This Product is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID.) The contents of this annotation are the sole responsibility of FHI
360 and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Local Governance Program Mid‐Term Evaluation
Draft Report, General Conclusions and Recommendations
January 2013
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 2 
Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 4
Findings.....................................................................................................................................................4
Conclusions from the analysis of the three axes: ..................................................................................... 5
Recommendations....................................................................................................................................8
2. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................8
3. Challenges.............................................................................................................................................9
4. Evaluation Context............................................................................................................................... 9
General Context........................................................................................................................................9
Context of Local Governance in Morocco............................................................................................... 10
Strategic Directions of Local Governance in Morocco............................................................................ 11
5. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................12
6. Findings...............................................................................................................................................13
Activities..................................................................................................................................................14
Performance Review as Indicated by the Program Performance Monitoring System (PMP)................14
Quantitative Assessment of Performance .............................................................................................. 15
Qualitative Assessment of Performance................................................................................................. 15
General Outline of the Field Results....................................................................................................... 15
Observations...........................................................................................................................................16
Activities for Broadening Participation ................................................................................................... 18
Strengthening the Capability of the Communes..................................................................................... 20
7. The Regionalization Issue (SOW Question 2.a)................................................................................. 25
8. Donor Coordination............................................................................................................................ 26
9. General Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 26
10. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 31
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 3 
Acronyms
ADP       Local Development Agent
ADS       Social Development Agency
ACDI (CIDA)   Canadian International Development Agency
AFS       Communal Fiscal Administration
AMPOC     Moroccan Association for Consumer Protection and Advice
AO       Assistance Objective
ART GOLD   Local Government Support Program of the UNDP
CDCS     Country Development Cooperation Strategy (USAID)
CL     Local Collectivity
CS                Civil Society
CPEC     Commission for Equity and Equal Opportunity  
CPC/CPF   Communal Performance Framework
DCL     Office of Local Government (at Provincial Level)
DGCL     General Directorate of Local Government
DAJEDC         Office of Legal Affairs, Studies, Documentation and International Cooperation
(of the DGCL)
DFCAT       Office of Training of Administrative and Technical Officials
DPE     Office of Planning and Equipment (DGCL)
DFL     Office of Local Finance (DGCL)
ENA     National School of Administration
INDH     National Initiative for Human Development
GOM     Government of Morocco
GLM     Local Governance in Morocco (Canadian Aid)
IR     Intermediate Result
LGP     Local Governance Program
M&E     Monitoring and Evaluation
MEPI     Middle East Partnership Initiative
NGO (ONG)   Non‐Governmental Organization
PAD     Project to Support the Process of Decentralization (French Aid)
PCD (or CDP)   Communal Development Plan
PMP     Performance Monitoring Plan (USAID)
RTI     Research Triangle Institute
SG     Secretary General
SANAD     Civil Society Advocacy Project (“support” in Arabic)
SOW     Statement of Work
TIC     Information Technology Communication
U.A.P     Support Unit of the Canadian Cooperation in Morocco (CIDI)
UNDP     United Nations Development Program (PNUD)
UNIFEM   United Nations Development Fund for Women
USAID     United States Agency for International Development
USG     United States Government
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 4 
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The principal objectives of this evaluation are to examine the performance of USAID’s Local Governance
Program (LGP) for Morocco at mid‐course, to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the program,
and to make recommendations for adjusting the program in its remaining 18 months. The results of this
evaluation are intended to assist USAID in promoting one of its primary goals of strengthening
democracy and good governance in Morocco. This report is the product of the work of a five‐person
evaluation team engaged by FHI 360. The team gathered information from September 17 to November
9, 2012, by consulting documentation; conducting 47 individual interviews at the national, regional,
provincial and commune level; holding nine focus group discussions with key actors; and performing a
household‐level survey of 360 respondents in a total of six communes within the regions designated for
LGP treatment.
According to the Strategic Framework for 2009‐2013 for Democracy and Governance, USAID seeks to
assist the Government of Morocco (GOM) in its efforts to improve and democratize local‐level
governance in order to better serve the Moroccan people. The core of its approach is to expand
opportunities for citizens to participate in the governance process, to help local government institutions
become more responsive to citizen needs, and to become more credible by increasing participatory
practices. In addition, the program attempts to enhance the technical capability of the communes in the
areas of planning, fiscal management, complaint management, communication, and transparency.
The national context for this project is complex but may be considered generally favorable to forwarding
these objectives, since the GOM is on record in supporting increased participation and local government
reform as indicated in the 2011 Constitution and the 2009 Communal Charter, and the majority party in
parliament has adopted a platform favoring participatory local governance. The reality on the ground,
however, is far different, and achieving the project’s objectives necessitates a considerable change in
the strategies, interests and practices of the key actors. This report analyzes this context at all levels of
the political system and identifies opportunities to cooperate with the GOM in achieving results. It
examines the performance of the LGP and the effectiveness of the methods it has employed.  
Findings
From the point of view of the quantitative measures of activities that the LGP targeted and achieved
after approximately 32 months of implementation (February 2010 to October 2012), the performance of
the LGP can be judged to have been fairly successful. These indicators, however, do not give clear
indications of impact or results. The only indicators that do give some sense of change in the functioning
of local government were the product of an opinion survey that RTI conducted after only 16 months. For
a variety of reasons, these indicators do not constitute a baseline nor offer a clear picture of the quality
of LGP activities and their impact on the practice of local government, nor on the views of citizens about
changes in local governance as a result of the LGP program.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 5 
To get a better picture of the nature and results of these activities, the evaluation team developed three
data sources (individual interviews, focus group discussions, and a household survey) and conducted
field work at all levels of the Moroccan political/administrative system. The team investigated the LGP’s
activities and operating methods in each of the three major axes of the program: 1) the expansion of
participatory practices in elected bodies; 2) strengthening the commune government’s capacity to
respond to citizen needs; and 3) strengthening the transparency and accountability of communal
government.
The report addresses the findings of these investigations in two ways. First it presents the conclusions
from the analysis of each of the programs’ axes and components. Then it summarizes the conclusions by
addressing seven questions that USAID asked the evaluation team to consider to help it better
understand how the program has, thus far, achieved its Democracy and Governance objectives.
Conclusions from the analysis of the three axes:
1) The LGP was successful in introducing a large number of activities in pursuit of the objectives of each
axis.  
2) There have been a number of technical outcomes, such as the successful completion of a number of
Local Development Plans (PCDs), the creation or support of Equal Opportunity Commissions (CPECs) and
youth councils, and the introduction of a new fiscal administrative system, communication plans,
complaint management systems, and internal audits in several communes. These activities have added
to the technical capacity of the pilot communes where the LGP focused its work.  
3) The program was much less successful in promoting expanded participation of citizens, particularly
youth and women. This was due mainly to the unfavorable context and resistance of local elected
officials, but also to the methods that the LGP employed in dealing with the national government— the
Directorate of Communal and Local Government (DGCL), the Provincial Government (DCLs), and elected
officials at the communal level. These methods weakened the impact of the program and its overall goal
of improving local government and building closer relationships between government and its citizens.
Responses to Seven Questions Posed in the Scope of Work
1. How effectively did the program’s activities targeting communes contribute to achieving the AO of
increased participation of citizens, especially youth, in governance?
The mechanisms and activities supported by or created by the LGP did enhance the organizational
capacity of citizens at the local level. At the same time, however, they did little to expand
participation in local governance. This was due to the fact that expansion of meaningful
participation required fundamental changes in the behavior, practices and culture of local elected
officials that the LGP has been unable to effectively address in the short time it has operated in the
targeted communes.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 6 
2. To what extent was the program design suitable to address the needs of the targeted beneficiaries?
To what extent will LGP interventions be useful for regionalization plans?
The LGP confronted two major issues that weakened its impact and performance. First, the context
for reform through greater citizen participation was very unfavorable both from the point of view of
elected local officials and from the view of citizens, particularly youth and women who had negative
attitudes toward commune‐level governance. This meant that the overall strategic objectives of the
program were overly ambitious given the project’s staff, resources and time. Second, the design of
the LGP did not sufficiently consider these constraints and elements of resistance, and the methods
that the LGP adopted did not sufficiently address them. While the design did emphasize the
involvement of local elected officials, the LGP chose to focus its work on small numbers of largely
technical officials. In addition, it did not sufficiently emphasize the need to form strong partnerships
with both national (DGCL) and provincial‐ (Governors and DCL) level authorities.
Question 6 below offers a partial response to this second question. Although the details of
Morocco’s advanced regionalization plan are not yet known, it is likely to involve two aspects in
which the LGP and future USAID and D&G programs can assist. First, it must promote further
decentralization to make the regional and provincial levels of government more effective. Second, it
must make these levels more participatory and more closely linked to the needs and wishes of the
citizens. The LGP and USAID can assist in focusing more attention on the provincial level, and in
developing more effective links between this level and the communal governments.
3. Do targeted beneficiaries (including local government officials, civil society organizations and youth
groups) feel that the program activities helped institutionalize broader civic participation as well as
improve commune performance, transparency and communication? What activities should be modified,
expanded, added or eliminated to improve program effectiveness?  
Opinions on this issue varied widely. Local technical staff expressed satisfaction with their own skill
acquisition and improvement of the commune’s planning capacities. Some respondents expressed
approval for the efforts to improve accountability, conflict management and transparency of the
target communes. At the same time, many of the participants and intended beneficiaries were
critical of the functioning of the communal government and felt that little had changed, and that
new, more participatory practices by communal government were far from reality. Our analysis
revealed that this was mainly due to resistance— and in some cases open opposition— on the part
of local authorities, but also due to the LGP’s choice to emphasize technical capacity building with a
small number of actors while devoting insufficient attention to the interests and strategies of local
elected officials.  
4. How sustainable are the activities targeting communes? Will activities, systems and established
relationships continue to be active and operational past project completion?  
Sustainability will depend to a large degree on forces and decisions beyond the control of the LGP
and USAID, such as the current administration’s vigor in implementing its participatory development
strategy and the results of the local government elections. Sustainability is also conditioned by
decisions that the LGP made the first phase of its program. To this point the program has focused on
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 7 
structures rather than on the principal players and these structures such as youth councils and
complaint management committees). It was also the case with CPECs, although having a legal
institutional status they depend heavily on the interests of elected local officials, mainly commune
presidents, and not necessarily enforced. This has affected sustainability of LGP’s activities and
made their impact less certain.  
5. How has donor coordination or lack thereof, affected the efficiency and overall sustainability of LGP
activities? How can the LGP effectively avoid duplication of efforts?
There is little coordination either by donors or by the GOM. Local government reform projects, such
as the Canadian GLM, operate and terminate with little or no coordination with other programs,
such as USAID’s LGP. This lack of cooperation has made it more difficult for the LGP to plan for the
integration of provincial‐level agents (the ADPs). Donors initiate their own planning priorities based
on their own criteria, and this may contribute to less‐harmonized aid development across the entire
country. Thus far, there is no mechanism among donors that can help avoid duplication or
overlapping of efforts.
6. To what extent are LGP activities necessary for achieving the USAID Democracy and Governance
objectives of improved government‐citizen engagement?
USAID’s overall assistance objective in Democracy and Governance in Morocco implies a
transformation of the behavior and culture of local politics and an expanded role for citizens; the
effort required to achieve these objectives exceeds USAID’s staffing, resources and time
commitment. The focus on conducting experiments in a very small number of communes, with the
promotion of participatory mechanisms almost exclusively at the commune level has, thus far, made
a very limited impact on USAID’s development objective of expanding citizen participation.
Local governance reform and the improvement of decentralized governance in Morocco remains an
important objective for the future political stability of this country, and USAID should continue to
support this process in ways that are within its manageable interest. The project of advanced
regionalization offers USAID the opportunity to do so by reorienting the current LGP and future D&G
programs toward improving the coordination and participatory process at the provincial level,
encouraging and assisting the DCLs to engage elected officials at the commune level, and motivating
the DCLs to adopt more representative and participatory governance practices.
7. To what extent has the project developed and implemented sustainable measures to ensure women’s
participation in local governance?
Thus far the LGP has had very little impact on expanding the participation of women either as
elected officials or in a variety of LGP activities and mechanisms at the local level. There is as yet no
structure for coordinating the input of elected women in local decision‐making, and structures like
the CPECs, have been institutionalized and accorded legal status as per article 14 of communal
charter of 2009, but they play more a consultative role and don’t have a de facto autonomy from
commune officials.  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 8 
  
