a “political settlement,” wherein Malawi’s elite would 
achieve a minimal level of economic performance and political stability in exchange for popular 
assent to less-than-democratic governance and stalled development. The recent popular unrest 
challenging, among other issues, the veracity of the 2019 elections and subsequent election of 
opposition candidate Lazarus Chakwera offer a unique window of opportunity for governance 
interventions hoping to build an alternative to Malawi’s political settlement.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The Evaluation Team has identified the following five core questions to guide the Evaluation:
6. To what extent has LGAP implementation increased Malawi Government accountability 
at the local level? If so, how?
7. To what extent has LGAP implementation contributed to improved service delivery 
across sectors (health, education and agriculture)? If so, how?
8. What are any unintended consequences or externalities of LGAP support? How can 
these consequences be mitigated (if negative) or expanded (if positive)?
9. How has the LGAP award used the resources (financial, human resources/technical 
assistance) efficiently and effectively in relation to the planned activities, outputs and 
outcomes, and sustainability?
10. What lessons have been learned to inform future governance programming? In 
particular, how relevant are the result areas and sub-result areas in the LGAP award to 
achieving the activity’s overall objective to build the capacity for responsive, effective 
and accountable service delivery through local governments in Malawi?
These questions have been informed by the preparatory phase for this Evaluation. Following each 
of these core questions, the team has developed a set of sub-questions. Table 1, below, lists 
proposed evaluation questions and sub-questions, data sources, and analysis methods to explore 
each question.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 57
Table 1: LGAP Midterm Evaluation Matrix
NO. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND SUB-QUESTIONS DATA SOURCES INDICATORS
EQ 1: To what extent has LGAP implementation increased Malawi Government accountability 
at the local level? If so, how?
1.1 To what extent do local government priorities 
reflect citizens' priorities?
Interviews, 
discussions, 
evaluation survey, 
Citizen Perception 
Surveys (CPS)11
District alignment of 
priorities expressed by 
local officials to 
priorities expressed by 
citizens
Percentage of 
respondents who 
expressed satisfaction 
with how 
council/councilor 
responds to 
community needs
1.2 To what extent do citizens trust local officials 
to deliver on their promises?
Interviews, 
discussions, 
evaluation survey
Percentage of 
respondents who 
express trust in 
village/district leaders
1.3 To what extent are citizens aware of and 
participate in participatory planning and 
external oversight processes?
Interviews, 
discussions, 
evaluation survey
Percentage of 
beneficiaries reporting 
positive perceptions of 
access to information 
on local spending
Percentage of 
beneficiaries reporting 
participation in 
meetings or training 
programs in the past 
year
1.4 To what extent do local governments employ 
transparency mechanisms such as 
consultative processes or consensus building 
forums?
Interviews, 
discussions, 
evaluation survey, 
Citizen Perception 
Surveys (CPS)
Number of information 
sharing / transparency 
mechanisms 
implemented
Percentage of 
beneficiary 
respondents satisfied 
with access to 
11 We will include CPS information in four LGAP Wave 1 districts if it is made available to the evaluation team. 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 58
information / level of 
transparency 
1.5 Which assistance has been (relatively) more 
effective in meeting LGAP targeted results for 
local government accountability?
Interviews, 
discussions 
Number of activities 
reported as 
relevant/useful for 
fostering accountability
1.6 What planned milestones (e.g. district plans 
implemented, policy reforms operationalized) 
have been achieved since the beginning of 
LGAP?
Interviews, 
discussions, LGAP 
reports 
Number of activities 
completed, 
goals/milestones 
realized
1.7 What are the factors that contributed to the 
achievement of these milestones? 
Interviews, 
discussions, LGAP 
reports
Implementation and 
context factors that 
facilitated progress
1.8 What factors made it difficult to achieve these 
milestones?
Interviews, 
discussions 
Implementation and 
contextual factors that 
hindered progress
1.9 What were the planned milestones that have 
not been met?
Interviews, 
discussions 
Number of activities 
cancelled, 
goals/milestones not 
realized
EQ 2: To what extent has LGAP implementation contributed to improved service delivery 
across sectors (health, education and agriculture)? If so, how?
2.1 In which sectors has service delivery 
improved since LGAP has been 
implemented?
Interviews, 
discussions, 
evaluation survey, 
Citizen Perception 
Surveys (CPS)
Reported change in 
services overall
Reported quality of 
services by sector
Beneficiary 
satisfaction in public 
service provision 
2.2 Which type(s) of assistance has/have been 
(relatively) more effective in improving service 
delivery in LGAP districts?
Interviews, 
discussions
Number of activities 
reported as 
relevant/useful for 
facilitating service 
delivery
2.3 Has service delivery improved due to LGAP? 
If so, what factors contributed to the 
improvement? What factors impeded it?
Interviews, 
discussions
Implementation and 
context factors that 
facilitated and 
hindered progress
EQ 3: What are any unintended consequences or externalities of LGAP support? How can 
these consequences be mitigated (if negative) or expanded (if positive)?
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 59
3.1 Were there any unintended effects of LGAP? Interviews, 
discussions
Unintended 
consequences 
identified
3.2 If so, were those effects positive or negative 
vis-a-vis the overall goal of the program? How 
can these consequences be mitigated (if 
negative) or expanded (if positive)?
Interviews, 
discussions
Identified implications 
of unintended 
consequences for 
past/current/future 
activities
3.3 Were there any spillover effects within the 
broader government unit/office beyond the 
staff who directly benefited from LGAP?
Interviews, 
discussions
Spillover effects 
identified
3.4 Did LGAP involvement affect the other 
responsibilities of beneficiary personnel in 
local governments?
Interviews, 
discussions
Reported changes in 
personnel 
responsibilities
EQ 4: How has the LGAP award used the resources (financial, human resources/technical 
assistance) efficiently and effectively in relation to the planned activities, outputs and 
outcomes, and sustainability?
4.1 How were LGAP resources distributed across 
the different technical areas (e.g. human 
resources process improvements, institutional 
capacity building) of focus?
Interviews, 
discussions, LGAP 
reports
Planned and actual 
allocation of LGAP 
resources/effort
4.2 What were the efficiency measures put in 
place in the distribution of resources?
Interviews, 
discussions, LGAP 
reports
Oversight 
mechanisms/ course 
corrections employed 
by LGAP
EQ 5: What lessons have been learned to inform future governance programming? In 
particular, how relevant are the result areas and sub-result areas in the LGAP award to 
achieving the activity’s overall objective to build the capacity for responsive, effective and 
accountable service delivery through local governments in Malawi?
5.1 What have been the success stories on 
supply-side interventions? What have been 
the lessons learned?
Interviews, 
discussions, surveys
Identified successful 
supply side activities
5.2 What have been the success stories on 
demand-side interventions? What have been 
the lessons learned?
Interviews, 
discussions, surveys
Identified successful 
demand side activities
APPROACH
The methodology for this evaluation will be based on a mixed-methods design to examine activity 
outcomes to date. The mixed method approach uses combinations of desk-based research, key￾informant interviews, focus group discussions, and a survey conducted amongst LGAP 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 60
beneficiaries. The evaluation team will examine quantitative and qualitative data, where findings 
will be cross-referenced against each other to achieve validity and to mitigate any methodological 
limitations each method might have.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
As part of the background research, the team will conduct a desk review of relevant policy and 
background documents and consider prior evaluations, studies and analysis, as well as relevant 
commentary and analysis. We will also review program work plans, quarterly and annual reports, 
and M&E records. Please refer to Appendix 1 for the full list of documents included in this desk 
review.
DISTRICT SAMPLING
Qualitative and quantitative data collection for the LGAP performance evaluation will take place 
in 10 of Malawi’s 28 districts. Districts were stratified and then randomly selected to ensure 
representation across: 
1. Wave of LGAP implementation (first or later), to capture the effects of LGAP 
programmatic decisions on outcomes;
2. Region (north, center, south), to control for regional effects; and
3. Performance of local government (as measured in the Local Authority Performance 
Assessment, or LAPA), to control for “within group” characteristics that may affect LGAP 
outcomes.
The final district sample (see Table 2 below) includes 4 districts from LGAP’s first wave and 6 
districts from the later implementation. Regionally, there are 3 districts from the north, 3 districts 
from the center, and 4 districts from the south. Finally, the evaluation includes 6 high-performing 
districts, according to LAPA score, and 4 low-performing districts. 
Table 2: LGAP Midterm Evaluation District Selection
REGION LGAP 1
ST WAVE LGAP LATER
High LAPA Scores (2018-
2019)
North M’mbelwa Nkhata Bay
Center Lilongwe Dowa
South Mulanje Mangochi
Low LAPA Scores (2018-
2019)
North - Karonga
Center - Nkhotakota
South Balaka Chikwawa
INTERVIEWS AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Interviews and group discussions will be conducted over four weeks, approximately from October 
25-November 23, 2020. The research will consist of a minimum of approximately 50 in-depth 
interviews. In-depth interviews and consultations will occur with key informants and stakeholders, 
including the main stakeholder groups listed below. The interviewees will be selected to gather 
the views of key players and stakeholders within beneficiaries at all levels. This list includes 
representatives from the following:
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 61
● Area Development Committees (ADCs), 
● District Executive Committees (DECs), 
● Village Development Committees (VDCs), 
● Council Service Committees, 
● Chiefs, or officials or representatives in chieftaincies, 
● National Local Government Finance Committee, 
● Parliament, 
● Civil Society Organizations12
,
● Public Service Reform Directorate, 
● Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, 
● Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, 
● Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 
● Ministry of Health, 
● Ministry of Agriculture, 
● Local Government Service Commission, 
● Malawi Local Government Association, and
● Past and present management personnel from LGAP (USAID and DAI).
The team will conduct small group discussions to obtain data on perceptions at specific group 
levels. Community-based group discussions also provide an understanding of the normative 
perceptions of LGAP interventions and outcomes. The evaluation team will target groups that 
have received specific LGAP interventions, such as CSOs that received support on advocacy 
interventions or village leaders in focus districts to understand the roles of ADCs and VDCs. Group 
discussants will be grouped by respondent type to ensure groups feel comfortable speaking 
openly. 
Please refer to Appendix 2 for the full list of proposed interviewees and small group discussions.
INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS AND GROUP DISCUSSION AGENDAS
The evaluation team has developed an interview/discussion protocol for a cross-section of 
respondents from both the Supply and Demand-Side of the beneficiary group. The 
interviews/discussions will be structured to explore topics regarding the respondent’s occupation 
and responsibilities as they relate to LGAP objectives, e.g. district planning, council membership 
or leadership, and revenue and expenditure oversight. The protocols also explore topics on the 
specific form(s) of assistance the respondent received under LGAP, such as human resources 
training. The third component of the interview/discussion protocol gathers data on in-depth 
context and rich information about felt experiences and unanticipated consequences. While the 
interviewer will probe on verifiable information of the respondent’s feedback, some responses 
may be based on perceptions, so it is essential to understand the factors contributing to these 
perceptions. 
Group discussions will use the same discussion agenda to structure the event and will explore 
group-based perceptions on LGAP interventions and outcomes. Discussions can be highly useful 
to not only verify findings from the quantitative surveys but also to better describe the nuances of 
12 The evaluation team has contacted DAI and requested a listing of all CSOs that have participated in LGAP activities. Because of a 
fixed timetable to conduct the field work, the evaluation team will select a group of CSOs to meet with for group discussions. The 
evaluation team will strive to achieve adequate representation of all stakeholder groups based on the listing from DAI.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 62
attitudes and behaviors in sampled LGAP areas. Comparing data from all visited locations will 
also provide valuable information by which USAID can determine how specific program activities 
are closely aligned with intended results, goals, and objectives in each LGAP location. 
An illustrative guide of themes these interviews and small group discussions will seek to cover is 
located in Appendix 3. 
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
The evaluation team will code data from interviews and group discussions to organize data into a 
structured set. The team will code data to a Microsoft Excel analytical matrix to identify common 
responses and significant themes to answer the evaluation questions. The evaluation team will 
organize findings in logical and comprehensive tabular structures for a more effective analysis.
SURVEY
Additional quantitative data will be collected in the form of a survey delivered to beneficiaries in 
the same sample of up to 10 districts, in order to reach a larger number of stakeholders and further 
address the research questions, with field plan and sample size to be finalized during the 
preparatory phase. Surveys will be conducted electronically using mobile phones/tablets. 
The population of interest for the survey are LGAP beneficiaries, including local officials, local civil 
society actors, as well as ordinary citizens who have a stake in good local governance. In each 
selected district, the survey will sample participants from four villages and towns; one survey site 
will be the seat of district government (i.e., the boma); and the remaining three sites in each district 
will be randomly selected using listing data from the Malawi Population and Housing Census. Up 
to 16 survey participants will be interviewed in each site (yielding a sample of up to 640 survey 
interviews).
The survey will be conducted in-person over six weeks, approximately from October 24-
December 7, 2020. Over this period, the evaluation team and local enumerators will conduct a 
beneficiary survey using the data collection resources and procedures described below.
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
The quantitative survey consists of two sections or modules. The first section includes topical 
questions to collect information on LGAP programming experiences designed to answer the 
evaluation questions. For example, the survey asks questions on local government performance 
and transparency, including inquiries on respondent involvement in and opinions on district 
planning, expenditure oversight, and public service provision. The second section collects socio￾economic/socio-demographic data on beneficiary respondents, such as the age, education, 
occupation, and other relevant information. This will allow the evaluation team to create a 
statistical profile of the beneficiary sample and to control for individual or group characteristics in 
the analysis that might have an effect on program outcomes. The demographic data will also 
permit comparison of our sample to the nationally representative sample in the Malawi 
Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), to speak to the study’s generalizability beyond the 10 
districts in which we will collect data.
The evaluation team will apply best practices and the following survey design/administration 
principles:
1. Always begin with an informed consent form
2. Questions should be clear and concise
3. Only one topic per question
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 63
4. For categorical questions, answer options should be mutually exclusive
5. For categorical questions, answer options should be exhaustive
6. Questions/sections should be ordered from easiest to answer to the hardest
7. Questionnaires should not be too long to avoid survey fatigue
8. Always assign a unique identifier for each survey
The draft survey instrument is available in Appendix 4.
The Cloudburst Field Manager will lead enumerator training and pilot testing in coordination with 
the in-country survey supervisor. The field manager and supervisor will explain key concepts 
behind each questionnaire and specific instructions on survey administration. Enumerator teams 
will have survey protocols, a comprehensive reference document with instructions on all tasks 
throughout the data collection period.
Field enumerators will administer the survey using computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) 
resources such as mobile phones and tablets. CAPI surveys provide efficiencies during the data 
collection period with the ability to correct errors, such as using logic checks and appropriate skip 
patterns. It also provides efficiencies in post-survey tasks by reducing the time to aggregate, 
clean, and analyze data.
DATA ANALYSIS
After the creation of a cleaned data set, the evaluation team will conduct a range of techniques to 
obtain findings that will answer the evaluation questions. The team will perform descriptive 
statistics (e.g. means, crosstabs) to obtain statistical profiles of the samples and to identify 
significant results. The team will also do more rigorous analyses where possible, such as 
regression analysis or calculating correlation coefficients, to add more depth and rigor in 
examining results. These approaches estimate the effects of determinants simultaneously, so 
multiple factors are controlled for and outcome estimations are more valid and precise.
For both qualitative and quantitative data, the team will disaggregate findings along relevant 
dimensions, such as gender, location, local affiliation, and assistance received to conduct sub￾group analyses and identify significant outcomes among the beneficiaries. For quantitative data, 
it is important to note that sub-group analysis will have to consider sample sizes when stating a 
particular finding. Where possible, the team will not only disaggregate data to look at differences 
between sub-groups, e.g. gender disaggregation, but will also determine if findings are addressing 
“higher level” USAID initiatives, e.g. if findings are meeting Gender Equality and Female 
Empowerment initiatives as a development objective.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The evaluation will follow all ethical practices for human subject research, protecting respondent 
confidentiality and sensitive information. This includes applying for and receiving Institutional 
Review Board (IRB) oversight or exemption for the study. Survey respondents will be guaranteed 
confidentiality and will be able to refuse to answer any of the questions. No findings will be 
attributed to respondents by name in the report. The evaluation will take effort to ensure that the 
process of conducting qualitative interviews/discussions will be as independent as possible. In 
particular, when conducting interviews/discussions, the representatives of the activity or project 
management (e.g. LGAP/DAI) will be invited to leave the room. In cases where this will not be 
possible, the circumstances of such situations will be noted in the final report as limitations/bias 
of the evaluation. To protect respondent confidentiality, evaluation data and notes containing 
identifying information will be stored securely and destroyed at the close of the evaluation. The 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 64
evaluation will provide de-identified quantitative data and the final list of qualitative respondents 
interviewed to USAID at the close of the evaluation.
LANGUAGE
The English versions of the data collection resources will be translated into Chichewa and 
Chitumbuka, and interviews, discussions, and the survey will be conducted in the interviewee’s 
preferred language (Chichewa, Chitumbuka, or English). 
TEAM
The evaluation team consists of Reuben Hermoso (International Team Lead), Kim Yi Dionne 
(International Academic Expert), Chris Phiri (Local Capacity Development Expert), Kate Marple￾Cantrell, (Tasking Coordinator & Evaluation Specialist), and TBD (Enumerators/Research 
Assistants).
RISKS & LIMITATIONS
In addition to general risks such as limited time and the availability of proposed respondents, 
critical to the quality of the analysis is the willingness of respondents to openly and honestly 
discuss issues, and to share information and insights. The evaluation team will make every effort 
to build a strong rapport with respondents by explaining the purpose of the study and choosing a 
private and comfortable environment to complete the interview. The team will also apply proven 
field techniques, such as forming male-female pairs within enumerator teams in case respondents 
have preferences. But if respondents are concerned about how results will be used, despite the 
full disclosures and guarantees given in the consent statement before a survey, the risk exists 
that respondents may limit their answers.
There are also a number of budget and management risks to consider when planning work during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation team currently believes that travel to selected districts 
will be possible for fieldwork, but we closely track the feasibility of travel, in-person meetings, and 
safe transportation needs for the field team and be prepared to modify plans for meetings 
according to the latest conditions. If there are additional restrictions in place at the time of 
fieldwork, Cloudburst will work together with USAID/Malawi to decide whether the schedule of 
activities needs to be modified according to the exact nature of the gathering. 
While the sampling approach captures beneficiary characteristics along the LGAP phases, 
regions, and district performance, the selection of the 10 districts was still based on a purposive 
approach. Therefore, the qualitative and quantitative findings can only speak of the sampled 
group and should not be taken as representative of any other beneficiary group or the population.
The high turnover of personnel in local government offices raises the possibility of the evaluation 
team’s inability to conduct interviews, discussions, or surveys with LGAP beneficiaries, 
particularly those who participated in the activity’s early stages. The evaluation team will 
incorporate techniques to address this possibility during the data collection phase, such as 
applying snowball sampling and request interviewed beneficiaries to refer the team to other 
possible respondents or give their contact information.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 65
APPENDIX 1: DESK REVIEW DOCUMENT LIST 
ACADEMIC SOURCES
Brewer, K. R. W. (2014). “Three controversies in the history of survey sampling,” Survey 
Methodology, (December 2013/January 2014), Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 249-262. 
Cammack, Diana. (2017) Malawi's Political Settlement: Crafting Poverty and Peace, 1994–2014.
Journal of International Development 29.5, pp. 661-677.
Dionne, Kim Yi, and Horowitz, Jeremy. (2016) The political effects of agricultural subsidies in 
Africa: Evidence from Malawi. World Development 87, pp. 215-226.
Dulani, Boniface, and Dionne, Kim Yi. (2014) Presidential, parliamentary, and local government 
elections in Malawi, May 2014. Electoral Studies 36, pp. 218-225.
Ferree, Karen and Horowitz, Jeremy. (2010) Ties that bind? The rise and decline of ethno-regional 
partisanship in Malawi. Democratization 17.3, pp. 534-563.
Posner, Daniel N. (1995) Malawi’s new dawn. Journal of Democracy 6.1, pp. 131-145.
Tambulasi, Richard IC, and Kayuni, Happy M. (2007) Decentralization opening a new window for 
corruption: An accountability assessment of Malawi's four years of democratic local 
governance. Journal of Asian and African Studies 42.2, pp. 163-183.
NEWSPAPER AND WEB RESOURCES
Dionne, Kim Yi, and Dulani, Boniface. (2020) Malawians elected a new president in Tuesday’s 
historic election. The Washington Post (June 28): 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/28/malawians-elected-new-president￾tuesdays-historic-election/
LGAP PROGRAM DOCUMENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
USAID/Malawi. (n.d.) Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract.
USAID. (n.d.) Section C Description/Specification/Statement of work. Malawi Local Government 
Accountability and Performance (LGAP).