Recommendations
Each section of the report dealing with the three axes (sub‐IRs) of the LGP offers a number of
specific recommendations for improving performance and the impact. The overriding message of
this evaluation, however, can be summarized in one proposition and in two recommendations.
General Proposition: Local government reform is, naturally, a political matter. Any design of the
program to assist in the reform process must make this a central concern and offer a strategy
for dealing with the political factors that will arise in attempting to change the behavior,
practices and even the culture and values of local political actors.
Recommendation 1: The LGP should concentrate on working with the principal actor in local
government—the local elected official. The report suggests some ways in which local officials
can be encouraged to alter their own strategic interests and become more effective partners in
the strengthening of local government, such as introducing, with the active support of the DCL, a
set of specific activities that will illuminate the possibilities and benefits of sharing management
decisions and building popular support. The focus on creating new participatory structures and
even on improving management practices such as communication strategies, complaint
management facilities, and fiscal management and auditing structures, will only succeed if they
can gain the support of these local officials.
Recommendation 2: The LGP should create a platform to facilitate communication and
cooperation between local officials and the provincial agencies of decentralized governance, the
DCL, and with its field personnel, the Provincial Development Agents (ADP).
This mechanism can both improve technical development activities at the local level and help
infuse them with a more participatory approach. This arena of consultation and cooperation can
help bridge the gap between more local autonomy and the gradual transition to less top‐down
oversight (tutelle) on the one hand, and more competence and good governance practices on
the other. In its remaining time the LGP can begin to lay the groundwork for helping the DCL
become the key player in the promotion of better governance between local elected officials
and governments at the regional and provincial levels.  
2. Introduction
This report presents the results of a midterm evaluation of the Moroccan Local Governance Program
(LGP). The program, financed by USAID, began in February 2010 and is expected to conclude in
September 2014 (EPP‐1‐08‐04‐00037). The midterm evaluation was conducted by FHI 360 (under
contract 4345‐06‐10) from September 17 to November 15, 2012. The Government of the United States,
through USAID, supports the Government of Morocco to become, “a well‐governed, democratic and
prosperous Morocco that meets the needs of its people, especially youth.” The Results Framework for
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 9 
2009‐2013 (see Annex 2) set its first Assistance Objective (AO) as, “increased participation of citizens,
especially youth, in governance.” Based on this objective, USAID emphasized the role of citizen
participation in promoting democratic local governance in Morocco.  
Within this broad AO, USAID defines the Intermediate Result 2 (IR2) as, “more effective and accountable
local government.” Subsequent sub‐IRs include, “more effective representational bodies,” “improved
capacity of local government to respond to citizen priorities,” and “increased transparency and
accountability.” The strategic objectives of USAID are twofold: increase citizen participation and
strengthen the communal government’s capacity to respond to citizens’ demands.
According to the Scope of Work (see Annex 3), the objectives of this evaluation are:
 Provide the Mission with concrete evidence regarding the extent to which the LGP is achieving
its goals at all levels of the Results Framework.
 Recommend modifications to the program and its management structure.
 Inform how the Mission will (if at all) support Moroccan regionalization efforts.
The results of this evaluation will help orient the Democracy and Governance activities of the
USAID/Morocco Mission and, in particular, its Youth and Democracy Office. It will also help to determine
the Democracy and Governance objectives and programming for the period 2013‐2018.
3. Challenges
It should be noted that this evaluation took place after about 32 months of project implementation with
about one year and half remaining. This was admittedly a short amount of time in which to implement
the wide array of program activities that the LGP was mandated to do in an uncertain and difficult
environment. It has also become clear that political events particular to the capital region of Rabat‐Salé
made implementation in that region difficult if not impossible.  
From the point of view of the evaluation, several methodological issues arose regarding the analysis of
results that could be attributable to the LGP treatment. First, no baseline existed against which changes
could be compared. The fact that the project had gone on for 16 months when the initial RTI opinion
survey was conducted, and 32 months when the evaluation and our own survey took place, made the
comparison of data from these two sources problematic. The decision to use the two Rabat‐Salé
communes as “controls” given the near‐total absence of LGP activities in them was a second‐choice
strategy, since this region differed significantly from the other experiential communes targeted by the
LGP in its first phase, and had been the subject of other governance projects including a USAID project
for non‐governmental association capacity building.
4. Evaluation Context
General Context
Modern‐day Morocco is a vast construction site undergoing transformation at both the political and
institutional levels as well as at the economic and territorial levels. The February 20 Movement led to a
new constitution in July 2011 that has defined new directions for public action toward a redefinition of
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 10 
the missions, functions, and positions of the strategic players of the State, in this case the local
authorities. As a result, the Moroccan government is being challenged to come up with organic laws that
will direct political and institutional life in the coming decade. A new law on the regions will appear
within a few months, and the law that will define the roles of the territorial actors will follow soon after.
These laws integrate the different policy projects underway and should clearly define the organizational
structure and assure a shift toward new political directions for the State. Public actors will be required to
gradually implement the tools of modern local public management through a strategic approach that
takes into account the unique features of the Moroccan political and institutional context.
Although Morocco was able to weather the Arab Spring without destabilizing its social cohesion, its
institutional arrangements and political system are nevertheless at risk if it does not respond to social
demands that are becoming ever more insistent.  
The current government, formed in the legislative elections of 2011, has opted for a strategic approach
that will try to modernize the modes of public action and of State structures. Because of this, the
question of local governance is becoming one of the priorities of the Moroccan government in terms of
being able to bring about decentralization of public policies that comprise the institutional and
organizational prerequisites for advanced regionalization in Morocco.
Context of Local Governance in Morocco
Today, elected officials are being put to the test: law 78‐00 of 2002 elevated the status of elected
officials. The new roles assigned to local elected officials, plus the maneuvering room granted by the
law, places elected officials at the center of a process of change that was, until now, initiated at the level
of communal administration. In the midst of so much political and institutional change, the roles and
authority of elected officials in local development are felt to be increasingly urgent. This underlies a
repositioning of these key players in local government in relationship to the economic, social, and
political contexts at hand.
In 2009, there appeared two laws with important bearings on administrative, managerial, and socio‐
economic conditions. These were Law 17‐08 and Law 45‐08, both published in the Official Bulletin dated
February 18, 2009.
 The new Communal Charter: Dahir no. 1‐08‐153 dated the 22nd of Safar 1430 (February 18,
2009), addressing the promulgation of Law 17‐08 modifying and supplementing Law 78‐00
addressing the Communal Charter, as modified and supplemented;
 The Organization of the Finances of the Local Authorities and their Groupings: Dahir no. 1‐09‐02
dated 22nd of Safar 1430 (February 18, 2009), addressing the promulgation of Law 45‐08
relating to the organization of the finances of the local authorities and their territorial units.
In effect, the local authorities, and especially the communes, are henceforth called upon to assign
ranges of efficiency and flexibility, along with a clarification of the missions and the tasks incumbent on
the players therein, specifically the President, the Secretary General of the commune (with function
indicated and limits of action clarified) and those of the President’s Deputies.
The two laws referenced above revise the law dating from 1967 and cover two important sections of
commune management. One, the review of the commune administration procedures and a clarification
of the jobs within the commune through a new Charter; and two, the new accounting and financial
organization of the local authorities and their groupings. As a result, the organizational (procedural and
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 11 
structural) dimensions are the primary concerns of the communes as they work to support
decentralization and administrative deconcentration.
The jobs in the commune are being diversified, but the ability to effectively administer local finances and
to improve how they are used is at stake. The development of the commune is a goal that structures the
budget and the resources significantly. Local taxes are a lever for raising the funds that are essential for
financing the local services. The elected officials are now assigned a variety of areas that they must
administer efficiently with limited resources (urban management, trash collection, roadways,
transportation, water purification, health, security, hygiene, etc.).
Strategic Directions of Local Governance in Morocco
Facilitating the work to be accomplished by the local entities in Morocco and developing their
institutional and organizational capacities will constitute a leading concern in the dynamics of change to
which the commune must respond by 2015. Participatory strategic planning, multi‐year budgetary
planning, local tax reform, and the development of communal communication and information systems
are the major instruments for current reform. They will be introduced into the communal administration
to enable the Communal Development Plan (PCD), which will meet the needs of the local population in a
concrete fashion.
These strategic management mechanisms are new. It is appropriate for elected officials to make use of
them and explore them. In this regard, the directions of the General Directorate of Local Government
(DGCL) to the officials who administer the local entities are justified.
According to the conclusions that our evaluation team drew from direct interviews with DGCL officials,
and from the speech delivered by the DGCL’s Wali Director General at the LGP seminar held in Rabat on
October 11, 2012, the DGCL’s primary governance strategy is to develop good governance practices in
the management of communes and other territorial subdivisions (regions, provinces, prefectures and
communes) and to provide for these structures the following: strategic planning tools needed to carry
out local‐level plans through the development of a system of organization of communal information;
tools for mastering the strategic budget and the multi‐year budgetary programming; and systems for
checking, monitoring, and risk management. These are steps that the DGCL hopes to accomplish while
waiting for the draft law on regionalization, which is expected to be high on the government’s legislative
agenda in 2013.
The DGCL plans to implement methodological responses and practices for these new reforms, which are
established and articulated around the following axes:
1. Strategic planning (the Commune Development Plan/PCD);
2. Multi‐year budgetary programming (sliding three‐year communal budget);
3. Communal tax reform;
4. Administration based on the results (use of performance indicators by the communal
administrative services);
5. Development of a logistical administrative approach and practice within the commune
(administration of physical and informational flows and the like);
6. Survey of the holdings and of assets and receivables;
7. Evaluation and audit of the communal administration programs and operations.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 12 
The operational question is whether and to what degree the DGCL can effectively concentrate its
resources to achieve these objectives, and how it will direct its decentralized agency, the DCL, to do so.
The LGP operates in a context characterized by transformations that affect structural and organizational
aspects of the strategic machine of the State of Morocco at every level, from the central to the local and
from the all‐encompassing to the sector‐specific. It made choices during the first two years (2010‐2012)
according to operational strategies and through a targeting approach that deserves to be adjusted and
updated at the level of its functioning modes, so that in the years to come it will adequately meet, via an
array of activities, the goals of the USAID policy in Morocco.
5. Methodology
This evaluation adopts the approach of strategic analysis in order to understand the interplay of factors
that contributed to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Local Governance Program. A strategic
approach attempts to understand and deal with the interplay of three elements: the complex nature of
the context; the evidence gathered from the field through the use of multiple data collection tools; and
the strategies of the actors concerned. In the case of this evaluation, the interplay of the strategies of
USAID, the project (LPG/RTI), and of the government (DGCL) help explain the degree to which the
project is meeting its declared objectives.  
The evaluation team’s strategic analysis of qualitative and quantitative data included: a review of
documents, face‐to‐face individual interviews using a semi‐structured interview guide; focus group
discussions; and a household survey of the general population in the project zone. The results of each of
these methodological tools were analyzed separately, and then triangulated to produce overall findings.
This approach permitted the team to address five of the seven questions and the three major
components of the project.  
The Scope of Work highlighted the need to assess the views of all categories of beneficiaries with
specific regard to the sub IRs (civic participation, commune performance, commune transparency and
communication). Accordingly, this evaluation relied heavily on the views of the people directly involved
with the program, as determined in both individual interviews and focus group discussions. The three
principal field data gathering tools employed in this evaluation were:
 Key Informants – forty‐seven (47) individual interviews were conducted with a range of officials
from the national to the local level, field project personnel, technical service personnel at the
provincial and communal levels, and elected officials. In addition, members of civil society
associations, particularly from youth and women organizations, were interviewed (Annex 4 and
Annex 9).
 Focus Group Discussions – nine (9) focus group discussions were held with members of civil
society, elected officials, technical service personnel and women (Annex 5 and Annex 8). Three
of these focus groups involved only women participants in an effort to allow women to
contribute their ideas and perspectives more freely.
 Household Survey – The team interviewed 240 randomly selected members of households in
four communes where the LGP had conducted activities, and 120 members of households in
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 13 
two communes where very little if any treatment by the LGP had taken place. The objective of
the survey was to present a picture of how ordinary citizens felt about their local government,
how they related to the LGP’s activities and how involved they were in public affairs (Annex 6).
The survey, however, was limited in terms of comparing the responses in the intensively
targeted communes with those in the “control communes.” This is because a number of
demographic and environmental factors were not controlled for and the communes selected for
the control had somewhat different social and economic characteristics due to their proximity
to the capital, Rabat. In addition, our sample was not purely random. Rather it was randomized,
using a table of random numbers (i.e. Kish tables) within purposive sampling (the choice of
communes with high levels of project activity, and the limitation of respondents to the targeted
populations of the program—youth and females). If anything, this purposive sampling should
have yielded respondents more familiar with and involved in the activities of the LGP than
would have been the case for a purely random population.
Program performance was first analyzed using data from program reports and its Performance
Monitoring Plan (PMP). This analysis established the degree to which the program’s activities met
targets and corresponded with the Results Framework in quantitative terms. The main aspects of
analysis were:
 Content analysis of data gathered in the focus group discussions. (Annex 5.3)
 Analysis of individual key informant interviews regarding the program’s methods and impact,
and of the informant’s general satisfaction with the program’s efforts. The interviewer’s notes
and digital recordings of responses were reviewed by the team leader and in team group
discussions. (Annex 5.2)
 Survey data was coded and entered into a database under the supervision of the team’s
methodology expert. Data analysis was facilitated through the use of SPSS v20. Initial findings
are found in Annex 6. For the purpose of this report, the analysis of the household surveys plays
a small but important role in the triangulation of data. It contributes to a better understanding
of the context in which the program operates.
6. Findings
This section analyzes the degree to which the LGP is meeting its objectives and how they correspond
with the objectives of USAID.  
In the PMP, the LGP organized results and activities under the following headings: AO 1: Expanded
participation of citizens; IR 2.1: More efficient and responsive communes; IR 2.2: Strengthening
commune government capacity; and IR 2.3: Greater transparency and accountability of communal
government. The PMP and the program refer to these three IRs as “directions” and to its specific
activities as “components.”
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 14 
Activities
According to the activity data produced by the LGP, the program undertook 231 activities between
February 2010 and September 2012. Most activities were conducted to support the Commune
Development Plan (55 activities) and to support youth organizations (49 activities). (Annex 7) Other
areas of activity with significant frequency were: communal communication (29), complaint
management (20), internal audit (17), and training of elected women (17). Activities were concentrated
in four partner communes; El Jadida (61), Safi (55), Sefrou (40) and Fes city (18) (See Annex 7).
Although project resources were concentrated in these communes, there was also a dispersion of effort
in eight additional communes, and dozens of other communes where only one activity, usually support
to the Communal Development Plan, was undertaken (See Annex 7). Some of these activities involved
communes in group training, awareness sessions, and forums.  
Performance Review as Indicated by the Program Performance Monitoring System (PMP)  
AO 1 Expanded participation:  
 The number of actions taken by the commune that favor participation of citizens, especially
youth (target exceeded).1
IR 2 More efficient and accountable communes:   
 Citizens express more confidence in their commune and think that the commune is
institutionalizing participatory practices (see note: about 30%, no baseline).2
  
 Progress on actions defined in Communal Development Plan (below target).  
IR 2.1 Participatory practices in elected bodies (IR 2.1.1 to IR 2.1.4):
 Measures associated with specific activities generally met or exceeded targets.  
 The percentage of elected women actively participating in local affairs (data unclear).
 Number of participatory mechanisms (at target).
 Support to NGOs (below target).
 Involvement of youth (above target).
IR 2.2 Strengthening commune government capacity (IR 2.2.1 to 2.2.5):
 30% of citizens say that the commune’s response to their needs has improved.3
 The number of communes adopting a Framework for Commune Performance (CPF) (below
target).
 The number of functioning Commissions for Equity and Equal Opportunity (CPEC) (below target).
 The number of people trained in management, taxes or decentralization (at target).
 The number of communes with operational plans to increase revenue (below target).
IR 2.3 Strengthen transparency and accountability of communal government (IR 2.3.1 to 2.3.6):
 35% of citizens surveyed agree that the commune communicates more with the public.4
 Communication Strategy developed (below target).
 The number of specific communication actions (below target).
                                                            
1 Not clear what is counted or how this is coded 2 Local Governance Programme: Performance Monitoring Plan: Rapport d’analyse des résultats du Sondage auprés des
citoyens, November 2011. 3
Ibid
4
Ibid
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 15 
 Staff anti‐corruption training (above target).
 Ethics initiatives (above target).
 Functioning internal audit (below target).
Quantitative Assessment of Performance
Based on the objectives and goals set out in the PMP, the program has achieved (targets versus actual
achievements) about half of its indicators. Another four indicators produced very positive results (based
on a survey of direct beneficiaries). The results of one indicator on the participation of elected women in
local affairs were unclear.  
This PMP review is a quantitative analysis of where the LGP stands after approximately 32 months of
operation (February 2010 through October 2012) with approximately 20 months left. Clearly the LGP
undertook numerous activities in its attempt to further the objectives of USAID/Morocco and its own
contract. In purely quantitative terms the number of activities achieved seems satisfactory for a
program at this stage of its implementation.  
For the most part, however, the indicators employed measured activities in terms of outputs. The
opinion survey of program beneficiaries conducted in October, 2011, after approximately 16 months of
program treatment, involved several questions that can be interpreted as measures of impact or results.
The survey contained two questions (for IRs 2.2.1 and 2.3.1) that indicated that aspects of local
governance have improved (responsiveness and communication). For a number of technical reasons,
however, this survey did not permit the evaluation team to draw conclusions about the impact of the
program on the general population of the communes treated. Specifically, the RTI opinion survey was
conducted in a non‐random population of direct beneficiaries of program activities. It was, for the most
part, self‐administered. For these reasons it could not be considered a baseline, nor could it be seen as a
statistically valid method for examining the opinions of the broader population of the communes in the
study.
It is also difficult to draw conclusions from the PMP reports about the quality of a number of the
activities undertaken due to the absence of clear definitions of several of the key indicators, such as
“participatory mechanisms,” and “actions taken by the commune that favor participation of citizens.”
For example, to what degree did the “participatory mechanisms” actually expand citizen participation?
For these conclusions, the evaluation turns to an analysis of field work data, including interviews with
key respondents, focus group discussions and a household‐based citizen survey.
Qualitative Assessment of Performance
General Outline of the Field Results
After the field survey and the collection of information from different data sources, the evaluation team
developed a number of comments about the type, the convergences, and the divergences of results:
 At the level of project goals, the results diverge from one region to another for several reasons
and for causes specific to each region.
 The targeted regions did not benefit from the same quantity of activities, which made some
data stand out as divergent within a single component of the program.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 16 
 The Rabat‐Salé region did not benefit from the program activities in the first two years, outside
of some activities in the rural commune of Ameur, which is located in the peripheral area of the
Salé Province.
 Focus group discussions conducted by the evaluation team had a tendency to focus on the
negative results of the program and attainment of its goals. Direct interviews with the key
resource persons were less critical, but often revealed some difficulties in the methods
employed by the program in the target regions.  
By examining the LGP’s operating modalities in the different regions, and by better understanding the
different players’ strategies, the evaluation team was able to assess the strengths and the weaknesses
of the program as well as the opposing forces facing the LGP, and has developed some
recommendations for improving the program. (See recommendation section).
The three program components corresponding with IR 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 will each be analyzed separately
in subsequent sections. The analysis addresses both the activities and the methods used to carry them
out, and explains in greater detail their impact.  
Observations  
a. The activities to support the PCDs  
According to Article 36 of the Communal Charter of 2009, the PCD(s) constituted the DGCL’s highest
priority. The commune presidents were expected to prepare Communal Development Plans that would
incorporate citizens’ expectations regarding local development projects. The Local Government
Directorate of the Ministry of Interior— the DGCL— provided a guide with instructions on how to
produce this document. To effectively include citizen expectations, the commune must conduct a
participatory diagnosis, and engage the participation of different population segments. By 2010 it
became clear that many communes still were unable to prepare their PCDs while relying on their own
capabilities, and instead relied on paid consultants. While this approach was effective in producing a
plan, it often didn’t strengthen the capacity of the commune or broaden participation. It was also often
beyond the financial means of many communes. To rectify this situation, the LGP offered training and
coaching to about forty communes. These communes were able to prepare their PCDs during 2011 and
most of the communes assisted had their plans approved by the local government councils.  
The LGP approach was designed to focus on “learning‐by‐doing,” and to build the technical capacity of
communal officials to improve their planning and budgeting skills. The data collected in the evaluation
team’s field work revealed that this approach did broaden public involvement and the involvement of
decentralized public officials at the DCL level in the first phase— the diagnostic process. However, the
field interviews showed that the actual number of people involved in the second phase varied greatly,
and in some instances only involved a small group of local officials and council presidents; often, most of
the elected local council members were not involved. This process did allow the assisted communes to
successfully develop their PCDs and most were subsequently approved by their communal councils. As
such, the PCD process is more clearly a marker of strengthened commune‐level government than of
expanding participation. Not surprisingly, the LGP’s PMP categorizes the PCD process in IR 2.2— Local
Government Capacity Building.
One problem revealed by the field work is that in some cases the PCDs were not workable because they
were unrealistic, with little or no correlation between their plan and the resources available to execute
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 17 
it. The LGP staff sees this as an ongoing learning process towards the gradual improvement of local
planning skills, and in 2012 launched Phase 2 of the PCD process, which includes a monitoring and
evaluation system. At the time of this evaluation the Phase 2 system was in its early stages.  
b. The activities concerning the CPECs
The process of participation through the CPECs is mentioned in the Communal Charter. Furthermore,
the president of the commune can create a commission of parity and equal opportunity on his/her
personal initiative and be its president. This committee would assure participation of the different
points of view within the commune to facilitate the preparation of public policies. In theory, these
committees play a consulting function for leaders of the communal council, and as such they are called
upon to play a decisive role in promoting broader participation in local governance.  
Through September 2012, the LGP had assisted six communes in creating their CPECs and was able to
reinvigorate several others that had never been functional. To integrate the CPECs in the consulting
process, the LGP focused on training activities for CPEC members. This program involved three training
programs and the development of a curricular tool kit that is now being finalized and tested. As of the
time of this evaluation, the LGP has provided technical training to 100 CPEC members. Responding to
community requests, the LGP even assisted with the creation of a CPEC in the commune of Ameur,
outside its area of intensive work.  
In time, CPECs could significantly increase local government responsiveness and broaden participation in
its activities. Field interviews have pointed to a number of problems that will have to be addressed in
order to meet these goals:  
 First, the training and coaching that the LGP provided were useful in the creation of CPECs, but
do not appear to have been guided by a long‐term perspective. Many CPEC members expressed
that the training undertaken by the LGP was insufficient, and voiced a need for more guidance
and coaching.  
 Second, focus groups revealed a strong resistance on the part of some local government
officials, who viewed CPECs as infringing on their prerogatives and authority. While the LGP
encouraged local authorities to work with the newly formed CPECs, it did too little to coach
them in their potential role toward a more participatory local governance structure.  
 Interviews conducted through this evaluation revealed that the majority of the CPECs remain
marginalized by the elected officials. In fact, the CPEC doesn’t play an independent role. It is also
important to note that according to the LGP’s records of its training sessions, the majority of
CPEC members trained by the LGP have been men.  
c. Youth councils and other activities involving youth  
Integrating the youth in local public affairs and encouraging them to participate actively in the commune
is considered a strategic goal of USAID and hence of the LGP. From the beginning the LGP has focused a
great deal of its energy and activities on youth participation in public policy, and has encouraged young
people to feel that they have a stake in local public decisions. During the first period the LGP organized
49 activities to establish a platform for dialogue between communes and youth. It has worked with
youth associations, held large forums where youth leaders could express their views, and assisted
communes in forming youth councils. The latter has been very difficult, because our interviews showed
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 18 
that youth do not trust the communal administration and do not feel that they can participate in an
institution that is so far removed from their concerns and their expectations.5
  
The LGP approach has been to encourage the communes to make a place for youth around their own
interests, such as sports facilities. In the urban commune of Safi, for example, elected officials partnered
with the youth council to organize activities and events. In Fes, involvement of youth in the
management and maintenance of their own sports facilities is potentially one of the most successful
participatory mechanisms. The communal council there has already programmed this decision into the
agenda of its next annual program. It should be noted that this case remains exceptional.   
In some other communes, youth councils have conflicted with commune councils and presidents over
the selection of youth council leaders. Here again, some local government officials resent their
perceived loss of power at the hands of young people, whom they do not deem fit to deal with public
affairs.
d. Involvement of women
The LGP adopted two approaches to achieving a higher level of participation of women in local affairs:
improving the skills and leadership of women elected to local government councils, and a cross‐cutting
approach of inserting gender considerations into all of its activities. According to the all‐female focus
groups (involving both elected women and women mainly involved in NGOs), the training program for
women representatives does seem to have encouraged a creation of informal networks that have
promoted information sharing. But participants in these focus groups also repeatedly stated that they
did not feel integrated into the life of the commune.  
Although the LGP has encouraged elected women to play a bigger leadership role in local affairs, these
women expressed that they have achieved very little thus far in terms of changing their roles in public
life. A number of women also raised considerable criticism of the LGP training program for women
leaders. Some expressed that training was lacking in the instruction of practical skills that they could use
to leverage a role for themselves, and was instead focused more on personal style and presentation.
The second approach—integration of gender consideration across all activities at the communal level—
was not always respected, and did little to integrate women more fully into public life. Some of those
interviewed raised questions about the gender equity aspect of the CPEC mechanism, which appears in
some cases to be dominated by men and by allies of the council president. Given the historical and
cultural contexts of exclusion of women from public roles, these results are not surprising.  
e. Activities for Broadening Participation
This section analyzes the methods employed by the LGP to increase program participation. Our analysis
focused on all three levels of the Moroccan political/administrative system: nationally, (principally the
DGCL); the decentralized administrative level, mainly provincially and including prefects and the DCLs;
and the local commune government. The most common critique that the evaluation team heard
regarding the first two levels was that the LGP operated with little coordination with officials and
technical staff. The field study revealed that the LGP adopted multiple methods that were effective only
some of the time. This shortcoming is not directly due to poor functioning of the LGP but is primarily
                                                            
5 Our survey of youths and women in the general population showed that trust in and support for local government was very
low for all categories of respondents and not just for youth. See Annex 6.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 19 
related to the context within which the program works, and to the strategies of the players in the
relevant regions.  
To implement the activities related to the “participation” component, the LGP team chose to support
communes that requested assistance in developing their PCDs. The PCDs preparation guide detailed as
participatory process, by which the technical teams of the commune could include input from citizen for
future development plans at the commune level. This afforded the LGP the opportunity to cooperate
with the targeted communes in order to incorporate training, guidance, and coaching within the PCD
process as a whole. It also provided an opportunity to work closely with provincial level authorities (DCL)
and decentralized technical services.
For a variety of reasons, the LGP chose to conduct the initial phase of the PCD with little involvement of
the DCL. Closer involvement of the DCL would have not only established a better and more effective
relationship to the decentralized government authorities, but it could have also yielded better
information, since the DCL possessed in‐depth knowledge about the real needs of the communes.
Subsequently, the LGP approach to the development of the PCDs focused mainly on providing technical
assistance, training and coaching using its own management staff, including its sole regional managers
for Fes and El Jadida, as well as contracted consultants and trainers. This decision was probably driven
by the lack of sufficient personnel at the provincial level until mid‐2012, when a new corps of provincial
agents— the Provincial Development Agents (ADPs)— became available following the completion of
their training.
6
Despite the fact that the LGP chose to work in its first phase with a very limited number of “pilot”
communes, the number of staff available to provide close support as well as adequate monitoring and
evaluation was still insufficient to assure continuity and accumulated learning.  
Once the ADPs were in place, they expressed that they had difficulty working with the LGP staff both
because the methods they had been trained on for supporting the PCD process differed from those
promoted by the LGP, and because they did not feel included in the LGP’s planning and decisions. The
ADPs interviewed complained that the training approach employed by the LGP consultants was
excessively theoretical and insufficiently based on real‐life practice.
As for the LGP personnel, the staffing model did not allow sufficient time and resources to station long‐
term agents; specifically, there was not enough time and effort allowed to LGP staff to foster meaningful
participation at the local level. LGP consultants frequently worked with a very limited number of local
actors, usually commune presidents and general secretaries, and with some commune technical staff;
elected council members were rarely involved. Some CPEC members, for example, expressed the need
for more guidance and coaching in order to master the tools needed to maintain momentum.  
In addition, interviews with local officials pointed to the problem of long intervals between contact with
LGP staff and trainers, resulting in limited accumulation of knowledge by the commune‐level actors.  
As for its work with young people, the LGP’s limited staff did succeed in helping to create youth councils,
but they were insufficient to affect local government practices and attitudes; elected officials and
                                                            
6 The ADPs were an innovation of the Canadian Local Governance Project (Projet de Gouvernance Local au Maroc‐‐ GLM). In
the last year of this project 166 Provincial Development Agents (ADP) were recruited with 95 including 23 women completing
the training. Two ADPs were then assigned to each province where they were to work under the authority of the Prefet and the
DCL. With the completion of the GLM their status and financing has been in flux making them marginal partners for the LGP.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 20 
council committees provided for in the Communal Charter ultimately did not give greater attention to
the issues brought before them by the now better‐organized youth. There is some indication that as a
result of LGP involvement, youth have become increasingly interested in local affairs but don’t have
enough knowledge and skills to become involved; they express the need for more training in this area.
Given the absence of a legal and regulatory framework for mandating closer relationships between
youth and their communes, local elected officials have felt little motivation to forge such relationships
and to regard youth councils as partners in local governance.
In summary, the methods the LGP employed to work at the commune level may have been adequate for
achieving some of the goals of IR 2.2 (strengthened communal capacity) and IR 2.3 (increased
transparency and accountability) but did little to help promote the objectives of IR 2.1 (broadening
participation).  
f. Strengthening the Capability of the Communes
The communal management practices are hindered by both organizational deficiencies and insufficient
skills. In the area of taxation, the majority of the communes are functioning in a classic system of
government control. In the area of budgetary planning, the logic of budgeting‐by‐revenue still prevails to
the detriment of budgeting‐toward‐results. This continues in spite of a law about local public finances
(Law 45‐08), constructed according to the philosophy of strategic budgeting, which attempts to direct
the budgetary practices in accordance with a mission‐program approach— an approach that enables
good budgeting of the PCDs. The absence in the commune of human resources competent in the basic
professions adds to these constraints, and slows commune performance where the integration of
information technology tools (IT) still remains very weak.  
The LGP has selected three components to strengthen the performance of the communes, and focused
its interventions and contributions on training, with the goal of establishing a new commune tax
administration system and a system of monitoring commune performance.  
Support for the development of the Communal Development Plan (PCD)
The approach that the LPG has adopted in assisting communes to develop their own PCD involves
working primarily with the technical staff and training them in developing and budgeting for projects. In
the pilot communes that received significant amounts of assistance, the technical staff did acquire new
skills. Our interviews with these officials indicate that they were quite satisfied with this training and
were able in at least some instances to parlay it into career advancements.
Support for the training of commune personnel
This component is still under development. It involves improving the skills of the commune technical
staff for a variety of tasks through training. The LGP has employed two types of support for this. The first
involved preparing a menu of six thematic tool kits linked directly to various program activities.
Depending upon their own needs and preferences, communes could choose which of these modules
they would request training in. At the time of this evaluation these modules were still being prepared
and covered training activities for the CPECs, evaluation and monitoring of the PCDs, further training of
elected women, and handling of complaints.   
The second initiative was the creation of an entire training program for two urban communes (Fes and
Sefrou). The training plans have been prepared and are in the process of gaining approval.  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 21 
Despite these successes, the LGP ran into some serious difficulties with its training program. The most
important constraint has been that the Ministry of Interior’s Office of Training of Administrative and
Technical Officials (DFCAT), which is supposed to develop training for administrative and technical
personnel— and which has significant capability in that domain— the relation between the DFCAT and
the LGP has been negatively impacted due to an internal conflict within the Ministry of Interior’s
Directorate for Local Governance (DGCL). Previously DFCAT did work with the LGP to develop training
programs for elected women, but the agency has been completely frozen out of its role as a counterpart
to the LGP. The LGP was not responsible for this constraint, but it undoubtedly slowed the development
of these materials.  
Mobilization of Fiscal Resources
The LGP has provided support for implementing the new communal fiscal administration (AFC) in the
pilot communes of Moulay Abdellah and El Jadida (in the regions involved in the program), and for the
urban communes of Marrakech, Ben Guérir, and Kenitra (not included in the LGP target regions). The
LGP engaged several Moroccan consulting firms to test the adaptability of the organizational kit
proposed by the DGCL for the target communes, and to define the measures required for its full
implementation. The communes involved have accepted this technical assistance. At the time of this
evaluation, implementation of the AFC was underway pending the completion of the studies from the
consulting firms.  
The level of organization and human resources needed to implement the new communal tax
administration are simply not present in many instances. The option to rely on external consulting firms
has proven to be very costly and can probably not be sustained across a wide spectrum of communes.    
Commune Performance Framework (CPF)
This activity would have involved the communes in a self‐study of their performance. According to the
LPG PMP report this activity was cancelled due to the resistance of local elected officials.  
Analysis of the methods
The LGP has attempted to strengthen the capacity of its pilot communes through a strictly technical
approach that deals directly with the communes. It has relied heavily on consulting firms to understand
how best to create and implement training programs, both for the development of the PCDs and for the
adaptation and management of the communal tax administration (AFC). These studies are being
finalized but do not seem to have adequately considered the political dimensions, especially the
importance of the support of local elected officials. The LGP has also not considered how the learning
acquired from these experiments could be shared with the DCLs in order to assure greater support at
that level and more continuity between the local and provincial levels.
The LGP has been successful in developing a series of training modules and in training a significant
number of people in management (principally in planning and development of the PCDs), and in tax
management. This has led to an improvement of the skills of local technical staff and an improvement in
revenue generation for those communes where it is operational.7
                                                            