WORK PLANS
DAI. (2017) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance (LGAP) Annual Work 
Plan-Draft October 1, 2016 – September 30, 2017.
USAID. (2017) Local Government Performance and Accountability (LGAP) Work Plan October 1, 
2017 to September 30, 2018 (Year 2).
USAID. (2018) Local Government Performance and Accountability (LGAP) Work Plan October 1, 
2018 to September 30, 2019 (Year 3).
USAID. (2019) Local Government Performance and Accountability (LGAP) Work Plan October 1, 
2019 to September 30, 2020 (Year 4).
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 66
ANNUAL REPORTS
DAI/USAID. (2017, October 30). Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance 
(LGAP) Annual Report Fiscal Year 2017.
DAI/USAID. (2018, October 30). Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance 
(LGAP) Annual Report Fiscal Year 2018.
DAI/USAID. (2019, October 30). Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance 
(LGAP) Annual Report Fiscal Year 2019.
QUARTERLY REPORTS
USAID/DAI. (2017) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. Quarterly Report 
Fiscal Year 2017 Quarter I.
USAID/DAI. (2017) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. Quarterly Report 
Fiscal Year 2017 Quarter 2.
USAID/DAI. (2017) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. Quarterly Report 
Fiscal Year 2017 Quarter 3.
USAID/DAI. (2018) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. First Quarterly 
Report Fiscal Year 2018 October 2017 to December 2017.
USAID/DAI. (2018) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. Second Quarterly 
Report Fiscal Year 2018 January 2018 to March 2018.
USAID/DAI. (2018) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. Third Quarterly 
Report Fiscal Year 2018 April 2018 to June 2018.
USAID/DAI. (2019) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. Year 3 First 
Quarter Report October-December 2018.
USAID/DAI. (2019) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. FY2019 January￾March Quarterly Report.
USAID/DAI. (2019) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. Quarterly Report 
Third Quarter-Fiscal Year 2019 April 2019-June 2019.
USAID/DAI. (2020) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. Quarterly Report 
First Quarter-Fiscal Year 2020 October 2019-December 2019.
CITIZEN PERCEPTION SURVEYS
USAID/LGAP. (2017, May). Citizen Perception Survey: Summary Report-Balaka-May 2017.
USAID/LGAP. (2017, May). Citizen Perception Survey: Summary Report-Blantyre (Rural)-May 
2017.
USAID/LGAP. (2017, May). Citizen Perception Survey: Summary Report-Kasungu-May 2017.
USAID/LGAP. (2017, May). Citizen Perception Survey: Summary Report-Lilongwe (Rural)-May 
2017.
USAID/LGAP. (2017, May). Citizen Perception Survey: Summary Report-M’Belwa-May 2017.
USAID/LGAP. (2017, May). Citizen Perception Survey: Summary Report-Machinga-May 2017.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 67
USAID/LGAP. (2017, May). Citizen Perception Survey: Summary Report-Mulanje-May 2017.
USAID/LGAP. (2017, May). Citizen Perception Survey: Summary Report-Zomba-May 2017.
LOCAL AUTHORITY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS
USAID/LGAP. (n.d.) Local Authority Performance Assessment: Summary Findings and 
Recommendations.
MLGRD/DAI. (2020, April) Local Authority Performance Assessment (LAPA) for 2018-2019 Fiscal 
Year.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLANS
USAID/DAI. (n.d.) Activity Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: Malawi Local 
Government Accountability and Performance (LGAP) project. Time Period Coverage: 
August 2016 to August 2021
USAID/DAI. (2019, October) Activity Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (APMEP): 
Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance (LGAP). Time Period Covered: 
October 2019-August 2021
IMPACT EVALUATION
Martin, L., & Scim, B. (2020, February 03). Pre-Analysis Plan: Increasing Tax Compliance in 
Malawian Markets. 
Martin, L., Seim, B., & Hoellerbauer, S. (2020, January). Impact Evaluation of USAID/Malawi 
Local Government Accountability and Performance (LGAP) Activity Final Report
OTHER LGAP REPORTS
DAI and MobileAccord/GeoPoll. (2017) Malawi Local Government Accountability and 
Performance (LGAP): Measuring Social Accountability and Citizen Perception 2017.
USAID/DAI. (2017, July 30) Malawi Local Government Accountability and Performance. Report 
on the capacity assessment of the ministry of local government and rural development 
(District Councils) in light of the new establishment warrant.
USAID/LGAP. (n.d.) Study on Improving Local Revenues for District Councils in Malawi. 
Summary of Findings & Recommendations.
USAID/LGAP. (n.d.) Institutional Capacity assessment of Local Governments. Summary of 
Findings & Recommendations.
USAID/LGAP. (n.d.) Study of Measuring Social Accountability and Citizen Perception. Summary 
Findings & Recommendations.
USAID/LGAP. (n.d.) Political Economy of Decentralization and Local Government Reforms –
Malawi. Summary of Findings & Recommendations.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 68
USAID & GOM REPORTS
USAID/Malawi. (2020, March 13). Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2013-
2018. 
USAID/Malawi. (2020). Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2020-2025. 
Government of Malawi (n.d.) Guidebook on Local Government System in Malawi. 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 69
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION 
PARTICIPANTS
LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS TO INTERVIEW
Table 3, below, contains key informants and focus group discussion respondents that the team 
will prioritize speaking with through approximately 50 interviews and focus group discussions 
during in-country fieldwork. Within each of the ten selected districts, the team will use group 
interviews to maximize the number of informants consulted during approximately four qualitative 
events per district. 
Table 3: List of Stakeholders to Interview
CATEGORY 1: MINISTRIES AND DEPARTMENTS AT CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL
MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
No. Designation Contact Address
1. Director of Local Government Services P.O. Box 30312, Lilongwe 3
2. Deputy Director Decentralization P.O. Box 30312, Lilongwe 3
3. Deputy Director of Planning and 
Development P.O. Box 30312, Lilongwe 3
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
No. Designation Contact Address
4. Director of Curriculum Development Malawi Institute of Education –Zomba
5. Executive Director Malawi Institute of Education –Zomba
6. Director of Basic Education Capital Hill-Lilongwe
7. Deputy Director of Basic Education Capital Hill-Lilongwe
8. Director of Inspection Capital Hill-Lilongwe
9. Deputy Director of Inspection Capital Hill-Lilongwe
10. Chief School Inspector Capital Hill-Lilongwe
11. Director of Education Planning Capital Hill-Lilongwe
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
No. Designation Contact Address
12. Secretary to the Treasury Capital Hill, P.O. Box 30049, Lilongwe
13. Director – Public Financial Management 
Systems Capital Hill, P.O. Box 30049, Lilongwe
MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
No. Designation Contact Address
14. Director of Planning and Development P.O. Box 30136, Lilongwe 3
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 70
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT - OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT AND CABINET
No. Designation Contact Address
15. Principle Secretary Capital Hill, P.O. Box 30227, Lilongwe 3
16. Director of HR Capital Hill, P.O. Box 30227, Lilongwe 3
PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM MANAGEMENT UNIT - OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND CABINET 
No. Designation Contact Address
17. Chief Director Capital Hill, P.O. Box 30227, Lilongwe 3
18. Director (Planning and Management) Capital Hill, P.O. Box 30227, Lilongwe 3
CATEGORY 2: QUASI-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DECENTRALIZATION 
No. Designation Contact Address
19. The Chairperson Private Bag B362 Capital City Lilongwe 
MALAWI LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (MALGA)
No. Designation Contact Address
20. Executive Director Private Bag 34 Lilongwe
NATIONAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMITTEE
No. Designation Contact Address
21. Executive Director Private Bag 352, Lilongwe 3
22. Director of Finance Private Bag 352, Lilongwe 3
23. Director of Infrastructure Private Bag 352, Lilongwe 3
24. Director of Corporate Services Private Bag 352, Lilongwe 3
25. Capacity Development Specialist Private Bag 352, Lilongwe 3
26. Knowledge Management Specialist Private Bag 352, Lilongwe 3
CATEGORY 3: CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS
NATIONAL INITIATIVE FOR CIVIC EDUCATION (NICE)
No. Designation Contact Address
27. Executive Director P.O. Box 1046, Lilongwe
CATHOLIC COMMISSION FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE
No. Designation Contact Address
28. National Coordinator P.O. Box 30384 Lilongwe 3
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 71
HUMAN RIGHT DEFENDERS COALITION (HRDC)
No. Designation Contact Address
29. The Chairperson Area 47 Sector 3, Ng’ombe Khwawa Road, 
House No. 61
CATEGORY 4: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AT DISTRICT LEVEL
DISTRICT COUNCIL SECRETARIATS (10 DISTRICTS)
No. Designation Contact Address
30. District Commissioner Balaka
31. Director of Planning and Development Balaka
32. Director of Finance Balaka
33. District Education Manager Balaka
34. District Commissioner Chikwawa
35. Director of Planning and Development Chikwawa
36. Director of Finance Chikwawa
37. District Education Manager Chikwawa
38. District Commissioner Dowa
39. Director of Planning and Development Dowa
40. Director of Finance Dowa
41. District Education Manager Dowa
42. District Commissioner Karonga
43. Director of Planning and Development Karonga
44. Director of Finance Karonga
45. District Education Manager Karonga
46. District Commissioner Lilongwe
47. Director of Planning and Development Lilongwe
48. Director of Finance Lilongwe
49. District Education Manager Lilongwe
50. District Commissioner M’mbelwa
51. Director of Planning and Development M’mbelwa
52. Director of Finance M’mbelwa
53. District Education Manager M’mbelwa-South
54. Chief Education Officer M’mbelwa-North
55. District Commissioner Mangochi
56. Director of Planning and Development Mangochi
57. Director of Finance Mangochi
58. District Education Manager Mangochi
59. District Commissioner Mulanje
60. Director of Planning and Development Mulanje
61. Director of Finance Mulanje
62. District Education Manager Mulanje
63. District Commissioner Nkhata Bay
64. Director of Planning and Development Nkhata Bay
65. Director of Finance Nkhata Bay
66. District Education Manager Nkhata Bay
67. District Commissioner Nkhotakota
68. Director of Planning and Development Nkhotakota
69. Director of Finance Nkhotakota
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 72
DISTRICT COUNCIL SECRETARIATS (10 DISTRICTS) – CONT’D
No. Designation Contact Address
70. District Education Manager Nkhotakota
DISTRICT FULL COUNCIL CHAIRS (10 DISTRICTS)
No. Designation Contact Address
71. Council Chair Balaka
72. Council Chair Chikwawa
73. Council Chair Dowa
74. Council Chair Karonga
75. Council Chair Lilongwe
76. Council Chair M’mbelwa
77. Council Chair Mangochi
78. Council Chair Mulanje
79. Council Chair Nkhata Bay
80. Council Chair Nkhotakota
DISTRICT COUNCIL SERVICE COMITTEES (10 DISTRICTS)
No. Designation Contact Address
81. Finance Committee Chair Balaka
82. Development Service Committee Chair Balaka
83. Education Service Committee Chair Balaka
84.