7 According to an interview with Mr Hamza Belkbir, Chief of the Division on Budget and Markets of the MoI’s Office of Local
Finance
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 22 
1. The LGP’s approach to strengthening the capacity of communes to respond to citizens’ priorities
was purely technical, and thus it was insufficient given the reality of local politics and historical
attitudes of the population toward communal government.  
I. There is no clear evidence that public satisfaction with communal government improved
due to the activities of the project. The principal objective of IR 2.2 was to improve the
responsiveness of the commune to public priorities, and the PMP measure of this was public
opinion. Although no good baseline exists for the level of public satisfaction, our survey
showed that only 16% of those surveyed agreed that elected public officials reflected their
priorities (only 12% for youth) and nearly half strongly disagreed with the proposition that
“public officials work for the interest of citizens.” Although the difference is not statistically
significant, it is interesting to note that respondents in the “control communes” had slightly
more positive responses.  
II. The Communal Performance Framework and the Communal Fiscal Administration
confronted difficulties due to the opposition of some elected officials. This opposition
reduced the significance and effectiveness of the training undertaken.
3. The LGP encountered some problems and delays in the development of its training programs due to
internal conflicts within the DGCL that were beyond its control.  
4. Overall, the methods adopted by the LGP to implement its activities in IR 2.2 did not directly
contribute to expanding citizen participation, or directly foster closer cooperation with the provincial
level government. Because of this, the LGP did not build technical skills as broadly as they might have
done. Reliance on consulting firms to conduct studies of training needs for the AFC was costly and
probably not generalizable.  
Transparency and Communication
The development of transparency and communication are decisive for creating a climate of confidence
between the citizens and their commune. When elected officials express a commitment to the
population and develop a willingness to assure quality communication, citizens will also commit to the
dialogue and consequently become integrated into the communal initiative. The participatory
diagnostics that the commune must perform in developing its PCD are critical to creating a climate of
confidence between the administration, the elected officials, and the population because it is through
this mechanism that the PCDs reflect citizen priorities and needs.
Our household survey reveals the strong need for improvement in this area. Nearly 60% of the
respondents strongly disagreed with the proposition that the commune is efficient in its communication
with its citizens, and 65% strongly disagreed that the commune has adopted a transparent approach to
the management of local affairs.
The LGP has set forth a three‐part solution to address this deficiency. The first concerns communication
and exchange with the population; the second involves the management of complaints and claims; and
the last consists of establishing and monitoring internal auditing structures.
Communication and exchange with the citizens
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 23 
This activity is underway in three urban communes (Sefrou, Safi, and El Jadida) and is based on training
workshops and brainstorming sessions with the staff of the commune. This activity worked to broaden
participation by setting up a consultation process for establishing communication committees in the
three communes. The cells are complete in the communes of Sefrou and Safi, and the establishment in
El Jadida is in progress. A communication strategy is in the process of being finalized. The LGP has
sufficiently trained 13 commune officials to help them manage the new communication cells.
This activity has been slowed by the difficulty in finding local experts in communication to undertake the
training. This is a constraint reflecting the state of this special area of consulting in Morocco rather than
a criticism of the project.  
There have been other problems, however, that reflect political and bureaucratic obstacles. The first
question posed was where the new communication unit would be located— within an existing
government structure such as the case of Sefrou (in the Planning Department) or in an independent
structure. It was also difficult simply to convince other actors— specifically, elected officials— to actively
support the creation of the communication unit. Provincial level administrative actors (the DLC) have
not weighed in and this has slowed the launch of this program.  
Thus far, the communication strategies are in their early phases and do not reflect the latest and most
efficient means of linking citizens to local government. This could negatively influence public
perceptions, particularly of youth, of the efficiency of the system. For example, the target communes
have not been able to keep their website current and thus have not been able to attract youth who are
major consumers of web content. Nor have the communes taken advantage of the opportunity to
include text messaging in their communication program, despite the fact that this has become a very
important source of real‐time news, particularly among the youth.
Management of complaints and claims
This activity, highly important in strengthening local governance, touches upon interests and strategies
of powerful actors and is therefore bound to generate opposition. As such it must have significant
external support in order to succeed. The LGP has tried to establish structures to manage complaints in
the target urban communes of Safi, El Jadida, Fes, and Kenitra. Despite considerable delays, it has
succeeded in El Jadida, where it has launched a full complaint management system with an
accompanying training guide. Similar complaint systems are being tested in several of the other
communes as well. Training workshops on the techniques of complaint management, their operational
modes, the reception of complainants, and complaint tracking via a guide, have been organized to help
members who might participate in these structures.
Delays in the implementation of this program seem inevitable. For example, the evaluation team noted
a one‐year delay between the completion of the phase I study and the implementation of the system in
the communes. This was due, it seems, to the insufficient involvement of the public authorities
particularly at the provincial level, but also at the level of elected communal officials.
Establishment and monitoring of internal audit structures  
As a management practice, auditing is vital to enhancing citizen confidence in and support of
government. Communal administrations, however, are highly resistant to this practice both because of
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 24 
very poorly organized administrative structures that make auditing difficult and because the existing
structure virtually guarantees a strong motivation to behave in a manner that avoids control. In essence,
lack of accountability is an entrenched behavior that overwhelms the administrative logic of better
governance.  
The LGP has tried to integrate the audit structure into a commune by shifting communal values as well
as organizational structures. It has attempted to create a climate of transparency and for strengthening
the commune’s capability to conduct internal auditing and to communicate with its surroundings. Three
pilot communes have been targeted by this activity (Safi, El Jadida, and Salé), where the LGP has
initiated actions of training and communication to support the establishment of internal audit
structures. The activities conducted during the first two years are: a) a diagnosis of the “as‐is” situation
in each of the three pilot communes, which enabled better discernment of the context and the
conditions within which the internal audit structures would operate; b) sensitization, training, and
supervision of the auditors of the target communes; c) preparation of the audit charter and of a
procedures manual for internal auditing; d) preparation of the risk‐mapping and establishment of a plan
to enable each of the three communes to improve control of the risks identified by officials to be critical
or significant. The diagnostic studies have provided these communes with basic documents that will be
useful for strategic development of every activity. The three communes are now at the halfway point in
the total process.  
The major difficulty the LGP approach encounters is that technical training, while important, is not likely
to prevail unless local actors can overcome their entrenched resistance to strengthening transparency.
According to field data collected, elected officials have resisted involvement in the process because they
are reluctant to be exposed to total transparency. In addition, elected officials believe that their ability
to protect their base of electoral support depends on their ability to create situations characterized by
lack of transparency. The LGP has apparently not taken this complex dimension of resistance into
account. They have not initiated any activities that target the resistance to change and show elected
officials how they can benefit from providing the commune administration with a system of internal
auditing, management of complaints, and communication. This situation is likely to persist in the
absence of strong external governmental directives.  
Given the complexity of the existing situation and sets of interests, the LGP has registered some success
in the area of promoting better communication and transparency. The success of the establishment of
the communication cells in Sefrou and Safi and another success in the establishment of a complaint
management structure in El Jadida are apparent. The first phase of the auditing process— the diagnostic
study— has been successfully completed in the three target communes (Salé, Safi, and El Jadida); in
these three communes auditing has been approved and is awaiting the response of the DGCL for
dissemination.
The technical preparation for establishing internal audits in several communes represents a significant
achievement that may be capable of spreading. A number of factors may still slow the process of regular
internal audits and may compromise their sustainability and institutionalization. Primary among these is
the prevailing culture in the commune of resistance to “inspection,” which values short‐term political
concerns over the modernization of local public administration.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 25 
The establishment of a functioning complaint management system in a single commune and its testing
in several others are significant accomplishments. As it begins to function, however, it will become
entangled in political interests and therefore confront serious resistance.
7. The Regionalization Issue (SOW Question 2.a)
Regionalization has always been present in traditional Morocco. Regionalization among Moroccan tribes
has always been observed but on a smaller scale (M. Darif, 2010).
The issue of institutionalizing regionalization in Morocco is not a modern phenomenon. The
regionalization process assumed its initial form in 1971 with the creation of seven regions. But it wasn’t
until 1997 (Dahir of August 20, 1997) that the region was considered as a basis for economic
development. It was in this spirit that 16 regions were created. Four years later, the Finance Law
included a specific budget line for the regions.
The wave of institutional reforms has led Morocco to give the region the status of a strategic territorial
player and to push toward functional autonomy in the southern provinces. Autonomy is certainly a form
of regionalization, but, aside from the southern provinces, regionalization will not result in autonomy.
Therefore, the Moroccan model of “advanced regionalization” could not be copied directly from a
European pattern of regionalization. The directives of the King enjoy a strong inspiration from the
Moroccan tradition; neither the Spanish nor the German models could apply in Morocco. Morocco is not
a federal State; it is a unitary State trying to respond to institutional transformation needs in order to
develop regional integration capabilities and align with globalization process requirements. The new
politics of regionalization are therefore a response to a geopolitical situation.
The new territorial division will not be based on demographic data, nor will it strictly be based on
economic potentials of regions. Indeed, differences between rich and poor regions promise to be
extremely challenging and difficult to overcome. The wealthy regions will not favorably view having to
“pay” for the other territorial subdivisions. Regionalization could highlight the territorial inequalities and
even deepen them.
A logical multidimensional approach— administrative, historical, ecological, economic, and others—
directs the possibilities for a converging homogenous division of regions that is aligned with
development needs. The regionalization project will therefore be a long‐term process for Morocco.
Several questions emerge:
 What are the constraints of the advanced regionalization project?
 Will decentralization and the system of autonomies enable more citizen involvement in the
management of local affairs and in conflict resolution related to economic development?
 Can regionalization succeed in the absence of good governance practices?
 Is there a methodology for regional development, and would the criteria applied at the national
level be adequate for the regional level, too?  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 26 
 Given gaps and differences among regions, will there be different models at the national and
regional levels?  
For the time being, given that the whole structure of advanced regionalization is not yet known, it is not
evident that the kind of regionalization described above will conflict with the policy of local governance
reform via decentralization. Instead it appears that regionalization will require both significant
improvements in good governance practices and in the planning and management capabilities of lower
levels of government, particularly the regional and provincial levels. In addition, the political institutions,
notably elected regional councils and presidents likely be established at those levels, will need to be
more effective and representative.
8. Donor Coordination
The evaluation team interviewed two international donor organizations, the Canadian International
Development Agency and the United Nations Development Program, and met with USAID, the
Coordinator for International Cooperation and Studies of the DGCL, and the Governor Director of Legal
Affairs, Studies, Documentation and International Cooperation. From these discussions it became
apparent that there is a complete lack of coordination between donors and their programs in the area of
local governance reform and decentralization. Although there are a number of international donors
active in this area, most notably French Aid (PAD) and the European Union, neither the General
Directorate of Local Government (DGCL) nor the donors have created any formal mechanism for
cooperating, sharing information, or deciding upon the territorial and functional divisions of labor.  
An informal thematic group of members from these organizations holds periodic meetings to discuss
specific issues of interest. In 2007, the Governor Director of the DGCL called a meeting to discuss more
effective coordination, but this effort has not been repeated. Canadian Aid published a document,
“Letters from the Local Communities,” which gathered information on a number of local governance
support programs. However, this document did not involve other donors nor was it widely circulated
within the international donor community.
The consequence of this lack of coordination is that donors often select specific geographic areas and/or
particular kinds of activities for their programs that are suited to their own agenda. Often, programs are
designed and implemented without consultation with other donors or the DGCL. This results in a pattern
of international aid that often does not serve the communes most in need of support. In addition, when
these programs conclude, there is often no planned follow‐up, which compromises the sustainability of
the program. In this context, it is suggested that USAID can only improve the situation and the LGP (or
successor programs) by forging a much closer relationship with the DGCL and particularly with the
Directorate of Legal Affairs, Studies, Documentation, and International Cooperation. In doing so, USAID
will be in a better position to negotiate and focus its assistance programming.  
9. General Conclusions
Each section above on program directions or components has contained a set of relevant conclusions.
This section is intended to address a series of broader questions that USAID posed for the midterm
evaluation of the LGP in the Scope of Work. The methodology followed here is to first respond to each
question succinctly and then to amplify these responses in a longer, more detailed section.
Brief Response to SOW Questions
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 27 
1. How effectively did the program’s activities targeting communes contribute to achieving the AO
of increased participation of citizens, especially youth, in governance?
Although the mechanisms and activities supported by or created by the LGP did enhance the
organizational capacity of citizens at the local level, they did little to expand participation in local
governance. Expansion of meaningful participation requires fundamental changes in the behavior,
practices and culture of local elected officials that the LGP has been unable to effectively address in the
short time it has operated in the targeted communes.
2. To what extent was the program design suitable to the targeted beneficiaries? To what extent
will LGP interventions be useful for regionalization plans?
The principal weaknesses in the program were due to two things. First, the context for reform through
greater citizen participation was very unfavorable, both from the point of view of elected local officials
and from the view of citizens, particularly youth and women, who had negative attitudes toward
commune level governance. Second, the design of the LGP did not sufficiently consider these constraints
and resistance, and the LGP methods did not sufficiently address them. While the design did emphasize
the involvement of local elected officials, the LPG chose to focus its work on small numbers of largely
technical officials. In addition, it did not form sufficiently strong partnerships with both national and
provincial authorities.
Since details of the regionalization plans were not yet clear at the time of this evaluation, we can only
speculate about the relationship between administrative decentralization and regionalization. It does
seem likely, however, that a major focus of regionalization will be strengthening the provincial level and
making it more participatory. The LGP can assist this process in its remaining time by supporting linkages
among actors at the provincial level, and linkages between this level and the communes.  
3. Do targeted beneficiaries (including local government officials, civil society organizations and
youth groups) feel that the program helped them institutionalize broader civic participation as
well as improve commune performance, transparency and communication? What activities
should be modified, expanded, added, or eliminated to improve program effectiveness?  
Our individual interviews and focus group discussions with local officials, commune‐level technical
officials, non‐governmental citizen associations, and with women revealed a range of responses to the
program. Some, principally local technical staff, expressed satisfaction with their own skill acquisition
and improvement of the commune’s planning capacities. Some respondents expressed approval for the
efforts to improve the accountability, conflict management and transparency of the target communes
where these programs had been initiated. At the same time many of the participants and intended
beneficiaries were critical of the functioning of the communal government. At the time of this
evaluation, in the mid‐course of this project, few felt that the changes introduced on an experimental
basis had been or were being institutionalized. This was due largely to resistance and in some cases
open opposition on the part of local authorities.  
4. How sustainable are the activities targeting communes? Will activities, systems, and established
relationships remain active and operational past project completion?  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 28 
It is difficult to assess the sustainability of these activities. Much will depend on how the current
government implements its participatory development strategy and on the results of the local
government elections. At present, a major weakness of the program is that it has focused on structures
rather than on the principal players, and these structures (youth councils, CPECs, and complaint
management systems) depend heavily on the interests and strategies of elected local officials, mainly
commune presidents.  
5. How has donor coordination, or lack thereof, affected the efficiency and overall sustainability of
LGP activities? How can the LGP effectively avoid duplication of efforts?
Interviews with several other donors and with officials in the Ministry of Interior and the Directorate of
Local Government Affairs (DGCL) indicate that there is little coordination by donors or by the GOM.
Because local government reform projects such as the Canadian GLM operate and terminate with little
or no coordination with other programs such as USAID’s LGP, it has been difficult for the LGP to plan for
the integration of provincial‐level agents (the ADPs). Donors initiate their own planning priorities based
on their own criteria, which may contribute to a lack of more harmonized development across the entire
country. Thus far, there is no mechanism among donors that can help avoid duplication or overlapping
of efforts.
6. To what extent are LGP activities necessary for achieving USAID Democracy and Governance
objectives as they relate to improved government‐citizen engagement?
USAID’s overall assistance objective in Democracy and Governance in Morocco implied a transformation
of the behavior and culture of local politics and an expanded role for citizens. The magnitude of these
goals exceeded the program’s available staffing, resources, and time. The promotion of participatory
mechanisms undertaken in a very small number of communes and almost exclusively at the communal
level has, thus far, proven to have a limited impact on USAID’s development objective of expanding
citizen participation.
This does not mean that USAID should abandon its efforts to assist the reform and decentralization
process. To improve government‐citizen engagement, this evaluation recommends that USAID orient
more of its program activities to: 1, improve the coordination and participatory process at the provincial
level; 2, encourage and assist the DCLs to engage elected officials at the commune level; and 3, provide
motivation for elected officials to adopt better governance practices.
7. To what extent has the project developed and implemented sustainable measures to ensure
women’s participation in local governance?
According to the interviews and focus group discussions that the evaluation team ran exclusively with
women, very little has been achieved in expanding the participation of women either as elected officials
or in a variety of activities and mechanisms at the local level. There is as yet no structure for
coordinating the input of elected women in local decision making, and structures like the CPECs have
not accorded de facto autonomy from commune officials.  
Analysis and Explication of General Conclusions
The LGP was born out of the USAID and the Moroccan government’s shared interest in strengthening
local governance. This goal was based on the notion that increasing citizen participation and improving
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 29 
the capacity of local governments to respond to citizen needs and priorities would lead to popular
support for government, thereby reducing political conflict and threats to the stability of the system. At
the heart of the LGP was the desire to transform local government into a better and more democratic
entity, largely through active participation of its citizens. (IR 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 – technical activities to
improve the capacity of local government by enhancing its practices; and to improve the credibility of
local government by making it more transparent and accountable)  
Strengthening of local governance via citizen participation in the affairs of their communes is a
Herculean task. The LGP was confronted with an extremely difficult context, described in some detail in
earlier sections of this report. First, the governance context could be generally described as one in which
ordinary citizens, especially young people, have serious unmet needs. Increasingly, they are demanding
to be heard, but are essentially alienated from local government (see survey data in Annex 7). At the
same time, the actors who control local government lack a sense of representation or service
orientation. They are interested in retaining control and resist democratic change. Finally, the policies of
the GOM have been in full transition, but lack the willingness to implement a reform and regionalization
program that would transform historically dominant government structures and practices.  
In this context, USAID’s strategic objective for Democracy and Governance, and consequently its local
government reform program (LGP) in Morocco, have been ambitious about transforming local
government practices and culture with the resources at its command.  
Throughout this report the evaluation team has pointed to issues in the political administrative context
that limited the results of the LGP’s interventions. Certainly, as our conclusions from the field work
demonstrate, the LGP was able to achieve some success in demonstrating the feasibility of improved
administrative practices such as fiscal systems, communication plans, and even internal audits on an
experimental basis in a limited number of pilot communes. Even when this has been the case, however,
the team has noted (often from the LGP’s own reports) that political factors involving the interests and
electoral strategies of local officials have slowed or impeded progress. Even activities which were not
designed to foster expanded participation directly, and which involved only a small number of trainees
and participants, have been subject to these constraints. Hence, it has not been possible to separate
technical activities from those directly bearing on expanded participation. The LGP’s strategy seems to
have emphasized technical interventions at the expense of working closely with local political
authorities who were often perceived as being resistant to the changes implied, and particularly to the
notion of broader consultation and to demands for some sharing of the process of decision‐making.  
The report repeatedly comes back to the LGP’s insufficient attention to the interests of local elected
officials, who need extensive sensitivity training— including efforts to help them understand the value
to them of better‐managed local public affairs. It also points to the fact that the LGP did not elicit
sufficient support and partnership from the provincial level of government in implementing its reform
program and in mobilizing local elected officials. There is real question, however, in the context of
Morocco at the time of the evaluation, whether the GOM and specifically the DGCL were able to
mobilize their resources to this end. Without this support, USAID and the LGP could not effect these
profound changes.  
Even if the political will and capacity had existed at the national and provincial levels, the design of the
LGP was inadequate for the tasks at hand—using technical mechanisms such as the PCD process to
produce technical and political results. The LGP’s staffing and the deployment of its human and material
resources were insufficient.  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 30 
In addition to the central staff of the project, the LGP had only one agent in each region, and depended
on supplemental part‐time consultants and consulting firms. Help from the creation of the corps of new
Provincial Development Agents (ADP), and from a closer relationship with the DCL, could have made a
difference, but even full involvement of the ADPs would have only added two additional agents to help
implement the broad array of tasks that the LGP attempted to undertake at the commune level. The
result was that it had insufficient capacity to assure long‐term and continued technical and motivational
support even to the pilot communes; extended periods between intervention activities also limited the
accumulation of knowledge in these communes. This problem was intensified by the decision of the LGP
to extend a light version of its activities (particularly in support of the PCDs) to other communes in its
region and even to communes entirely outside its designated region of concentration. It was also made
worse by the loss of DFCAT as a training partner due to circumstances entirely beyond the LGP’s control.
In this context, the LGP was able to achieve some positive results at the local level by emphasizing the
creation and reinforcement of structures such as the CPECs and the youth councils. Our field work
analysis, however, points to significant limitations and challenges to this structural approach.  
These structures depend largely on the interests and strategies of commune presidents. These
structures, therefore, are embryonic and vulnerable.  
Thus far CPECs function only to a limited extent as a structure that encourages the participation of
marginal community members, especially women. There are even some communes where the creation
of CPECs has been resisted by local elected officials.  
The exception appears to be youth organizations that were the subject of intense support by the LGP.
Although the role of youth councils— and even their internal organization— have been challenged by
some local elected officials and commune leadership, they clearly have become a means by which youth
are insisting on a greater role in local governance. In one instance, for example, youth leaders
successfully contested the appointment of a youth council member by the commune president.
However, encouraging a higher level of demands on the part of civil society can be problematic when
elected officials resist or ignore these demands. Social science literature has demonstrated that in a
transitional period of governance change, the confrontation of these forces can lead to increased
frustration on the part of civil society actors, particularly youth, and this frustration can lead to
destabilizing mass action such as was seen in the Arab Spring.8
  