Works Service Committee Chair & 
Human Resources Service Committee 
Chair
Balaka
85. Health and Environment service. 
Committee Chair Balaka
86. Agriculture Service Committee Chair Balaka
87. Finance Committee Chair Chikwawa
88. Development Service Committee Chair Chikwawa
89. Education Service Committee Chair Chikwawa
90. Works Service Committee Chair Chikwawa
91. Health and Environment service. 
Committee Chair Chikwawa
92. Human Resources Service Committee 
Chair Chikwawa
93. Agriculture Service Committee Chair Chikwawa
94. Chair, Finance Committee Dowa
95. Chair, Development Committee Dowa
96. Chair, Education Committee Dowa
97. Chair, Human Resource Committee Dowa
98. Chair, Development Committee Karonga
99. Chair, Education Committee Karonga
100. Chair, Human Resource Committee Karonga
101. Chair, Finance Committee Lilongwe
102. Chair, Development Committee Lilongwe
103. Chair, Education Committee Lilongwe
104. Chair, Human Resource Committee Lilongwe
105. Chair, Finance Committee Mangochi
106. Chair, Development Committee Mangochi
107. Chair, Education Committee Mangochi
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 73
DISTRICT COUNCIL SERVICE COMITTEES (10 DISTRICTS) – CONT’D
No. Designation Contact Address
108. Chair, Human Resource Committee Mangochi
109. Chair, Finance Committee Mbelwa
110. Chair, Development Committee Mbelwa
111. Chair, Education Committee Mbelwa
112. Chair, Human Resource Committee Mbelwa
113. Chair, Public Works Mulanje
114. Chair, Health and ENV Mulanje
115. Chair, Agriculture Mulanje
116. Chair, Education Mulanje
117. Chair, Finance Mulanje
118. Chair, Human Resource Mulanje
119. Chair, Development Mulanje
120. Chair, Finance Committee Nkhatabay
121. Chair, Development Committee Nkhatabay
122. Chair, Education Committee Nkhatabay
123. Chair, Human Resource Committee Nkhatabay
124. Chair, Finance Committee Nkhotakota
125. Chair, Development Committee Nkhotakota
126. Chair, Education Committee Nkhotakota
127. Chair, Human Resource Committee Nkhotakota
DISTRICT CSO NETWORK (10 DISTRICTS)
No. Designation Contact Address
128. CSO Chair MZIDEN – Mzimba Boma
129. CSO Chair FOCUS, Private Bag 17, Karonga
130. CSO Chair YONECO – Nkhata Bay
131. CSO Chair C/o NICE Chikwawa Office
132. CSO Chair Mulanje District
133. CSO Chair Lilongwe District Council
134. CSO Chair Dowa District Council
135. CSO Chair Nkhotakota
136. CSO Chair Balaka
137. CSO Chair P.O. Bix 194, Mangochi
138. DEN Chair Mzimba south
139. DEN Chair Mzimba north
140. DEN Chair Nkhatabay
141. DEN Chair Karonga
142. DEN Chair Balaka DEN
143. DEN Chair Mangochi DEN
144. DEN Chair Dowa
145. DEN Chair Nkhotakota
146. DEN Chair Lilongwe
147. DEN Chair Chikwawa
148. DEN Chair Mulanje
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 74
CATEGORY 5: AREA DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (ADC) LEVEL (10 DISTRICTS)
No. Designation Contact Address
149. ADC Chair Balaka-Chakanza ADC
150. ADC Chair Balaka-Nsamala ADC
151. ADC Chair Balaka-Mpilisi ADC
152. ADC Chair Balaka-Kapalamula ADC
153. ADC Chair Balaka-Phimbi ADC
154. ADC Chair Balaka-Nkaya ADC
155. ADC Chair Balaka-Chanthunya ADC
156. ADC Chair Balaka-Nyanyala ADC
157. ADC Chair Balaka-Phalula ADC
158. ADC Chair Balaka-Sawali ADC
159. ADC Chair Balaka-Matola ADC
160. ADC Chair Balaka-Toleza ADC
161. ADC Chair Balaka-Mbera ADC
162. ADC Chair Balaka-Kachenga ADC
163. ADC Chair Balaka-Amidu ADC
164. ADC Chair Balaka-Kalembo ADC
165. ADC Chair Balaka-Mpoto ADC
166. ADC Chair Chikwawa-Malemia
167. ADC Chair Chikwawa-Mulolo
168. ADC Chair Chikwawa-Mbenje
169. ADC Chair Chikwawa-Tengani
170. ADC Chair Chikwawa-Ngabu
171. ADC Chair Chikwawa-Makoko
172. ADC Chair Chikwawa-Chimombo
173. ADC Chair Chikwawa-Nyachikazi
174. ADC Chair Chikwawa-Ndamera
175. ADC Chair Dowa-Mponela ADC
176. ADC Chair Dowa-Dzoole B ADC
177. ADC Chair Dowa-Mkukula B ADC
178. ADC Chair Dowa-Chakhaza A ADC
179. ADC Chair Dowa-Msakambewa ADC
180. ADC Chair Dowa-Kayembe ADC
181. ADC Chair Dowa-Dzoole A ADC
182. ADC Chair Dowa-Mkukula A ADC
183. ADC Chair Dowa-Chakhaza B ADC
184. ADC Chair Dowa-Chiwere ADC
185. ADC Chair Karonga-Mbande ADC
186. ADC Chair Karonga-Iponga ADC
187. ADC Chair Karonga-Ngerenge ADC
188. ADC Chair Karonga-Lupembe ADC
189. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Chimutu ADC
190. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Mtema ADC
191. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Chiseka ADC
192. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Chitekwere ADC
193. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Malili ADC
194. ADC Chair Lilongwe-M’bang’ombe ADC
195. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Kalolo North ADC
196. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Kalolo South ADC
197. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Kalumbu Mtenthera ADC
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 75
CATEGORY 5: AREA DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (ADC) LEVEL (10 DISTRICTS) – CONT’D
No. Designation Contact Address
198. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Kalumbu Nyanja ADC
199. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Njewa ADC
200. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Chitukula ADC
201. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Masumbankhunda ADC
202. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Tsabango ADC
203. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Chadza ADC
204. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Mazengera ADC
205. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Masula ADC
206. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Kabudula ADC
207. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Khongoni ADC
208. ADC Chair Lilongwe-Kalumba ADC
209. ADC Chair Lilongwe-M’bwatalika ADC
210. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Bwananyambi 1 ADC
211. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Majuni ADC
212. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Malombola ADC
213. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Koche ADC
214. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Mbwadzulu ADC
215. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Lulanga ADC
216. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Masanje ADC
217. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Nkope ADC
218. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Katuli ADC
219. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Thumu ADC
220. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Malembo ADC
221. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Majiga ADC
222. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Namisi ADC
223. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Phirilongwe ADC
224. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Mpita ADC
225. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Lutufu ADC
226. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Chimwala ADC
227. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Mponda ADC
228. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Chilipa ADC
229. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Chowe ADC
230. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Makanjira ADC
231. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Chiwunda ADC
232. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Namavi ADC
233. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Malindi ADC
234. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Bwananyambi 2 ADC
235. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Mvumba ADC
236. Chair, ADC Mangochi-Fort Maquire ADC
237. ADC Chair Mbelwa-Chindi ADC
238. ADC Chair Mbelwa-Mzukuzuku ADC
239. ADC Chair Mbelwa-Mmbelwa ADC
240. ADC Chair Mbelwa-Mzikuola ADC
241. ADC Chair Mbelwa-Kampingo Sibande ADC
242. ADC Chair Mbelwa-Khosolo ADC
243. ADC Chair Mulanje-Mulomba ADC
244. ADC Chair Mulanje-Ndanga ADC
245. ADC Chair Mulanje-Nkanda ADC
246. ADC Chair Mulanje-Juma ADC
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 76
CATEGORY 5: AREA DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (ADC) LEVEL (10 DISTRICTS) – CONT’D
No. Designation Contact Address
247. ADC Chair Mulanje-Chikumbu ADC
248. ADC Chair Mulanje-Mkumbiza ADC
249. ADC Chair Mulanje-Mthiramanga ADC
250. ADC Chair Mulanje-Njema ADC
251. ADC Chair Mulanje-Mimosa ADC
252. ADC Chair Mulanje-Milonde ADC
253. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Zilakoma A ADC
254. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Zilakoma B ADC
255. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Fukambiri ADC
256. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Malengamzoma ADC
257. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Malanda ADC
258. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Fukamalaza ADC
259. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Mankhambira ADC
260. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Mkumbira ADC
261. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Timbiri ADC
262. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Thula ADC
263. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Chipimbininga ADC
264. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Nyaluwanga ADC
265. ADC Chair Nkatabay-M’bwana ADC
266. ADC Chair Nkatabay-Mkondowe ADC
267. ADC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Mwansambo 
268. AEC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Mwansambo 
269. ADC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Mwadzama
270. AEC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Mwadzama 
271. ADC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Nkhanga
272. AEC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Nkhanga
273. ADC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Malengachanzi
274. AEC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Malengachanzi
275. ADC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Mphonde
276. AEC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Mphonde
277. ADC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Kanyenda
278. AEC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Kanyenda
279. ADC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Kafuzira
280. AEC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Kafuzira
281. ADC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Lupachi Sub-ADC
282. AEC Chairperson Nkhotakota-Mwansambo
CATEGORY 6: DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
USAID
No. Designation Contact Address
283. LGAP Chief of Party DAI
284. Former COR USAID/Malawi
285. COR USAID/Malawi
286. Former Director of DRG / Senior 
Governance Adviser USAID/Malawi USAID/DG
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 77
USAID – CONT’D
No. Designation Contact Address
287. Governance Advisor British High Commission
288. Education Advisor British High Commission
CATEGORY 7: GRANTEE PARTNERS (CSOS)
USAID
No Designation Contact Address
289. Executive Director, Tovwirane M’mbelwa South 
290. Executive Director, Foundation for 
Community and Capacity Development
Nkhota Kota 
291. Team Leader, Rights Advice Centre Mangochi
292. Executive Director, Nkhadze Youth Alive Balaka
293. Executive Director, Circle for Integrated 
Community and Rural Development
Chikwawa
294. Chief Executive Officer, mHub Area 15 Chiwengo Road, Plot # 46, P.O. Box 
1689 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 78
APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE INTERVIEW GUIDE
INTERVIEWS (SEMI-STRUCTURED) AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS
This guide is presented as a sample or illustrative interview protocol. Please note that, as 
interviews will be semi-structured, these questions will not necessarily be asked verbatim or in 
this order. Instead, the guide will act as a memory aide or a checklist for the interviewers, to 
ensure that relevant topics have been covered to the extent possible. Additionally, successful 
semi-structured interviewing requires interviewer flexibility to pursue useful themes outside of 
those listed or to focus on a subset of themes where a source is particularly informative. As such, 
this guide will serve as a “living” document during fieldwork, and questions may be dropped, 
added, or revised during fieldwork.
INTRODUCTION (ALL)
Thank you very much for taking the time to meet with us. Before we start, I’d like to give you a bit 
more context for the research. I’m an independent consultant engaged by the Cloudburst Group 
and an expert in local governance. Our Research Assistant, _____________, is also here to take 
notes.
We are conducting a performance evaluation of USAID’s and DIFD’s Local Governance 
Accountability and Performance (LGAP) project, assessing LGAP’s performance to date and 
determine whether the program’s activities are achieving the intended results as outlined in the 
agreement. We hope to learn whether and how LGAP is achieving its goal of supporting the 
Government of Malawi in the fulfillment of its decentralization policy, including both changes to 
the form of government (policies, regulations, organizational structures) and the function of 
government through improved performance. We asked to meet with you both to receive relevant 
background information and to hear your thoughts on the performance of LGAP in these areas. 
Your contribution is very important to us and we appreciate your time and input. Results of this 
interview may be used in assessment reporting, and this report will be made publicly available 
online. However, we will ask for your permission if we are considering a direct quote and otherwise 
your responses will be kept confidential. And of course, you do not need to answer every question. 
Do you have any questions for us before we start?
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 79
Date: Interview No.
RESPONDENT 
INFORMATION
Name:
Occupation/Title:
Organization: DHRMD MFEP&D Other:
LGSC MLGRD
District 
Council:
OPC NLGFC ADC:
MALGH VDC:
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1 Please provide a brief background about your participation in the LGAP activity.
Probes: Activities (trainings, consultations), Sector, Area (HR, PFM, Governance), Years
Notes:
EQ 1: To what extent has LGAP implementation increased Malawi Government ACCOUNTABILITY at the local level? If 
so, how?
2 Do you think the LGAP activities were effective in meeting the target to improve local government accountability?
Yes ___ Please explain: Notes:
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 80
No ___ Skip to 4
3 Which activities were (more) effective?
Notes:
4 What factors made it (in)effective?
Notes:
5 Were there planned LGAP activities that were not achieved?
Yes ___ Please explain: Notes:
No ___ Skip to 7
6 What factors made these activities difficult to achieve?
Notes:
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 81
EQ 2: To what extent has LGAP implementation contributed to improved service delivery across sectors ? If so, how?
7 Has LGAP helped improve service delivery across the targeted sectors?
Yes ___ If yes, in which sectors? Notes:
No ___ Skip to 11 Public works, health, environment
Agriculture and natural resources
Education
Commerce
Gender
Cross-cutting
8 Please explain how service delivery improved in this sector.
Notes:
9 Please explain which LGAP activities improved service delivery.
Notes:
10 Do you think service delivery improved throughout the organization or just in key areas/offices?
Probe: e.g., The whole district council or just some offices/sub-units
Notes:
11 Why did it (not) help improve service delivery?
Notes:
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 82
EQ 3: What are any unintended consequences or externalities of LGAP support? How can these consequences be 
mitigated (if negative) or expanded (if positive)?
12 Did the LGAP result in any positive externalities in your work or organization?
Probes: Positive externalities: spillover effects in the organization
Yes ___ Please explain: Notes:
No ___ Skip to 14
13 Will your organization continue the positive externalities gained?
Yes ___ Please explain: Notes:
No ___ 
14 Did the LGAP result in any unintended consequences in your work or organization?
Probes: Unintended consequences: Unexpected added workload or responsibilities
Yes ___ Please explain: Notes:
No ___ Skip to 17
15 How did you address these unintended consequences?
Notes:
16 Did you coordinate with USAID on addressing these unintended consequences?
Yes ______ Please explain: Notes:
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 83
No ___ 
EQ 4: How has the LGAP award used the resources (financial, human resources/technical assistance) efficiently and 
effectively in relation to the planned activities, outputs and outcomes, and sustainability?
17 Do you think LGAP provided enough technical assistance (TA) to you and your organization?
Probes: TA refers to trainings, consultations, assessments, mentorships, and all other non-physical support
Yes ___ Please explain: Notes:
No ___ 
18 Would you or your organization be able to maintain the skills gained from LGAP even if, hypothetically, the program would 
end tomorrow?
Yes ___ Please explain: Notes:
No ___ 
19 Do you think LGAP provided enough manuals, toolkits, and other resource documents even if, hypothetically, the program 
would end tomorrow?
Yes ___ Please explain: Notes:
No ___ 
20 Do you think LGAP provided enough financial and physical resources for your organization?
Probe: Physical resources, e.g. LAN network for IFMIS assistance 
Yes Financial ___ Please explain: Notes:
Yes Physical ___ Skip 
to
No ___ Skip to
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 84
21 Please discuss any measures your organization took to use financial resources 
efficiently.
Notes:
EQ 5: What lessons have been learned to inform future governance programming? In particular, how relevant are the 
result areas and sub-result areas in the LGAP award to achieving the activity’s overall objective to build the capacity for 
responsive, effective and accountable service delivery through local governments in Malawi?
22 What specific support would you keep if, hypothetically, there will be a new program similar to LGAP?
Probes: Specific support, e.g. If planning what specific plan, VAP, SEP?
Notes:
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 85
23 What specific support would you remove if, hypothetically, there will be a new program similar to LGAP?
Probes: Specific support, e.g. If planning what specific plan, VAP, SEP?
Notes:
24 Have you participated in a program similar to LGAP but given by another organization?
Probe: GIZ, EU
Notes:
END OF INTERVIEW. 
THANK YOU.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 86
APPENDIX 4: SURVEY
This draft survey is presented below for USAID review. Before deployment the survey will be 
piloted and refined to ensure survey questions and flow are easily understandable.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT
Hello. My name is [ENUMERATOR NAME]. I am working with Cloudburst and USAID. We are 
conducting a study to evaluate the USAID/Malawi Local Government Accountability Performance 
program. The results of this study may help to improve the programs offered in Malawi in the 
future. You have been randomly selected to participate in this study if you choose to. If you agree 
to participate in this study, we would like to ask some survey questions. This interview will take 
about 45 minutes. You will be asked a few questions about yourself and about your opinions 
about local services. 
Your participation is completely voluntary. You can choose not to participate now, or at any time 
during the survey. All information collected in this study is confidential. Your answers will be 
grouped with the answers of other people like you and your name will not be used or shared with 
anyone outside of this study. There are no known risks of participating in this research project 
other than losing 45 minutes of productive time. There are also no direct benefits to you if you 
participate other than knowing your information will help USAID understand whether its programs 
are working or whether they need to improve. Should you feel uncomfortable with any question(s), 
you may refuse to answer it and I will move on to the next question. 
If you have any questions or concerns now or in the future, you may contact [LOCAL 
SUPERVISOR NAME] at [SUPERVISOR MOBILE PHONE NUMBER] or [SUPERVISOR EMAIL 
ADDRESS]. Or you can contact Kate Marple-Cantrell at Cloudburst: +1-240-582-3638 or 
kate.marple-cantrell@cloudburstgroup.com. Do you have any questions?
PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO BE COMPLETED BY ENUMERATOR
1 District Balaka
Chikwawa
Dowa
Karonga
Lilongwe
M’mbelwa
Mangochi
Mulanje
Nkhata Bay
Nkhotakota
2 Urban or rural? Urban
Rural
3 Town/Traditional Authority Name (List TK)
4 Village/Neighborhood [Text fill]
Are the following facilities present in the area?
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 87
5 School (private, public or both)? Yes
No
Unable to determine
6 Health clinic (private, public or both)? Yes
No
Unable to determine
7 Market stalls (selling groceries or clothing)? Yes
No
Unable to determine
8 Enumerator Name (List TK)
9 Consent to participate? Yes
No (End)
10 Language of interview Chichewa
Chitumbuka
English
Other, Specify: [Text fill]
11 Respondent gender Male
Female
Other
12 Create a unique survey ID using the following format: 
MMDDID1ID2, where MM corresponds to month, DD 
corresponds to day, ID1 corresponds to the interviewer’s ID 
(1, 2, 3, or 4), and ID2 corresponds to the order interview of 
the day (1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th).
[Text fill, numbers only]
MODULE I: PERCEPTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
I would like to ask you some questions about services in your community.
13 Are government services in your community better or worse 
than they were five years ago? 
Much worse
Worse
The same
Better
Much better
Don’t know
14 Which service requires the most improvement in your 
community? 
Health
Education
Water
Agriculture
Roads
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 88
Bridges
Other, specify: 
15 How satisfied were you with the behavior of the health worker 
during your last visit?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
16 How satisfied were you with the availability of medicines at 
your facility?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
17 How satisfied are you with the work and involvement of the 
Health Advisory Committee for your area?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
18 How satisfied are you with the availability and attendance of 
teachers at the school in your area?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
19 How satisfied are you with the learning and teaching 
materials available at the school in your area?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
20 How satisfied are you with the work and involvement of your 
Parent Teacher Association (PTA)?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
21 How satisfied are you with the quality of agricultural 
extension services near you?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 89
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
22 How satisfied were you with the Fertilizer Subsidy Input 
Programme last year?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
23 Do you know who your councillor is? Yes
No
Not sure/Don’t know
24 How satisfied are you with how your councillor consults 
citizens?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
25 How satisfied are you with how your council responds to 
community needs?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
26 How satisfied are you with the quality of projects 
implemented by your council?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
27 How satisfied are you with how your council manages funds 
on projects or services?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Don’t know
28 How satisfied are you with your accessibility to information 
from your council?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 90
Don’t know
How likely is it that you could get the following information from government or other public institutions?