It is difficult to scientifically ascertain the extent to which the intended beneficiaries of the LGP feel that
the program has addressed their needs or helped institutionalize civic participation. At the time of this
evaluation the LGP had only been operational for about 32 months— far too short a time for many of its
activities to have produced the profound changes needed in the political and structural environment. It
should also be pointed out that no baseline of public attitudes toward local government and its
operation existed against which to measure changes in perceptions and feelings. Finally, the concept of
“beneficiary” in this project has been somewhat confusing. On the one hand we might consider only
those directly involved in program activities to be beneficiaries. On the other, the project aimed at
transforming the operational mode of public officials at the local level, thereby impacting all of its
citizens (we call these indirect beneficiaries).  
                                                            
8 Samuel P. Huntington. Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 31 
Given these limitations and caveats, the evaluation team concluded that at the mid‐course direct and
indirect beneficiaries perceive that improvements in communal performance and in the
institutionalization of expanded civic participation have been modest at best.
We base this finding on two sources of information: our household survey, and focus group interviews
with women and civil society associations members. The survey merely reflects the fact that at the level
of youth and female members of households the LGP had a very limited impact. Very few respondents
even knew about the program or the new institutions created (youth councils and CPECS, as well as PCD
operational committees) (See Annex 6 for detailed data).  
In general, the level of appreciation for the operation of commune government was low. More than 50%
of those interviewed strongly disagreed with the proposition that “the commune improves the life of
citizens” or expressed confidence that the commune has the capacity to resolve problems. The survey
also found high levels (58%) of discontent with the commune’s efficiency in communication with its
citizens and with the transparency of commune decisions (65% percent strongly disagreed that the
communal council had adopted a transparent approach). Although for technical reasons it is not
statistically meaningful to draw direct comparisons, it is interesting to note that the level of
dissatisfaction was slightly lower in the control communes. Interviews and focus groups (see Annexes
5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.7, 5.3.10, and Annex 8) revealed significant discontent with the commune’s low levels of
inclusion of women and youth. While the work that the LGP has done with elected women officials has
encouraged them to form an informal information‐sharing network, it has yet to result in new and more
powerful roles for women in councils or broader participation in the LGP’s activities. The councils do not
appear to have systematically incorporated a gender approach in the way participants are selected or in
the way they function.
Interviews, as well as a study of the relevant documents, pose questions about the sustainability and
institutionalization of the structures and practices that the LGP has initiated on an experimental basis,
including the CPECs and the complaint management systems. Commune presidents with the support of
councils could suspend the functioning of these institutions or replace their members, thus barring
strong directives from the decentralized agencies of the central government (the provincial level DCLs).
It is for this reason that evaluation team has recommended that USAID supports empowering the
legalization and autonomy of these institutions.
10. Recommendations
Each section of the report that deals with data from the field work offers recommendations that could
improve the performance and impact of the LGP. For convenience, a complete list of these
recommendations follows. (10.2)
Two Principal Recommendations
Two key recommendations are below. The argument here is not that these recommended shifts in the
project’s working methods would be sufficient to achieve the objectives of the project— we have
already outlined the contextual factors that make it difficult for this project to achieve its most basic
goal of expanding citizen participation and democratization of local governance in Morocco. Rather, the
argument is that focusing on these two recommendations could help at least lay the groundwork for
long‐term local government reform.  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 32 
Recommendation No. 1: The LGP must intensify its work with the primary player of local governance,
i.e., the local elected official:
Local governance reform is first of all a willingness on the part of the local elected official to practice
shared management of local public affairs. Such a choice means providing this communal actor with the
necessary skills to understand the difference between old practices that have been learned through a
perspective of representative democracy, and the new teachings of political and managerial culture for
implementing participatory democracy. Given the state of mind of the local elected officials, the
development of governance structures that converge on the practices of shared management will only
yield a satisfactory result if the necessary and sufficient conditions are met. This means that initially,
there must be political will at the central level. As explained in the section on context, the constitutional
framework is favorable to the practices of participatory governance, but there needs to be a clear plan
that defines the spheres of authority of deliberative bodies (councils, parliaments and administrative
bodies). In addition, the regulatory authorities must play a decisive role in the exercises of accountability
and responsibility. This architecture is not yet clear or mature in Morocco. This has created difficulties
for the LGP in developing a clear intervention strategy and a set of priority activities. The creation of
many youth councils and many CPECs, for example, will increase and structure the social demands in the
target communes, but the organizational capacity to absorb these demands is not yet in place.  
The LGP’s activities must be directed toward sensitizing elected officials through a whole set of applied
actions to the culture of participatory democracy. This same process must be undertaken with the
different categories of players in the territorialization of the country. It will be necessary to have other
actors in the regionalization scheme encourage actors at the provincial level to comply and commit to
the process of participatory local governance. Governors also can play a significant role in encouraging
the whole set of players to work with elected officials in developing more democratic local governance
processes. This is vital, as local integrated development presupposes the presence of decentralized
technical services when PCDs are prepared, and then later when they are implemented. The proposed
outline of the regionalization plan makes it clear that although central control (tutelle) will decline, it will
be a gradual process requiring the central and deconcentrated administrations to monitor and give
impetus to the participatory process at the provincial and local levels.9
Example of proposed activities:
 Sensitization seminars on the linkage between strategic planning and a democratic approach to
governance.
 Training in best practices regarding shared management.
 Workshops in the practices of meaningful consultation.
 Training seminars on the new missions of the communal councils in the era of the new
constitution.
                                                            
9 Royaume	du	Maroc,	Commission	Consultative	de	la	Régionalisation,	Rapport	sur	la	régionalisation	avancée,	no	date.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 33 
 Seminars on the forms of exercise of power discussed in the Communal Charter.
Recommendation No. 2: The LGP must create a platform for collaboration with provincial authorities,
DCLs and the ADPs, in order to coordinate and focus its targeting strategies:
To remain consistent and to build up integration between the different activities aimed at elected
officials, the DCLs (Provincial Local Government Authority) can play a central role in promoting good
governance between elected officials of the different provinces in the target regions. The provincial
administration has at its disposal much of the information as to what the communes need, their
resources, their state of progress in the preparation of the PCDs, their fiscal potential, and their level of
mastery of their financial resources. The lack of coordination with the different DCLs during the first
period of the LGP resulted in missed opportunities to adequately target its service packages. Conducting
the needs‐assessment through the use of questionnaires, for example, was not the best way to
determine and respond to the priorities and needs of the communes. Furthermore, the LGP should seek
the support of authorities to more fully involve the DCLs and ADPs. Several interviews with ADPs, for
example, confirmed that they have useful tools which they acquired in their training and that they could
provide valuable support to development actions at the commune level. The LGP should also collaborate
with the ADPs in an effort to mobilize elected officials in the target provinces. The DCLs would probably
see this collaboration as assisting them in implementing elements of the central government’s strategy
for local planning. At the central level the DGCL would have to make an additional effort to strengthen
administration at the commune level. For its part, the LGP could contribute by offering a substantial
body of experience and a very rich cache of information to elected officials, providing them with
different perspectives on the development of their projects.  
Example of proposed activities:
 The LGP could facilitate meetings among the DCLs, ADPs and local elected officials from the
target regions to share information on commune priorities and look for ways in which the
interests of the various parties could converge.
 The LGP could help create a database by province and region that could be useful in promoting
inter‐commune cooperation and the integration of officials in the process.
 The LGP could work with the provincial‐level government to develop a mobilization strategy for
involving elected officials in governance practices mandated in the Communal Charter.
Additional Recommendations Covering Questions 2a (regionalization) and 6 (LGP and USAID
Democracy & Governance (DG) Objectives):
Recommendation 3. (Question 6: To what extent are LGP activities necessary for achieving USAID
Democracy and Governance objectives as they relate to improved government‐citizen engagement?)
This report argues that USAID’s Democracy and Governance objectives in Morocco are too ambitious
given its resources and timeframe. In terms of its principal focus— expansion of citizen participation in
local government— we have argued that despite the success that the LGP has had thus far in promoting
participatory structures and mechanisms on an experimental scale, the process of democratizing local
government in Morocco is beyond the capacity of a single, relatively short‐term (four years), project.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 34 
The focus on the communal level in USAID’s DG strategy is understandable given the logic of
decentralization, but is beyond USAID’s manageable interest at present. A number of things must be
resolved and made operational within the GOM before this will become a realistic goal.  
Nonetheless, the goal of supporting public administrative reform and restructuring is and should be part
of USAID’s DG strategy for the long‐term. It will be important to support better and more effective
government if Morocco is to be able to weather the storm launched by the Arab Spring. To make
progress toward this goal, USAID should continue to be a partner in the administrative reform process
that may flow from Morocco’s advanced regionalization program at the regional and provincial levels.
This program is likely to offer opportunities to reinforce the decentralized agencies of government at the
regional and provincial levels, bringing with it the possibilities to improve government management as
well as new representative institutions (regional and perhaps provincial councils).
Meanwhile, in the short period remaining, the LGP can contribute to regionalization to the extent that it
demonstrates that its approach can enhance the planning and information capacities of commune‐level
government at reasonable cost in terms of financial and human resources. Although the LGP does not
have this as one of its objectives in its current project agreement, in its final phase it can work to form
closer partnerships with the provincial level of government and support it in becoming a more effective
partner in the development and implementation of PCDs, and begin to lay the groundwork for a strategy
of more effective regionalization. Since this report recommends the LGP increase its relations with the
provincial‐level development actors, it may be able to contribute to this process of preparing for more
effective regionalization.
With its experience in local government reform, USAID is in a good position to assist in this process. It
can transfer some of the lessons learned from its two local government reform programs to assisting in
the training of regional councils and to the sensitization of newly elected representatives. It can also
help reinforce the planning and information capacities at the regional and provincial levels. Both actions
will promote citizen involvement in this vital reorientation of government, and will help build the skills
for a more effective central state and local government.  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 35 
LIST OF ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REPORT
Recommendations on Expanding Citizen Participation
1. More local citizens, especially women and youth, should be brought into the planning,
budgeting, and monitoring processes. The LGP should attempt to work out an agreement with
commune presidents to designate a number of citizens and elected officials in these vital
commune‐level activities.
2. The LGP should emphasize a team approach to its capacity‐building activities at the commune
level by working with prefects and DCLs to involve decentralized technical service personnel in
the ongoing planning and project implementation resulting from PCDs.
3. The LGP should work with the DGCL to mobilize relevant national government ministries to
encourage and provide incentives to decentralized technical service personnel to become
members of commune development teams.
4. The LGP should encourage commune presidents to allow a more open process for the selection
of CPEC members and should particularly encourage the involvement of women, youth and
other marginal groups.
5. The LGP should work more intensively with both youth leaders and local elected officials to
develop practical partnerships that help address local problems, including those of specific
interest to young people, in learning‐through‐doing approaches to build confidence and change
confrontational behaviors.
6. The LGP should intensify its gender approach in all of its commune‐level activities, and
encourage commune presidents and general secretaries to set informal quotas for women’s
involvement.
7. The LGP should consider supporting a formal association of elected women and making a small
grant to this group to develop its information exchange capacity.
8. In this experimental phase the LGP should limit its activities to four communes (two urban and
two rural in each of the target regions) and deploy three teams permanently in order to focus
on the monitoring/evaluation of the activities begun and produce, in real time, adjustments that
would lead to the attainment of the anticipated goals.
9. In its next phase of program implementation the LGP should work closely with the provincial
level of government, notably the DCLs and the ADPs in place, to develop an improved
deployment of personnel to provide close support to a small number of communes. This will be
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 36 
especially important as the LGP attempts to institutionalize a monitoring and evaluation system
that the local communes can eventually assume.
10. The LGP should undertake a systematic program of sensitization of local elected officials to their
new roles in a reformed local government administration. This should be based on practical
experiences of co‐management of activities between elected officials and citizens.
Recommendations on Strengthening Commune Capability to Respond to Citizen Needs
11. The LGP should integrate political considerations into its capacity‐building by adopting a
training‐on‐the‐task approach that teaches technical and management skills. It should attempt
to involve local elected officials and members of community‐based associations in the
conception and implementation of these projects.  
12. The LGP must conceive of enhancing technical skills more broadly than for a specific activity.
Since the communes will often lack the human resources necessary to implement and monitor
complex activities such as the AFC, the LGP must consider the totality of its professional skills
and assist the human resource department in acquiring the personnel and skills needed to
master management planning and respond to citizen demand.  
13. In most cases, acquiring these skills will involve the reorganization and restructuring of the
communal administration, actions that necessitate the involvement of the provincial level and
especially of the DCL to rethink this dimension within the communes and set up appropriate
structures for the requirements of the new DGCL orientations.
Recommendations on Promoting Transparency and Communication
14. The LGP must open up the process of creating communication strategies and choices of
communication vehicles to all strata of the population, especially to youth who are the main
consumers of electronic communication. In urban communes the emphasis must be on
electronic communication and current content if the commune wishes to retain its connection
to its audience.
15. The LGP must intensify its program to sensitize the players who can influence the internal audit
process by supporting or resisting it. It can best do this by demonstrating to these authorities
how good governance practices can serve their own interests.
16. The LGP will need help from the provincial government (DCL) in order to convince local elected
authorities to continue working towards a culture of performance and transparency. To do this
it must address its program not only to communes but to provincial authorities as well.
17. Like internal auditing, the process of establishing a complaint management system is fraught
with political difficulties. In order to institutionalize such a system the LGP will initially need to
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 37 
get the support of provincial‐level authorities to help motivate local political actors to support it.
In the longer term, the viability of such a system will depend on the modernization and
democratization of local government in all of its dimensions— something that is beyond the
capacity of the project to accomplish.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 38 
  