29 ...if you went to the local school to find out what the school’s 
budget is and how the funds have been used? 
Not at all likely
Not very likely
Somewhat likely
Very likely
Don’t know
30 ...if you went to the District/City Council to find out who owns 
a piece of land in your community?
Not at all likely
Not very likely
Somewhat likely
Very likely
Don’t know
31 ...if you went to the District/City Council to find out about the 
District Development Plan and budgets?
Not at all likely
Not very likely
Somewhat likely
Very likely
Don’t know
In the last 12 months, have you participated in the following?
32 A meeting in your community to discuss the village action 
plan?
Yes
No
Not sure/cannot recall
33 A meeting in your district to discuss the district development 
plan?
Yes
No
Not sure/cannot recall
34 A meeting in your community to discuss a social contract 
between the primary school and the school community?
Yes
No
Not sure/cannot recall
35 A meeting in your community to discuss how to collect and/or 
spend market fees collected from vendors?
Yes
No
Not sure/cannot recall
36 A training program in your district to learn about how to 
implement procedures for managing community resources 
(e.g., finances, staffing)?
Yes
No
Not sure/cannot recall
37 A training program in your district to learn about how to 
implement procedures for keeping better or more complete 
records?
Yes
No
Not sure/cannot recall
How much do you trust the following, or haven’t you heard enough about them to say?
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 91
38 Your member of parliament? Not a lot
Just a little
Somewhat
A lot
Don’t know/haven’t heard
39 Your district council? Not a lot
Just a little
Somewhat
A lot
Don’t know/haven’t heard
40 Your traditional leader? Not a lot
Just a little
Somewhat
A lot
Don’t know/haven’t heard
41 Civil society organizations? Not a lot
Just a little
Somewhat
A lot
Don’t know/haven’t heard
42 Your Village Development Committee (VDC)? Not a lot
Just a little
Somewhat
A lot
Don’t know/haven’t heard
43 Finally, if you could make a suggestion for improving local 
government accountability and performance in this area, 
what would it be?
[Text fill]
MODULE II: DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
Now I would like to ask some questions about you.
44 First Name [Text fill]
45 Last Name/Surname [Text fill]
46 What is your ethnic community, cultural group, or tribe? Tumbuka
Nkhonde
Lambya
Chewa
Yao
Ngoni
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 92
Lomwe
Mang’anja
Sena
Sukwa
Senga
Tonga
“Malawian only” or “Do not think 
of myself in those terms”
Refused to answer
Don’t know
47 What is your religion, if any? Roman Catholic
CCAP
Muslim
Pentecostal or Evangelical 
Christian
Other Christian
Other, specify: [Text fill]
48 How long have you been living in your current 
village/neighborhood?
Years: [Text fill, numbers only]
49 What is your present marital status? Married
Single
Widowed
Divorced or Separated
50 How many people live in your household, including yourself? 
Please include only the people who usually live and eat in 
your home and not temporary visitors. Also, include the 
household head even if he or she has not lived in the 
household for the past 6 months, as long as he/she is still 
living and supporting this household. Please do not include 
children who have already moved out or gotten married.
[Text fill, numbers only]
51 What is the highest level of education you have completed? None
Some primary school
Completed primary school
Some secondary school
Completed secondary school
Vocational training or diploma 
certificate
Completed university
Post-graduate education 
Adult literacy program
Other, Specify: [Text fill]
52 How long does it take to reach the public primary school 
nearest to your home?
Minutes: [Text fill, numbers only]
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 93
53 How long does it take to reach the market nearest to your 
home?
Minutes: [Text fill, numbers only]
54 How long does it take to reach the clinic nearest to your 
home?
Minutes: [Text fill, numbers only]
55 What is your main occupation? Never had a job
Student
Housewife/homemaker
Agriculture/farming/fishery/forest
ry
Trader/hawker/vendor
Retail/shop
Unskilled manual labor (e.g., 
cleaner, laborer, domestic help, 
Artisan or skilled manual worker 
(e.g., electrician, mechanic, 
machinist)
Clerical or secretary
Supervisor/foreman/senior 
manager
Security services (police, military, 
private security)
Mid-level professional (e.g. 
teacher, civil servant)
Upper-level professional (e.g., 
banker, lawyer, doctor, engineer, 
accountant, senior level 
government)
Other, specify: [Text fill]
Are you a member of any of the following committees, councils, or organizations?
56 Area Development Committee (ADC) Yes
No
57 District Executive Committees (DEC) Yes
No
58 Village Development Committee (VDC) Yes
No
59 District Councillor or Council Service Committees Yes
No
60 Village headman or village head’s counsellor Yes 
No
61 Some other local leadership organization? If yes, specify: [Text, fill]
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 94
62 In general, how do you rate your living conditions compared 
to those of other Malawians?
Much worse
Worse
Same
Better
Much better
Don’t know
63 Looking back, how do you rate economic conditions in this 
country compared to 12 months ago?
Much worse
Worse
Same
Better
Much better
Don’t know
Over the past year, how often, if ever, have you or anyone in your family:
64 ...gone without enough food to eat? Never
Just once or twice
Several times
Many times
Always
Don’t know
65 ...gone without enough clean water for home use? Never
Just once or twice
Several times
Many times
Always
Don’t know
66 ...gone without medicines or medical treatment? Never
Just once or twice
Several times
Many times
Always
Don’t know
67 ...gone without enough fuel to cook your food? Never
Just once or twice
Several times
Many times
Always
Don’t know
68 ...gone without a cash income? Never
Just once or twice
Several times
Many times
Always
Don’t know
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 95
APPENDIX 5: TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF EVALUATION MILESTONES, 
MEETINGS, VISITS, KIIS, AND FIELDWORK13
TASK TIMELINE
PROPOSED 
DEADLINE
Draft and submit desk review and workplan, including 
desk review of pertinent documents and a detailed 
performance evaluation methodology
September 21, 
2020
USAID provides feedback on the desk review and 
workplan
Within one week of 
receiving the document
September 28, 
2020
Final desk review and workplan submitted Within three days of 
receiving comments
October 1, 2020
Field preparations, including obtaining IRB and other 
necessary permissions; programming, translating, 
testing, and piloting the survey; and preparing 
introduction letters for interviews
Three weeks plus one 
day after submission of 
desk review and 
workplan
October 2, 2020 –
October 23, 2020
Qualitative data collection, including in-brief meeting 
with USAID/Malawi
25 interview days and 5 
travel days
October 25, 2020-
November 23, 
2020
Quantitative data collection 40 interview days and 5 
travel days
October 24, 2020-
December 7, 2020
Out-brief with USAID on preliminary findings December 9, 2020
Stakeholder workshop to present preliminary findings 
for validation and inputs
December 11, 
2020
Draft Performance Evaluation Report with preliminary 
findings
January 22, 2021
Receive feedback on the Performance Evaluation 
Report
Within two weeks of 
receiving the document
February 5, 2021
Final Performance Evaluation Report submitted Within two weeks of 
receiving comments
February 19, 2021
USAID Final Report approval Within two weeks of 
receiving the document
March 5, 2021
Draft Post-Evaluation Action Plan submitted Within two weeks of 
final report approval
March 19, 2021
13 Please note that this work plan timeline assumes that local research review can be completed in approximately five weeks (two
weeks during desk report review + three weeks following desk report approval). If this review is delayed, we may need to shift the 
schedule of fieldwork accordingly to ensure receipt of necessary approvals before the commencement of data collection.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 96
ANNEX C: QUALITATIVE EVENT SUMMARY TABLES
Table A.1: Number of Interviews by Location
LOCATION NUMBER OF 
INDIVIDUAL 
INTERVIEWS
NUMBER OF GROUP 
INTERVIEWS
TOTAL NUMBER OF 
INTERVIEWS
NUMBER OF 
INDIVIDUALS
INCLUDED IN 
INTERVIEWS
Balaka 3 3 6 21
Chikwawa 6 1 7 11
Dowa 1 2 3 8
Karonga 2 2 4 7
Lilongwe 3 0 3 3
Mangochi 5 4 9 23
M’mbelwa 6 2 8 10
Mulanje 2 2 4 11
Nkhotakota 3 4 7 12
Nkhata Bay 2 1 3 4
National Level
DAI 2 1 3 15
USAID 3 0 3 3
FCDO 0 1 1 2
Other National 
Level
13 2 15 17
Outbrief 0 1 1 25
Total 51 26 77 172
Note: 21 interviews from pilot districts, and 33 interviews from expansion districts.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 97
Table A.2: Number of Interviews by Type of Respondent
TYPE OF 
RESPONDENT
NUMBER OF 
INDIVIDUAL 
INTERVIEWS
NUMBER OF GROUP 
INTERVIEWS
TOTAL NUMBER OF 
INTERVIEWS
NUMBER OF 
INDIVIDUALS
INCLUDED IN 
INTERVIEWS
District Level
Councilors 7 4 11 20
District 
Commissioners/ 
Other District 
Staff
8 9 17 33
ADC Members 4 5 9 36
DEN Members 6 1 7 8
CSO 
Representatives
8 2 10 13
Sub-Total 33 21 54 110
National Level
National Staff 8 2 10 12
Other 5 0 5 5
Sub-total 13 2 15 17
DAI 0 1 1 15
USAID 3 0 3 3
FCDO 0 1 1 2
Outbrief 0 1 1 25
Total 51 26 77 172
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 98
Table A.3: Significant LGAP Activities to Foster Accountability
TYPES OF LGAP ACTIVITIES FOSTERING 
ACCOUNTABILITY AS MENTIONED IN KEY INFORMANT 
INTERVIEWS
NUMBER OF MENTIONS
4 PILOT 
DISTRICTS 6 OTHER 
DISTRICTS
NATIONAL 
LEVEL
TOTAL
Training of District Development Partners 
(ADCs, Councils, Service/Market/School 
Committees)
19 26 0 45
● Governance Training 4 3 - 7
● Roles and Responsibilities 4 4 - 8
● Financial Management 3 2 - 5
● Human Resources Management 1 3 - 4
● Fostering Accountability 3 2 - 5
● ADC Needs Assessment/Empowerment 2 10 - 12
● Training of School Committees 2 2 - 4
Financial Interventions: TA and Training of 
Finance Staff (including in 
IFMIS)/Development of Citizen Budgets/Public 
Expenditures Surveys/ Manuals/ Provision of 
Computers/Market Fee Initiatives
7 8 3 18
Education Initiatives (Developing Social 
Contracts/Accrediting and Training 
Inspectors/Revitalizing District Education 
Networks/Categorizing Teachers by Location)
6 8 2 16
TA to Develop the District Development Plans, 
Socio-Economic Plans, and By-Laws 5 3 3 11
TA on Human Resources Management (e.g. 
Manuals/Updating Personnel Files/HRMIS 
Revamping)
1 2 1 4
Initiatives to Foster Improved Communication 
Between Partners (Meetings, Website on 
Public Sector Reforms)
2 4 2 8
Mobile Phone/Radio/Billboard Outreach to 
Foster Citizen Awareness 2 1 2 5
Total Mentions 42 52 13 107
Source: Key Informant Interviews with 77 Respondents in 10 Districts and the National Level.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 99
Table A.4: Effects of LGAP Activities on Local Government Accountability
TYPES OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOSTERED BY LGAP
ACTIVITIES AS MENTIONED IN KEY INFORMANT 
INTERVIEWS
NUMBER OF MENTIONS
4 PILOT 
DISTRICTS
6 OTHER 
DISTRICTS
NATIONAL 
LEVEL
TOTAL
Accountability through Coordination of
Development Activities 14 14 1 29
● ADCs/Market Committees/Councils 
Empowered to Question Progress and 
Seek Development Improvements and 
Assistance
7 8 1 15
● Council and Secretariat More 
Responsive to Community Input; 
Improved Communication Between 
Partners
1 1 - 2
● Coordination (e.g. Service Committees 
and CSOs) Leads to Reduced 
Duplication and Reduced Overlap of 
Development Activities 
6 3 - 9
● Participatory Management of 
Community Development Fund - 2 - 2
Financial Accountability Activities 20 8 3 31
● Improved and Broader Participation in 
Budgeting/Citizen Budgets/Councilors 
and ADCs Empowered to Ask 
Questions about Budget
3 3 1 7
● More Timely Financial Reports 5 4 2 11
● Secure Collection of Market Fees 
through Electronic Banking 6 1 - 7
● Anti Corruption Activities (Improved 
Accounting Systems, Suggestion 
Boxes, Coordination with Law 
Enforcement)
6 - - 6
Education Activities: Social Contracts Foster 
Education Accountability; Reduced Delay in 
Salaries and Improved Allocation of Teachers; 
Parents Now Pay for Some School Amenities 
(e.g. toilets); School Improvement Funds are 
Tracked; District Education Networks 
Empowered and More Involved; Inspection 
System Revitalized
15 9 1 25
Human Resources Management 
Devolved/Employees More 
Accountable/Reduced Ghost 
Workers/Reduced Vacancies and Excess Staff
- - 2 2
Total 49 31 7 87
Source: Key Informant Interviews with 70 Respondents in 10 Districts and at the National Level.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 100
Table A.5: Citizen Reports of Improvements Needed in Local Government 
TYPES OF GOVERNMENT IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED
NUMBER OF MENTIONS
% OF TOTAL
INTERVIEWS 2 Pilot 
Districts
4 Other 
Districts Total
Government Functioning Improvements Needed
Improved ADC/CSO/Community Engagement in 
Development 12 60 72 22.1
Improved Coordination and Communication Between 
Development Partners 16 34 50 15.3
Less Corruption/More Transparency and 
Accountability 12 34 46 14.1
More Monitoring/Reporting on Development 
Progress 11 27 38 11.7
Less Politicization of Development Funds 8 24 32 9.8
Improved Quality of Staff and Officials/More 
Monitoring of Staff and Officials/Frequent Elections 7 8 15 4.6
Sub-Total 66 187 253 77.6
LGAP Improvements Needed
More Frequent Training at all Levels 3 25 28 8.6
Critical Development Needs Not Being Met
Health Services 9 21 30 9.2
Infrastructure (Roads, Bridges, Electricity, etc.) 11 12 23 7.1
Markets (Infrastructure, Revenues) 11 9 20 6.1
Water Access (e.g. Boreholes) 5 13 18 5.5
Education 2 11 13 4.0
Food Security 6 2 8 2.5
Other (Unemployment, Community Policing, COVID￾19, Business Development) 4 1 5 1.5
Sub-Total 48 69 117 35.9
Total 117 281 398 --
Source: Open-ended comments to Evaluation Survey of 326 citizens in 6 districts (Dowa, Lilongwe, 
M’mbelwa, Mangochi, Nkhata Bay, and Nkhotakota) when asked “What are the most important 
improvements needed to local government in your district?” Total responses do not add to the total number 
of interviews, because some respondents mentioned more than one improvement needed. 
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 101
Table A.6: Service Improvements Due to LGAP
TYPE OF SERVICE IMPROVEMENT MENTIONED
NUMBER OF MENTIONS
4 PILOT 
DISTRICTS
6 OTHER 
DISTRICTS
NATIONAL 
LEVEL TOTAL
Education Service Improvements
Improved Teacher Performance 3 1 - 4
Improved Pupil Performance 1 - - 1
Reduced Absenteeism of Teachers and Pupils 2 - - 2
Reduced Primary School Dropout 1 - - 1
Improved Pupil/Teacher Ratio - - 1 1
Sub-Total 7 1 1 9
Health Service Improvements
Integration of Services through District Health 
Service Committee Activities 2 1 - 3
Improved Public Health Education 1 - - 1
Rapid District-level COVID-19 Response 4 6 1 11
Sub-Total 7 7 2 15
Infrastructure Improvements
Boreholes 1 1 - 2
Market Sheds 3 - - 3
Bridges 1 - - 1
Concrete Paths 1 - - 1
Sub-Total 6 1 - 7
Agricultural Improvements - 1 - 1
Total Improvements Mentioned 20 9 3 32
Source: Based on Key Informant Interviews with 77 individuals. Most individuals, when asked 
about service improvements due to LGAP, stated that it is too early to see service improvements 
or that there is a lack of data on service improvements.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 102
Table A.7: LGAP Unintended Consequences
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES/EXTERNALITIES 
MENTIONED IN KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
NUMBER OF MENTIONS
4 PILOT 
DISTRICTS
6 OTHER 
DISTRICTS
NATIONAL 
LEVEL TOTAL
Positive Consequences
LGAP upgraded IT systems, and improved IT 
reporting and skills, which spillover to many 
government functions (such as more regular 
salaries)
- 1 4 5
LGAP activities increased incentives for staff and 
committees to work harder (e.g. producing 
timely reports to committees)
- 2 1 3
LGAP activities fostered coordination around 
development funds between council, CSOs, 
MPs, and school committees in some districts
2 2 - 4
LGAP stimulated other funders of democracy and 
governance in Malawi 1 - 2 3
LGAP Improved the Functioning of Some Local 
CSOs 1 2 3
Better Functioning Organizations Have Positive 
Spillover Effects for Unanticipated Events 
(e.g. COVID)
1 1 - 2
Market and school upgrades improved public 
health (e.g. toilets) 2 - - 2
Sub-Total 7 8 7 22
Negative Consequences
LGAP activities let to increased conflicts between 
development partners (e.g. councils, ADCs, 
market committees, traditional authorities) 
and/or citizens in some districts
8 3 3 14
LGAP activities led to unintended 
conflicts/duplication with other national 
entities concerning roles and responsibilities
- 2 5 7
Sub-total 8 5 8 21
Total 15 13 15 43
Source: Key Informant Interviews with 77 Respondents in 10 Districts and at the National Level.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 103
Table A.8: LGAP Implementation Challenges and Problems 
LGAP IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES 
MENTIONED IN KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
NUMBER OF MENTIONS
4 PILOT 
DISTRICTS
6 OTHER 
DISTRICTS
NATIONAL 
LEVEL TOTAL
LGAP Challenges
Staff turnover of district and LGAP staff 4 3 3 10
Insufficient time and resources to scale up to 28 
districts 1 7 1 9
COVID delayed schedule 1 4 1 6
Village level work (e.g. VDCs) impractical due to 
scale and distance 1 5 - 8
Demand for help outside LGAP scope of work - - 1 1
Conflicts over allowances - - 1 1
Councils suffer from lack of funding to sustain gains - - 1 1
Sub-Total 7 19 1 36
LGAP Problems
Promised interventions incomplete (e.g. manuals, 
infrastructure, training, market fee collection) 6 7 5 18
Lack of engagement or regular communication with 
key individuals/ organizations at the district or 
national level
1 9 5 15
Allowance for transportation and refreshments too 
small 3 4 1 8
Trainings too short or infrequent 2 3 1 4
Lack of sharing of work plans or exit strategy - 3 1 4
Insufficient follow-up by LGAP staff - 3 - 3
Sub-Total 12 29 13 54
Total 19 48 23 90
Source: Key Informant Interviews with 77 Respondents in 10 Districts and at the National Level.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 104
Table A.9: Recommendations for Future Governance Programming 
RECOMMENDATIONS BY RESULT AREA
NUMBER OF MENTIONS
4 PILOT 
DISTRICTS
6 OTHER 
DISTRICTS
NATIONAL 
LEVEL TOTAL
Local Government Performance and Transparency
Continue/Expand Support for Financial 
Management including Support for IFMIS 
Implementation, Participatory Budgeting, and 
Expenditure Tracking Surveys
3 1 - 4
Develop/Expand Revenue Enhancement Strategy 1 2 - 3
Develop a Functional/Harmonized M and E Process 
with Indicators of Development Progress Across 
District/Monitor School Contracts
- 3 1 4
Conduct and Update Socio-Economic Profiles and 
District Development Plans in All Districts 3 - - 3
Add a Staff Mentorship Component - 1 1 2
Continue/Increase IT Support - 1 - 1
Help Depoliticize Development Decisions - - 1 1
Sub-Total 7 8 3 18
Demand for Accountable Government Strengthened
Continue Training and Retraining/Consider VDC 
Training/Increase Length or Focus of 
Training/Support Learning Visits Between 
Districts/Include MPs
12 4 - 16
Continue and Expand Meetings of Development 
Partners/Expand Number of Development Partners 1 5 1 7
Focus on Infrastructure Development 2 4 - 6
Improve Meeting Space, Refreshments, and 
Transportation Allowances Based on Distance 2 - 2 4
Sub-Total 17 13 3 33
Decentralization Policy Environment Improved
Continue By-Law Development in All Districts 3 - - 3
Continue/Improve Human Resources Initiatives - 1 1 2
Sub-Total 3 1 1 5
LGAP Operations
Improve/Expand Communication Between LGAP 
and National/District Partners 2 4 5 11
Revisit Position and Number of LGAP 
Offices/Consider Expansion 1 2 - 3
Increase Engagement with Local CSOs 2 - - 2
Sub-Total 5 6 5 16
Total 32 28 12 72
Source: Key Informant Interviews with 77 Respondents in 10 Districts and at the National Level
.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 105
ANNEX D: LGAP MIDTERM EVALUATION SURVEY 
SAMPLING PROTOCOL
The LGAP Midterm Evaluation Survey aims to interview beneficiaries of the Local Government 
Accountability Performance (LGAP) program. LGAP is meant to benefit all Malawians through 
improving local governance and accountability, but seeks in particular to improve capacity and 
accountability of local governments through: supportive supervision for core local government 
operations, public financial management and accountability, capacity building for councilors and 
District Executive Committee staff, and strengthening citizen engagement and oversight.