  
LGP Midterm Evaluation
Annexes
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 39 
Contents
ANNEX 1: Research Team ..................................................................................................................40
ANNEX 2: Results Framework ............................................................................................................42
ANNEX 3: Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................43
ANNEX 4: Key Informants ..................................................................................................................55
ANNEX 5: Data Collection Tools.........................................................................................................59
ANNEX 5.2: Household Survey questionnaire in Arabic ....................................................................68
ANNEX 5.2.1: Guidance for conducting individual interviews...........................................................77
ANNEX 5.2.2: Guides to Individual Interviews...................................................................................79
ANNEX 5.2.3: Interview Guide for People Involved with Associations and Civil Society...................80
ANNEX 5.2.4: Interview Guide for Local Elected Officials..................................................................81
ANNEX 5.2.5: Interview Guide for Elected Women...........................................................................82
ANNEX 5.3.1: Focus Group Guides.....................................................................................................83
ANNEX 5.3.2: Focus Group Guide For Women’s Focus Groups.........................................................85
Annex 5.3.3: Focus Group Recording Sheet for Women in Fès (FG1) ...............................................86
ANNEX 5.3.4: Focus Group Recording Sheet for Representatives of Civil Society Associations, Fes (FG2)
...........................................................................................................................................................90
ANNEX 5.3.5: Focus Group Recording Sheet Elected Officials El Jadida (FG3)..................................93
ANNEX 5.3.6: Focus Group Recording Sheet‐The Technical Services , El Jadida (FG4) .....................98
ANNEX 5.3.7: Focus group Recording Sheets ‐Representatives of Civil Society, El Jadida (FG5) ....103
ANNEX 5.3.8: Focus group Recording Sheets ‐ Technical Services‐ Fes (FG6).................................106
ANNEX 5.3.9: Focus group Recording Sheets‐Elected Officials from Fes (FG7)...............................111
ANNEX 5.3.10: Focus group Recording Form ‐ Women’s Group at El‐Jadida (FG8) ........................113
ANNEX 5.3.11: Focus group Recording Sheets for a mixed group of actors from the commune of  
Ameur‐ Salé (FG9)............................................................................................................................117
ANNEX 6: Household Survey Data‐ Preliminary results...................................................................120
ANNEX 7: Table of concentration and dispersion of activities of LGP by type and locality.............133
ANNEX 8: Focus Group Observations Relevant to Expanded Participation, Especially of Youth ....135
Annex 9: Bibliography ......................................................................................................................137
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 40 
ANNEX 1: Research Team
Team Leader:  Robert B Charlick   
Dr. Charlick is a retired Professor of Political Science at Cleveland State University with more
than 30 years’ experience as a consultant working on assessments, evaluations and project
design in Africa and around the world. He served as the Senior Governance Advisor to the Africa
Bureau of USAID in Washington from 1991 to 1994. He is fluent in French and speaks the
African language Hausa. Dr. Charlick’s areas of expertise are:  assessment and analysis of local‐
level and macro‐level democratization processes, corruption assessment and prevention
design, monitoring and evaluation of civil society, and local organizations and conflict
management and mitigation. He has worked extensively on local government, decentralization
and issues of participation in development programs.
Local Government Expert: Dr. Saad Bouachrine
Dr. Bouachrine is an expert in governance and organizational strategy and is a Professor of
Governance and Public Management in the Department of Law, Economy and Sociology at
Mohammed Hassan II University and in the National School of Pubic Management (ENA). He
holds a Doctorate in Strategic Management. Since 2005 he has worked on a number of
consultancies related to governance issues.
Methodology Expert: Mhammed Abderebbi
Dr. Abderebbi is a Professor of Sociology at Mohammed Hassan II University and an expert in
survey research, interviewing and focus groups. He has conducted a number of national surveys
in Morocco including the Arab Barometer and a number of studies of youth labor markets and
women in local government. Dr. Abderebbi has worked for UNIFEM, The World Bank, MEPI and
USAID, where he served for three years as a community participation specialist in the Morocco
Education for Girls Project.
Research Assistant: Mustapha El Mnasfi  
Mr. El Mnasfi is a PhD candidate at the University of Versailles (France). He holds two master’s
degrees from French universities. His research includes studies of citizen participation and
poverty in urban areas of Morocco and France. He recently completed an evaluation for USAID
on the Civil Society Advocacy Project (SANAD). He has worked on issues of youth participation
and assisted the evaluation team in this area.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 41 
Research and Logistics Associate: Ibtissam Mzibri
Ms. Mzibri holds a Master’s Degree in Economics from the School of Law, Economics and
Sociology, Salé, Morocco. Her research includes studies of female entrepreneurs. Ibtissam’s
recent consultancies include a study of the evaluation of the participatory community project
to adapt to climate change. She is a member and project manager of the Democracy Center in
Rabat working on youth rights and governance.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 42 
ANNEX 2: Results Framework
2009‐2013 RESULTS FRAMEWORK
Democracy and Governance Results Framework
AO: Increased Participation of Citizens, Especially 
Youth, in Governance 
2.2: Expanded, 
Decentralized and 
DeconcentratedAuthority
2.3: Improved Capacity of 
Local Government to 
Respond to Citizen 
Priorities 
1.2: Improved Capacity of 
Civil Society to Advocate 
Policy Priorities
I.R. 2: More Effective and 
Accountable Local Government
1.1: Improved Capacity of 
Political Parties to Represent 
Citizen Concerns 
I.R. 1: More Effective 
Representation of Citizen 
Concerns
I.R. 3: Targeted Legal Reform 
2.1: More Effective 
Representational Bodies
2.4: Increased
Accountability and 
Transparency
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 43 
ANNEX 3: Scope of Work
Evaluation of USAID/Morocco Local Governance Program (LGP)
# EPP‐I‐08‐04‐00037
Implementer: Research Triangle Institute (RTI)
USAID/Morocco Assistance Objective 1: Increased Participation of Citizens, Especially Youth, in
Governance
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Project Information
Project Title: Local Governance Program (LGP)  
Award Number: EPP‐I‐08‐04‐00037
Award Dates: February 2010 – September 2014
Funding: $14.7 million
Implementing Partner: Research Triangle Institute (RTI)
Contracting Officer Representative: Alae eddin Serrar
Development Context
The Local Governance Jamaat Al Ghad Program (LGP) was designed to support interaction between
citizens and their local governments (communes) by promoting participative practices and encouraging
increased transparency and accountability of locally elected officials. The purpose of the project is to
make communes more responsive to citizens’ needs and expectations.
One‐year into implementation, the political climate made a drastic change as Moroccan youth took to
the streets on February 20th, 2011 calling for wide‐ranging political and socio‐economic reforms. King
Mohammed VI’s response to protesters' grievances came through a constitutional reform and early
parliamentary elections in November of 2011.   Although occasional protests continue to highlight
political marginalization as a key source of tension, the new Government of Morocco appears
committed to the implementation of the new constitution (which includes greater input from civil
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 44 
society in governance) as well as ambitious plans for decentralization, good governance, and improved
socio‐economic opportunities for all citizens.   
It remains to be seen whether these reforms will translate into tangible and meaningful change in
practice.   The U.S. Government (USG) is working within the framework of the new constitution to
support the reform process through LGP.   Although Morocco has made remarkable progress in
decentralization since 1976, the capacity of local governments to engage with their citizens remains
weak. As a result, LGP was designed to strengthen the capacity of communes to respond to their
citizens’ needs and promote principles of good governance.  
Target Area and Target Population
LGP is a $14.7 million project (February 10, 2010 to September 30, 2014), working primarily in three
target regions: Rabat‐ Salé, Fès‐Boulemane, and Doukkala‐Abda. The project targets primarily rural and
peripheral urban communes, where local governments are confronted with greater challenges and more
significant management incapacities10. As part of a larger portfolio of democracy and governance
activities, LGP supports efforts to make communes more responsive to citizen needs, especially for
youth and women in three key areas: participation and coordination; commune performance; and
communication and transparency.  
Intended Results
USAID’s goal for the five‐year period 2009‐2013 is “a well‐governed, democratic and prosperous
Morocco meeting the needs of its people, especially youth”. Three Assistance Objectives (AOs)
contribute to the attainment of the country goal:  
1) Increased Participation of Citizens, Especially Youth, in Governance;  
2) More Relevant Education and Opportunities for Youth; and  
3) Reduced Barriers to Trade and Investment.  
USAID/Morocco’s Democracy and Governance program is built around citizen participation in civil
society, in political parties, and in local governance. Each of these areas offers opportunities to engage
youth, as well as other segments of society, in order to bring a broader array of groups into public life: a
more effective representation of citizens’ concerns (IR 1.1), combined with improved transparency and
efficiency at the local level (IR 1.2) will lead to a more democratic and participatory governance, as will
targeted legal reforms (IR1.3‐provisional).    
                                                             10 According to a recent report by the Ministry of Habitat, more than 65% of Moroccan city‐residents are
concentrated in sub‐urban and peripheral areas.   
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 45 
LGP supports the Directorate General of Local Communes’ (DGCL) efforts to implement key provisions in
the new communal charter and constitution, including the creation of mechanisms that institutionalize
broader civic participation.   For example, LGP’s activities work with communes in establishing
Committees for Parity and Equality of Chances (CPECs), as well as the drafting of six‐year Development
Plans (PCDs) using an unprecedented participatory approach with civil society, women and youth
groups. Now that these CPECs and PCDs have been adopted by tens of commune councils, LGP
continues to coach the committees to operationalize plans and to introduce a monitoring and
evaluation system to help communes and citizens actively manage the implementation of these plans
and take necessary actions when plans are not meeting targeted performance levels.
Along with LGP, USAID/Morocco supports projects supporting civil society and political parties in
promoting broader civic – in particular youth participation in the country.  USAID/Morocco envisions
that upon the completion of the activities under the five‐year assistance objectives, Morocco’s youth
will be more engaged in local government decision making, political party activities and civil society
engagement with government; and civil society will be more actively engaged in regular dialogue with
government.
Project Approach
The strategic objective of LGP is to promote “more effective and accountable local government” (IR2), 11to contribute to the ultimate goal of USAID in Morocco for a “greater citizen involvement in local
governance, especially by young people.”
To achieve this objective, the program works with the various DGCL departments and local officials
(elected officials, authorities and others) within the LGP target provinces and communes to achieve Sub‐
Intermediate Results (SIR) as follows:
 Participatory practices spread and institutionalized within elected bodies
 More efficient local authorities, to serve populations
 More transparent and accountable local authorities  
 Greater collaboration between communes, public services and others.
Based on the objective and the IRs, LGP has focused on three main areas of intervention:
1) Increasing citizen, especially youth participation and consultation in local governance  
LGP promotes participative practices for greater input in local governance by citizens at the commune
level.  Activities in this area include support in developing and implementing Communal Development
Plans, establishing Equity and Equal Opportunities Commissions, supporting local youth councils and
programs, and encouraging the active participation of elected women officials.
                                                            