In each of the 10 districts of study, survey interviews should be conducted in four areas (which 
we call primary sampling units) with three different respondent types in each area.
PRIMARY SAMPLING UNITS
Each district has four primary sampling units (PSUs) from which respondents will be sampled: the 
district seat (boma) and three TAs that were selected randomly during the research design. The 
sampled PSUs, by district, are:
Balaka: Balaka Town, TA Msalamala, TA Nkaya, TA Kalembo
Chikwawa: Chikwawa Boma, TA Katunga, TA Lundu, TA Makhwira
Dowa: Dowa Boma, TA Chakhaza, TA Chiwere, TA Msakambewa
Karonga: Karonga Town, TA Kilipula, TA Kyungu, TA Wasambo
Lilongwe: Area 7 (City), TA Chimutu, TA Kabudula, TA Kalolo
Mangochi: Mangochi Town, TA Chilipa, TA Jalasi, TA Katuli
M’mbelwa: Mzimba Boma, TA Jaravikuba Munthali, TA Kampingo Sibande, TA Khosolo Gwaza 
Jere
Mulanje: Mulanje Boma, TA Chikumbu, TA Nkanda, TA Nthiramanja
Nkhata Bay: Nkhata Bay Boma, TA Kabunduli, TA Malanda, TA Malenga Mzoma
Nkhotakota: Nkhotakota Boma, TA Kanyenda, TA Malenga Chanzi, TA Mwadzama
The survey team will collect 64 surveys in each district, with 16 surveys from each PSU. 
RESPONDENT TYPES
There are three respondent types: official, civil society, citizen. In each PSU, there will be 8 
surveys with officials and civil society leaders and 8 citizen surveys. 
By officials, we mean District Commissioners; Ward Councillors; people who serve on District 
Council Service Committees; members of District Executive Committees (DEC) including District 
Health Officers (DHO) or District Agricultural Development Officers (DADO); members of Area 
Development Committees (ADC); village headmen (VH) or group village headmen (GVH) or 
traditional authorities (TAs); and officials or members in public service sectors like education (e.g., 
District Education Network (DEN) officials, Primary Education Advisor (PEA) officials, members 
of School Management Committees), health (e.g., members of Hospital Advisory Committees, 
Health Centre Advisory Committees, Village Health Committees, or Village AIDS Committees), 
development (e.g., members of Market Committees or Village Development Committees), 
agriculture (e.g., members of the District Agricultural Extension Coordination Committee), and 
safety (e.g., members of the Community Policing Committee).
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 106
By civil society leaders, we mean religious leaders; representatives of non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs) like NICE and YONECO; farmer-based organizations; parent-teacher 
associations (PTA); and representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs), faith-based 
organizations (FBOs), or community-based organizations (CBOs). 
By citizen, we mean any non-institutionalized adult citizen of Malawi who is not an “official” or a 
“civil society leader,” as enumerated above.
SAMPLING OFFICIALS AND CIVIL SOCIETY
Officials and civil society respondents will be sampled using a stratified convenience sampling 
approach. In each PSU, seek interviews with both officials and civil society leaders to meet the 
completion quota of 8 surveys in each PSU. Among these 8 respondents, there should be a mix 
of “officials” and “civil society.” In each PSU, there should be at least 2 but no more than 4 civil 
society interviews.
In areas where the survey team is less familiar and will need guidance in identifying potential 
respondents, enumerators are encouraged to conduct survey interviews early in the day with key 
informants like District Executive Committee members, Area Development Committee members, 
and TAs. 
SAMPLING CITIZENS
All 8 citizen surveys in each PSU should be sampled using a random walk procedure in the same 
area. More specifically, when in an urban or peri-urban PSU, all 8 citizen surveys should come 
from the same neighborhood; when in a rural PSU, all 8 citizen surveys should come from the 
same village. The supervisor will select the neighborhood or village from the Area/Town/Boma/TA 
from which citizens will be sampled. 
The supervisor should diagram the boundaries of the neighborhood/village and identify starting 
points and walk directions for each enumerator similar to the diagram below. Different 
neighborhoods and villages will have different shapes, but the general procedure should be to 
space enumerators so that there is broad coverage of the neighborhood or village and that one 
enumerator’s path would not cross another enumerator’s path. 
Figure 1. Illustration of Spaced Random Walk Starting Points in a PSU
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 107
The first interview for each enumerator will be the household closest to their starting point, walking 
in the direction specified by the supervisor. Interview either the female or male head in this 
household, according to gender alternation from the last interview completed; in other words, 
if your most recent interview was with a male respondent, you should interview the female head 
of household; if your most recently completed interview was with a female respondent, you should 
interview the male head of household. 
Once complete, the enumerator will walk in the direction specified and stop at the fifth household 
to conduct the next interview. Interview either the female or male head in this household, 
according to gender alternation from the last interview completed. 
If a selected household is empty, does not have the corresponding gender respondent available, 
or the selected respondent refuses to participate in the survey, continue walking in the specified 
direction and make another attempt at conducting an interview at the fifth household from the 
previous attempt. Maintain gender alternation according to the most recently completed interview.
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 108
ANNEX E: SURVEY SUMMARY TABLES
Table A.10: Evaluation Survey Descriptive Statistics and Comparison to Other Surveys
CLOUDBURST 2020 CENSUS 2018 DHS 2016
Demographics
Rural 74% 84% 81%
Female 42% 51% 52%
Marital Status
Single/Never married 2% 38% 30%
Married/Living together 83% 38% 61%
Divorced/Separated 6% 5% 7%
Widowed 8% 4% 2%
Education
None 3% 9%
Primary 48% 60%
Secondary 45% 27%
More than secondary 4% 4%
Region
North 30% 13% 12%
Central 30% 43% 44%
Southern 40% 44% 44%
Ethnic Identity
Chewa 24% 34% 36%
Yao 17% 13% 13%
Tumbuka 13% 9% 9%
Tonga 10% 1% 2%
Lomwe 9% 19% 19%
Ngoni 9% 10% 12%
Mang'anja 7% 3% 3%
Sena 4% 4% 3%
Nkhonde 4% 1% 1%
Other 2% 6% 3%
Religion
CCAP 23% 14% 18%
Catholic 15% 17% 18%
Muslim 18% 14% 12%
Other Christian 44% 36% 52%
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 109
Table A.11: Findings on Satisfaction with how your councillor consults citizens
DISTRICT CPS 2017 PE 2020 CHANGE
Balaka Satisfied 27% 30% ↑
Dissatisfied 54% 59% ↑
Lilongwe Satisfied 28% 61% ↑↑
Dissatisfied 39% 24% ↓
M'belwa Satisfied 37% 34% ↓
Dissatisfied 36% 31% ↓
Mulanje Satisfied 25% 49% ↑↑
Dissatisfied 47% 33% ↓↓
Desirable outcome ↑ ↓ Low magnitude of change
Undesirable outcome
↑
↑
↓
↓
High magnitude of change
Table A.12: Findings on satisfaction with how council responds to community needs
DISTRICT CPS 2017 PE 2020 CHANGE
Balaka Satisfied 24% 27% ↑
Dissatisfied 57% 61% ↑
Lilongwe Satisfied 26% 28% ↑
Dissatisfied 39% 52% ↑
M'belwa Satisfied 36% 9% ↓
Dissatisfied 36% 66% ↑↑
Mulanje Satisfied 24% 23% ~
Dissatisfied 48% 56% ↑
Desirable outcome ↑ ↓ Low magnitude of change
Undesirable outcome
↑
↑
↓
↓
High magnitude of change
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 110
Table A.13: Findings on satisfaction with projects implemented by your council
DISTRICT CPS 2017 PE 2020 CHANGE
Balaka Satisfied 29% 16% ↓
Dissatisfied 52% 50% ↓
Lilongwe Satisfied 34% 20% ↓
Dissatisfied 37% 44% ↑
M'belwa Satisfied 38% 8% ↓↓
Dissatisfied 37% 63% ↑↑
Mulanje Satisfied 33% 12% ↓
Dissatisfied 42% 53% ↑
Desirable outcome ↑ ↓ Low magnitude of change
Undesirable outcome
↑
↑
↓
↓
High magnitude of change
Table A.14: Findings on participation in community meetings and trainings in last year
LEADER SUBSAMPLE CITIZEN SUBSAMPLE ALL SURVEYS
Village Action Plan 73% 54% 66%
District Development Plan 13% 8% 11%
School Social Contract 89% 75% 84%
Market Fees 15% 3% 11%
Training: Resources 30% 10% 22%
Training: Record keeping 26% 4% 18%
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 111
Table A.15: Findings on satisfaction with services in Balaka, Lilongwe, M'belwa, Mulanje
SERVICE 
CHARACTERISTIC CPS 2017 PE 2020 CHANGE
Health worker 
behavior
Satisfied 47% 46% ~
Dissatisfied 37% 46% ↑
Medicines available
Satisfied 29% 30% ~
Dissatisfied 48% 63% ↑
Health committee Satisfied 39% 42% ↑
Dissatisfied 31% 31% ~
Teacher attendance
Satisfied 53% 51% ~
Dissatisfied 29% 36% ↑
Teaching materials
Satisfied 35% 15% ↓↓
Dissatisfied 39% 75% ↑↑
PTA Satisfied 52% 53% ~
Dissatisfied 21% 23% ~
Agricultural 
extension
Satisfied 48% 50% ~
Dissatisfied 26% 35% ↑
Desirable outcome ↑ ↓ Low magnitude of change
Undesirable outcome
↑
↑
↓
↓
High magnitude of change
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 112
ANNEX F: LGAP MID-TERM EVALUATION OUT-BRIEF 
PRESENTATION
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 113
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 114
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 115
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 116
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 117
USAID.GOVMALAWI LGAP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 118