11USAID Intermediary Result n°2
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 46 
2) Improved performance of the communes, specifically local government’s ability to provide better
services to citizens
LGP improves the performance of targeted communes by building technical personnel skills (including
direct training/technical assistance), mobilizing financial resources, and monitoring commune
performance.
3) Transparency and communication in local governance
LGP works with targeted communes in making local governance more transparent and accountable by
communicating with citizens, improving complaints management systems, and implementing internal
audit structures.
See Project reports and work plans for descriptions of activities and attached Performance Management
Plan for results, sub‐results and indicators.
I. RATIONALE
Evaluation Purpose and Audience
USAID/Morocco intends to conduct an evaluation of its Local Governance Project which contributes
directly to the Mission’s Democracy and Governance Intermediate Result 1, “More effective
representation of Citizen Concerns.” This evaluation will serve the following purposes:
 To provide the Mission with concrete evidence regarding to what extent LGP achieved its goals
at all levels of the results framework
 Determine any recommended course adjustments in the ongoing program and LGP’s
management structure
 To inform how the Mission will (if at all) support regionalization in new Country Development
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).
The primary task of the evaluation team will be to analyze the performance of LGP midway through
program implementation and make recommendations for improvements in future programming.  This
evaluation will cover the period from the award date through June 30, 2012.   The USAID/Morocco
Mission, specifically the Youth and Human Development Office Democracy and Governance Team, will
use the analysis of this evaluation to decide the direction of Democracy and Governance activities in the
2013 – 2018 CDCS.  The implementing partner, RTI, will learn about the strengths and weaknesses of
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 47 
project activities to date and adjust the upcoming work‐plan based on the evaluation recommendations.  
Final recommendations should also specify ways to focus project priorities and use more specificity in
project activities.  
Evaluation Questions
The following questions shall guide the evaluation in order of importance:
1. How effectively did the project’s activities targeting communes contribute to achieving the
assistance objective?
2. Do targeted beneficiaries feel that project activities are effectively meeting their needs?   What
activities should be modified, expanded or eliminated to improve project effectiveness?
3. How sustainable are the activities targeting communes?
4. How well do the project’s interventions respond to changing priorities and needs, especially in light
of the new political dynamics and reform movement?
5. Is the current donor coordination on local governance sufficient and has RTI worked sufficiently to
avoid duplication and leverage work of other donors?
6. To what extent are project activities value added to other USAID implemented democracy and
governance activities?   
7. To what extent has the project developed and implemented sustainable measures to ensure
women’s participation in local government?
Gender Considerations
Has the project developed sustainable measures to ensure women’s participation in local governance?
Existing Data & Proposed Sources of Information
Desk review of existing literature: bibliography
- “Rapport Relatif aux Résultats du Diagnostic Participatif sur l’Etat de l’Exercice de la Fonction
d’Elue et de la Participation des Femmes à la Gouvernance Locale”, study conducted by LGP,
Novembre 2010.   
- Report on the Evaluation of the USAID 2004‐2009 Local Governance Program.  
- Morocco Communal Charter in French, available at
http://www.anclm.ma/IMG/pdf/La_charte_communale_FR.pdf
- Policies, ”Brahim Boudarbat and Aziz Ajbilou, September 2007.
- “La stratégie Nationale integrée de la Jeunesse”, PowerPoint Présentation, Octobre 2011  
- “Supporting Youth at Risk: A Policy Toolkit for Middle Income Countries.” The World Bank, 2008.
- “Les jeunes de 201: Leurs colères, leurs tabous, leurs espoirs. La Grande Enquête
L’Economiste/Sunergia”.  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 48 
- “The Cost of Youth Exclusion in the Middle East,”Jad Chaaban, Middle East Youth Initiative, May
28, 2008.  
- “Morocco Corruption Assessment,” USAID, October 2008.
- “Morocco Rule of Law Assessment,” USAID, September 2010.
- “Empowering Youth in Poor Neighborhoods in the Region of Casablanca,” Near East Foundation
Final Assessment Report, December 2010.  
- Project related Documents and Sources
- New USAID guidance on Local Capacity Development
- Acquisition Assistance and design documents  
- USAID/Morocco Country Assistance Strategy
- Portfolio Reviews
- Progress Reports: Quarterly, Annual
- Results Framework and Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)
- Mission Data Quality Assessment
- Work Plans
- Field Trip Reports
- LGP Grants Manual
- Success Stories and highlights
- Signed MOUs (between USAID‐DGCL/ LGP‐El Jadida Commune/ LGP‐Fes Commune).  
II. General Methodological Guidelines
This scope of work requires that the team develop and submit for approval a work plan with proposed
methodology within the first 7 days of the evaluation schedule. The following should be included in the
team’s methodology:
 Completion of desk review before arrival of expats to country (see proposed information
sources);
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 49 
 Evaluation must include the use of three methods of data collection, suggested data collection
tools are a brief survey for beneficiaries (which will take fewer than 20 minutes to complete)
and accompanying observation checklist, key informant interviews, and focus groups
discussions.   
 A representative sample of beneficiary individuals, including civil society organizations, must be
included in the survey.  Other beneficiaries may be included in either the key informant and/or
the focus group interviews.  Note: It is expected that partner communes and stakeholders,
including women elected officials and youth associations, will have the opportunity to discuss
how LGP helped improve their capacity and provide suggestions on how to improve future
activities in this area.
 A convenience sample of Government‐linked stakeholder individuals including, at a minimum,
the DGCL, Office of Legal Affairs, Studies, Documentation and International Cooperation(DAJEC),
Office of Training of Administrative and Technical Officials (DFCAT) and Office of Planning and
Equipment (DPE) and a sample of walis/governors, will be included in key informant interviews.
 Ensure that each one of the three methods (surveys, key informant interviews and focus group
interviews) is coded separately.  
 Survey questionnaire and observation items must be entered and analyzed using SPSS or SAS.  
 Qualitative data must be coded using viva coding.  Software is optional but coding will included
in the appendix of the final report.  
 Gender, geographic, and role (beneficiary, implementer, government official) desegregation
must be included in the data analysis where applicable.
Limitations in Methodology
Internal reliability and external reliability limitations must be considered during the evaluation process.  
Due to internal reliability issues, it is not certain that specific project interventions are the cause of
changes which may be observed over the course of the evaluation.  Not unrelated, researchers and
readers must be mindful of external reliability limitations and the fact that findings of this study may not
be entirely generalizable.  While these limitations exist, the mixed‐methods approach suggested in this
section will help boost confidence in internal reliability by establishing and comparing separate findings.  
It is important to note, therefore, that the data must be analyzed separately but conclusions should be
based on the results of all the findings in total.  Specifically, the researchers and the readers must not
rely too heavily on any one method but consider how they fit together to inform our understanding of
the project.   
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 50 
In addition to data analysis, researchers will be asked to conduct a literature review and include findings
from secondary sources which include high quality data (such as scholarly articles and reports) in order
to address the need for high quality data.   The Mission is confident that a careful literature review
combined with this mixed‐methods approach (which includes a representative survey of beneficiaries)
will address the importance of data quality and control cost.
Other recommendations:
 Plan and manage for brief survey questionnaires and observation sheets as to avoid survey
fatigue;
 Avoid making field visits/interviews alone.  Team may break into two or more sub teams to
cover more ground if necessary;
 Triangulate the three methods, most likely surveys, key informant interviews, and focus group
interviews with findings from the literature review and specific scholarly studies especially
relevant to the evaluation.
Team composition and participation of customers and partners
USAID/Morocco anticipates the evaluation team to be comprised of a team leader, three subject‐matter
experts, and two research/logistic assistants.  
The Team Leader should be an evaluation expert combining academic credentials, demonstrable local
governance experience, knowledge of the Moroccan political environment and local governance scene,
and USG foreign policy and foreign assistance programming.  S/he should have considerable experience
working as a part of, as well as leading, democracy and governance evaluation teams and writing
analytic but actionable reports in a clear, coherent and compelling way.
The evaluation team together should have expertise in the following areas: local governance, youth
development, and gender.  Two of the three experts shall have a solid knowledge of English and either
French, Darija, or Arabic.  These languages are preferred as a skill for the other team members. At least
one member should have extensive experience in facilitating interviews and/or group discussions in the
targeted languages. Gender analysis skills are desirable.  The local governance expert should preferably
be Moroccan.  
It is recommended that the research assistants be young Moroccan researchers or university students
with a mixed set of skills and backgrounds in local governance, civil society, youth development,
evaluation, gender equity and related areas.
Other personnel and skill mixes may be proposed.   
Deliverables, Reporting and Dissemination requirements
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 51 
The following reports and deliverables are required:
A. Work Plan: An evaluation work plan shall be submitted for approval to the USAID/Morocco
Office of Youth and Human Development on day 7 (from start of evaluation)  
B. Methodology Plan: A methodology plan will be discussed with and approved by USAID prior to
implementation. The Methodology plan will be included in the work plan.
C. Interim Briefing: An interim briefing on the assessment team’s overall progress and preliminary
findings shall be presented to USAID/Morocco after 2 full weeks of fieldwork in country
D. Draft Report: A draft evaluation report, with executive summary and major findings and
recommendations, shall be presented in writing to USAID during week 5.  USAID will provide comments
on the draft evaluation report during the 4 business days following submission of the draft
E. Debriefing with USAID: Evaluation findings shall be presented orally to USAID Staff before
departure of expat team member(s) from Morocco.
F. Final Report in English: A final report shall be submitted that incorporates and adequately
addresses all Mission comments received.   The final report should not exceed 30 pages, excluding
annexes.
G. Presentation of results to Implementing partners and stakeholders: The evaluation team shall
make an oral presentation on evaluation findings to project partners and stakeholders before departure
of expat team member(s) from Morocco.
H. Thorough Executive Summary in Arabic: An executive summary in Arabic will be provided as
part of the final report.
I. One Page Report Summary in French and Arabic: A one page overview of evaluation findings in
French, Arabic and English shall be provided as part of the final report.
The final report is subject to approval by USAID and should clearly address each of the research
questions and their supporting issues. The evaluation team shall submit a suggested table of contents
for the final report to USAID for approval.  The evaluation report will include the following appendices:
 A copy of the scope of work;
 Team composition and study methods (1 page maximum);
 USAID/Morocco DG results framework; and
 A list of documents consulted, and of individuals, communes, associations, and partners
contacted.
The Team Leader shall be responsible for providing the final deliverable to USAID in electronic format (in
Microsoft Word, Excel, maps in PDF) and 5 hard copies. The Executive Summary, and main report
without appendices, should also be presented as separate electronic documents for easier internal USG
dissemination. Language of the final report is to be English.  
The Team Leader is expected to keep close communication with USAID/Morocco activity manager
throughout the evaluation (at minimum, 3x per week – via email or phone).  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 52 
To help ensure the quality of the evaluation report, the evaluation team is asked to adhere to the
following criteria:
USAID Evaluation Policy:  Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report
 The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well‐researched and well organized effort
to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why.
 Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work.
 The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an Annex.  All modifications to the
scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team
composition, methodology, or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the technical
officer.
 Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the
evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex
in the final report.
 Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females.
 Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the
limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable
differences between comparator groups, etc.).
 Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on
anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise
and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.
 Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an Annex.
 Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.
 Recommendations should be action‐oriented, practical, and specific, with defined responsibility
for the action.
Timeline for Deliverables and Logistics
Illustrative schedule
Week 1
 Logistical preparations, including hiring of research assistants  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 53 
 Desk review of literature
 Develop and submit work plan with detailed methodology for USAID approval   
Week 2  
 Meet with USAID/Morocco to discuss proposed schedule and meetings list.
 Submit evaluation instruments to USAID for approval  
 Team consultations/meetings, including early consultation with stakeholders on evaluation
approach and instruments  
 Work plan and instruments approved.  Data collection process starts
Weeks 3 and 4
 Interviews with stakeholders and staff in Morocco
 Meetings, interviews and field visits
Week 5 and 6
 Tabulate and Analyze data  
 Presentation of draft report  
 Prepare PPT presentations and one‐pagers for dissemination of results.  Submit to USAID for
approval
 Presentations of results to stakeholders:  USAID, GOM counterparts, communes, CSOs, other
donors
 Insert feedback from Mission in Report.  Submit final report in English as well as a thorough
summary in Arabic and a one pager in French before expat team members depart Morocco.   
End of Week 6
 Expats, if any hired, depart Morocco
Logistics
Travel:  In general, in‐country travel will be the responsibility of the evaluation team.  Taxis are readily
available in Morocco and there is good train to the project’s target areas. Most interviews and other
meetings are anticipated to occur in the region of Fes, Rabat/Salé, and Doukala‐Abda.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 54 
Support:   The evaluation team will be responsible for providing the workspace, office supplies,
computers, communications (cell phone rental), and administrative services it may require.  USAID will
provide contact information for key informants and, in agreed cases, provide support in securing
appointments, but in general the evaluation team will also be responsible for setting up and managing
most of its meetings.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 55 
ANNEX 4: Key Informants
USAID
 Andrew Coburn, Head of Democracy Governance Program 0661104493
 Tamika Cameron, Head of the Program Office 0661828406
 Grace Lang, Deputy Director 0661294122
 Alae eddin Serrar, Coordinator for the LGP 0661485030
LGP/RTI
 Harry Birnholz, Director
 Larbi Rharbi, Deputy Director 0661369387, 0537276590
 Driss Benjellon, Principal Advisor/Acting Deputy Director 0661369317, 0537276590
 Malika Ghesrane Geori, Advisor for Women’s Program 0671393714
 Mahmoud Bchini, Advisor for the Youth Program (RTI, Near East Foundation) 0661476237
mbchini@neareast.org
 Mohamed Boukhaffa, Specialist in Monitoring and Evaluation, LGP/ RTI, 0661586292
boukhaffa@yahoo.com
Government of Morocco
Direction General des Collectivites Locales (DGCL)
 Jaffar Jossef, 0661401598
 Abdelouahad Ourzik, Governor, Director of Legal Affairs, Studies, Documentation and
International Cooperation (0537286427/ 0537286425)
 Touti Mohammed, Interim Director of the Office of Planning and Equipment
 Hamza Belkbir, Chief of the Division on Budget and Markets of the Office of Local Finance
 Aissam Kebdani, Head of the Office of International Cooperation of the Directorate of Training
of Administrative and Technical Officials (DFCAT)  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 56 
EL JADIDA
Region
 Abdelhak Drissi, Coordinator of the Region for the LGP
 Mohammed Chokri, Wilaya de Doukkala‐Abda, Head of Legal and Regional Affairs
Province of El Jadida
 Mme Tahira, Agent Développement Provincial, El Jadida
Commune of El Jadida
 Abdessamad Kordane, Coordinator of activities for the LGP in the commune of El Jadida
 Najwa Mondib, Council Member of El Jadida
 Dalila Satii, Head of Social Affairs of the Commune
 Mandli Aicha, Head of the Communication Commission and Complaint Management (El Jadida)
 Dr. Redad Sardi, Secrétaire Général of the Commune of El Jadida
Province of Safi
 Said Hmidat, Agent Développement Provincial, Safi
 Mohammed Haddaji, Secrétaire Général de la Commune Urbaine de Safi
Non‐Governmental Organizations
 Abdel Ali Hajjini, President of Association Al Gorba (culture and social development) and
member of the youth council of El Jadida
 Hamza Rwigaa, Member of local youth council; member of association Lamnarne‐Culture and
Development (El Jadida)
 Souad Fahim, Member CEPEC Moully Abdallah (El Jadida)
FES  
Region
 Younes Etaib, LGP Regional Coordinator
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 57 
Urban Commune of Fes
 Mohammed Mellouki, 5th Vice President of the Urban Commune of Fes, responsible for Youth
and Sports  
 Aissaoui Rachid, DCL, Head of Division, Province of Fes
 Abdesslem Ziuggar, Governor of the Province of Sefrou
 Lahlou Anas, Agent Développement Provincial, Fes
 Mme Kenza el Gghali, Elected Woman, President of Finance Committee Urban Fes (Deputy in
the National Assembly)
Province of Moulay Yacoub
 Abderahman Ben Tahar, Secretary General of the Province  
 Missour Mohamed, DCL
 Mohamed Touil, Secretary of the Rural Commune—Ainkanssara
 Mme Zaida Chouhaibi, Agent Développement Provincial, Rural Commune El Ouadaine
Province of Sefrou
 Maknassi Mohamed, DCL
Commune of Sefrou
 Houssa Ahmed, Chief of Division of Planning, Cooperation and Communication
 Chakir Alaoui Abdelhak, Elected President of Committee Culture and Youth
 Soukaina Selmane, Youth Council of Sefrou and Member of the Culture Committee  
RABAT‐SALÉ
Non‐Governmental Organizations
 Seddik Semlali and Mme Soumaya Mesmoudi, President and Vice President of Rural Commune
and President of the Association Moroccan Pour le Developpement Locale
 Naji Jilali, Member du Conseil des Jeunes, Salé
 Abdelillah Abdalaoui, Member du Conseil des Jeunes, Salé  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 58 
 Mohamed El Masmoudi, President of the Association AMPOC Salé Tabriquet
Elected Officials
 Saida Oulad Aziz, Elected Woman from Salé
 Khalifi Kdadra, President of the Commune of Ameur
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 59 
ANNEX 5: Data Collection Tools
5.1 Household Survey (English)
Questionnaire N°:|____|
1. Region:……………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Prefecture:……………………………………………………………..………………………...
3. Commune:…………………..........................................................................
4. Name of Interviewer ………………………………………………………Code:|____|
5. Date: |____||____| / |____||____| / 2012
Demographic Information
6. Sex:
1 )Male                                                                                                          2)  Female  
7. How old are you?
8 – 25                    26 – 30                        31 – 35                                 
6 – 40                          41 ‐ 45                   46 and over  
8. What is your level of education?
1) Primary school                   2) Secondary
3) University        
4) none
5) Other, specify:......................…….
9. What is your marital status?
1) Single            2) Married           3)
Divorced       4) Widowed/Widower            5) Separated
10. What kind of profession do you have ?
1) Housewife                2) Government worker          3) Private sector salaried worker
4) Self‐employed         5) Farmer                     6) Student
7) Retired   8) Unemployed
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 60 
11. Are you currently involved in activities of non‐governmental organizations?
1) Yes               2) No (if no, go to question 14)              
12. If yes, what type of NGO?  
 Local Development Association              
 Human rights Association  
 Women’s Association
 Youth Association   
 Sports Association
 Other (specify):……………………………….
13. How long have you been involved in the activities of the NGO?  
1) Less than 6 months      2) Less than one year   3) For 18 months   
4) Over two years              5) Not applicable            
Citizen Participation in local government
14. How interested are you in local government affairs?
1)Very                  2) Moderately        3) Not at all  
15. Do you think that local elected officials are close to the citizens and care about the
priorities and needs or are not close to them and only care about their own interests?
1) They are close to the citizens                    
2) They are not close to citizens  
16. Have you participated in an activity organized by your commune in the past year?
1) Yes                 2)
No (if no go to question 18)
17. If yes, what type of activity ?
1) Training workshop to strengthen capacity           2) Public forum
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 61 
3) Youth oriented activity          
4) Women oriented activity
5) Other (Specify) ..............................................
18. Do you know about the Local Governance Project (LGP)?
1) Yes              2) No (If no go to question 20)
19. Have you been involved in any of the activities supported by the LGP?  
1) Yes              2) No
20. Do you know about the development of the Communal Development Plan (PCD)?
1) Yes              2) No (If no, go to question 22)
21. Were you involved in one of the activities associated with the development of the PCD ?
Awareness activity         1) Yes               2) No   
Deliberation meetings         1) Yes               2) No   
Training session           1) Yes               2) No   
Participation in a local development committee   1) Yes               2) No   
Participation in a participatory diagnosis study   1) Yes               2) No   
Participation in evaluation of the communal project    1) Yes               2) No   
22. What is your opinion about how the commune involves women in the management of
public affairs ?
1) Strongly Favorable                           2)
Moderately favorable  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 62 
3) Not at all favorable                         4) I don’t know
23. What is your opinion about how the commune involves young people in the management
of public affairs?
1) Strongly Favorable                           2) Moderately favorable  
3) Not at all favorable                          4) I don’t know
24. Have you heard anything about the Equal Opportunity Committee (CPEC?)         
2) No (If no, go to Question 27)
25.  If yes, have you been personally involved in an activity organized by the CPEC?
1) Yes          2) No
26.  Do you want to be involved in the activities organized by the CPEC?
1) Yes          2) No
27. In the past year have you had occasion to:
No Yes
1. Look at the minutes of a communal council meeting    
2. Attend a meeting of the communal council    
3. Know about the budget of the commune      
4. Ask for information about the communes expenses    
28. In the last year how many times have you done the following:
Never
Once every
three months
Once a
month
Once a
week or
more
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 63 
1. Attend a neighborhood meeting      
2. Sign a petition relating to local matters    
3. Attend a political meeting on local
matters
   
4. Sent letters to higher authorities to
complain about communal matters  
   
29. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Some
what
disagree
Strongly
disagree
1. The commune always works in the
interests and needs of its citizens  
   
2. The actions that the local government
takes help improve the life of its citizens  
   
4. Women benefit from communes activities    
5. Young people benefit from the
communes activities  
   
The Communal Government’s communication with its citizens
30. During the past year how have you learned about the programs and activities that your
commune has undertaken?
Source of Information No Yes
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 64 
1. Newspapers    
2. Radio    
3. Television    
4. Internet  
5. Open forums    
6. From political parties    
7. From neighborhood elected officials  
8. From signs or posters put up by the commune  
9. From family or friends  
10. Others (Specify)...............................................
31. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the way your commune
communicates with its citizens?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Some
what
disagree
Strongly
disagree
1. The commune makes available to citizens
all the information about its activities      
2. The commune regularly makes available
to citizens minutes of its meetings, its
administrative budget and other documents
la commune  
   
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 65 
32. How efficient do you think your commune is in terms of communicating with its citizens?  
1) Very efficient              2) Somewhat efficient          3) Not at all efficient
Communal Government services
33. How efficient do you think your commune is in terms of providing for the priority needs of
its citizens?  
1)  Very efficient       2) Somewhat efficient      3) Not at all efficient   
34. Which services do you think should be the highest priority to help improve your daily life?  
Highest
priority
Next
highest
Third
highest
1. Collection
of trash  
  
2. Provide
drinking water  
  
3. Provide
electricity to the homes
  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 66 
35. Which of the services mentioned above does your commune not yet provide?
1) Drinking water                  2) Electricity to the home     3) Public Lighting           
4) Solid waste disposal      5) Liquid waste disposal      6) Public transportation
7) Road repair        8) Infrastructure for schools  
36. To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statements  
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
4. Public
lighting  
  
5. Public
transportation  
  
6. Road
repair
  
7.  Liquid waste disposal      
8. Infrastructure for schools     
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 67 
agree agree disagree disagree
1. The communal council serves the
best interest of its citizens      
The communal council is well aware of
its citizens’ problems      
3. I have confidence in the capacity of
the communal council to resolve
communal problems)
   
4. The communal council has adopted a
transparent approach to the
management of local affairs  
   
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 68 
ANNEX 5.2: Household Survey questionnaire in Arabic
دراسة حول تقييم مشروع الحكامة المحلية "جماعة الغد"
تقديم الباحث نفسه للفرد الذي استقبله في البيت 		
اختيار الشخص الذي سوف نجري معه المقابلة
باش نحصل على عينة علمية، لا بد لي نم اختيار عشوائي للأشخاص البالغين 18 سنة و ما فوق غير المتزوجين، و اللي آيعيشوا بشكل دائم فى هذا الدار اللي اختاريتها بشكل عشوائي.	ماشي
ضروري تقول لي الاسم ديالهم ولكن أنا بغيت نعرف فقط سنهم و جنسهم و أش آيجيوك، باش نقدر نختار واحد منهم ندير معه المقابلة 	.
ودابا قل من فضلك، شحال من واحد اللي عندهم 18 سنة أو أآثر اللي تيعيشو في هذا الدار باش نقدر نعرف شكون اللي نعمر معه هذا الاستمارة؟
جدول أفراد المنزل
علاقة القرابة باللي عطانا المعلومات الجنس السن اختيار (	 الأآبر سنا من الشباب1 إلى الأصغر10) الشخص المختار للمقابلة هو 	:
0
		 1
		 2
		 3
		 4
		 5
		 6
		 7
		 8
		 9
		 10
جدول اختيار الشخص الذي سوف تجري معه المقابلة
جدول راختيا الشخص الذي ستجري مقابلته
(الرقم الذي يمثل مجموع الشباب ذآورا و إناثا في المنزل (18 سنة فما فوق))
رمز الاستمارة
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
8 7 5 2 4 4 2 1 2 1 1
9 8 6 3 5 5 3 2 1 1 2
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 69 
10 9 7 4 6 1 4 3 2 1 3
1 1 8 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 4
2 2 1 6 2 3 2 2 2 1 5
3 3 2 7 3 4 3 3 1 1 6
4 4 3 1 4 5 4 1 2 1 7
5 5 4 2 5 1 1 2 1 1 8
6 6 5 3 6 2 2 3 2 1 9
7 7 6 4 1 3 3 1 1 1 0
بالاعتماد على هده اللائحة،َ وقع الاختيار بشكل عشوائي على الشخص الفلاني................... واش ممكن نديرو معاه المقابلة دابا أو في وقت آخر. (إعادة تقديم الباحث نفسه			للشخص اللي
وقع عليه الاختيار و اللي غادي نديرو معاه المقابلة)
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 70 
استمارة خاصة بالشباب و النساء




.1 المنطقة...............................................:
.2 العمالة...............................................:
.3 الجماعة............................................:
.4 جامع البيانات و رمزه...................................................:		(............)
.5 تاريخ إجراء المقابلة.......................:				






I ‐معلومات
حول المبحوث
الجنس 
 ,1 ذآر ,2 أنثى
السن
 1) 18 ـ25 سنة 2) 26ـ 30 سنة 3) 31ـ 35 سنة 
36ـ 40 سنة 5) 41ـ 45 سنة 6) 46 سنة و ما فوق
حتى إلين قريتي؟
الابتدائي 2) الثانوي3             ) الجامعي 4 ) بدون
آخر، حدد........
واش متزوج ( ة) و لا باقي بلا زواج أو شي حاجة أخرى؟
عازب 2          ) متزوج ( ة) 3) مطلق ( ة)
متوفية له المرأة/ أرملة       5) مفارقين
أشن هي خدمتك؟
ربة بيت 2) موظف ( ة) 3) مأجور في القطاع الخاص
4) صاحب عمل مستقل 5) فلاح 6) عاطل (ة )
واش انت منخرط في شي جمعية أو آتشارك في الأنشطة ديالها؟
نعم 2) لا ← ( انتقل إلى السؤال رقم 14)
إذا آان الجواب نعم، آش من نوع ديال الجمعيات منخرط أو مشارك فيها؟
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 71 


جمعية للتنمية المحلية 2) جمعية حقوقية 3) جمعية نسوية
4) جمعية شبابية 5) جمعية رياصية 6) آخر، حدد............... 
.6 من امتى وانت منخرط أو مشارك في هذه الجمعية؟
أقل من 6 أشهر 2) أقل من 12 شهر
منذ 18 شهرا 4) أآثر من سنتين



II ‐مشارآة
السكان في أنشطة الجماعة
.7 آش من درجة انت آتهتم بالمسائل اللي آتخص تسيير الجماعة، مهتم بزاف، شوية أو ما مهتمش بمرة؟
1) مهتم بزاف														2)	مهتم شوية													3)	ما مهتمش بمرة
.8 واش آتشѧѧѧوف بѧѧѧأن المرشѧѧѧحين ديѧѧѧال الجماعѧѧѧة قѧѧѧرابين مѧѧѧن السѧѧѧكان وآيقضѧѧѧوا لهѧѧѧم المصѧѧѧالح ديѧѧѧالهم أو أن المرشѧѧѧحين بعѧѧѧادين علѧѧѧى السѧѧѧكان و آيهتمѧѧѧوا ع بالمصѧѧѧالح
الشخصية ديالهم ؟
										1)المرشحين قرابين من السكان										2)	المرشحين بعادين على السكان
.9 في هذا 12 الشهر الأخيرة، واش سبق لك شارآتي في شي نشاط نظمته الجماعة ديالكم؟
1) نعم								
2)	لا		←	( انتقل إلى السؤال رقم 18 )
.10 إذا آان الجواب نعم، آشن هو نوع النشاط اللي شارآتي فيه؟ ←	(إقرأ)
ورشات التكوين و تقوية القدرات 2) المنتديات العامة
3) أنشطة خاصة بالشباب 4) أنشطة خاصة بالنساء
5) آخر، حدد
.11 واش سمعتي بمشروع جماعة الغد اللي آاين في الجماعة ديالكم
1) نعم								
2)	لا		 	← ( انتقل إلى السؤال رقم 20)
.12 واش اتاحت لك الفرصة باش تشارك في الأنشطة اللي آيدير مشروع جماعة الغد ؟
																											!)	نعم								2)	لا
.13 واش سمعتي بالمخطط الجماعي للتنمية اللي دارتو الجماعة ديالكم؟
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 72 










1)	نعم								2)	لا		←	( انتقل إلى السؤال رقم 22)
.14 واش اتاحت لك شي فرصة باش تشارك في بعض الأنشطة اللي نظمتها الجماعة باش تصاوب المخطط الجماعي للتنمية؟ ←	(إقرأ)
المشارآة في الأنشطة الخاصة بالتحسيس : 1 نعم  2 لا 
المشارآة في اللقاءات التشاورية : 1 نعم  2 لا 
المشارآة في ورشات التكوين :    1 نعم  2 لا 
المشارآة في لجان التنمية المحلية :     1 نعم  2 لا 
المشارآة في التشخيص التشارآي : 1 نعم      2 لا  
المشارآة في تتبع و تقييم المشاريع اللي آتديرها الجماعة : 1 نعم  2 لا 
.15 واش آتشوف بأن المجلس الجماعي واخذ بجدية مسألة إشراك النساء في تسيير الشؤون المحلية أو بقليل من الجدية أو ما شي جدي؟
1) بجدية						
2)	قليل من الجدية									3)	ما شي جدي															4)	لا أعرف
.16 واش آتشوف بأن المجلس الجماعي واخذ بجدية مسألة إشراك الشباب		في تسيير الشؤون المحلية أو بقليل من الجدية أو ما شي جدي؟
1) بجدية							
2)	قليل من الجدية									3)	ما شي جدي															4)	لا أعرف
.17 واش سبق لك سمعتي بلجنة المناصفة و تكافؤ الفرص اللي تخلقت في الجماعة؟
1)	نعم								2)	لا		←	( انتقل إلى السؤال رقم 26)
.18 إذا آان الجواب نعم، واش سبق لك شارآتي شخصيا في الأنشطة اللي نظمتها هذا اللجنة ديال المناصفة و تكافؤ الفرص ؟
1)	نعم								2)	لا
.19 واش تبغي تشارك في الأنشطة اللي آتنظمها هذا لجنة المناصفة و تكافؤ الفرص ؟
1)	نعم								2)	لا
.20 في 12 شهر الأخيرة،واش اتاحت لك الفرصة باش تدير شي حاجة من هذا الشي اللي غادي نقول لك: ←	(إقرأ)
.1 تقرا
المحاضر ديال الاجتماعات ديال الجماعة 								1) نعم					2) لا
										
.2 تشارك
في الاجتماعات ديال المجلس الجماعي									1) نعم						2) لا
.3 تتعرف
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 73 





على الميزانية ديال الجماعة 																						1) نعم							2) لا
.4 تطلب
معلومات على مصاريف الجماعة																			1) نعم							2) لا
III ‐الفئة
المستفيدة من أنشطة الجماعة
.21 في 12 شهر الأخيرة، شحال من مرة درتي		شي حاجة من هذا الشي اللي غادي نقول لك:	
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 74 






←	(إقرأ و ضع دائرة حسب الترميز التالي 		: 1)حتى مرة		2) مرة وحدة في 3 شهور				
																		الأخيرة			3) مرة وحدة في الشهر				4) مرة وحدة ا أو أآثر في الأسبوع)
1) تحضر لشي اجتماع في الحي باش تناقشوا المسائل ديال الجماعة:				1			2			3			4 		
2) تسيني على شي لائحة مطلبية خاصة بالمسائل المحلية 																			: 1			2			3			4			
													
3) تحضر لشي اجتماع باش تناقشوا المسائل السياسية المحلية:										1			2			3			4			
													
4)		تراسل الجرائد أو الإداعة		أو شي جهة عليا باش تشكي بالجماعة:				1			2			3			4			
.22 آش من درجة انت راض أو ماشي راض على هذا الشي اللي غادي نقول لك:
					←	(إقرأ و ضع دائرة حسب الترميز التالي :
.1 الجماعة خدامة ديما على المشاغل ديال الناس:						1راض														2 راض شوية 		
																																																																	3 شوية ماراضيش						4		مرضيش بمرة
.2		الجماعة دايرة مبادرات باش تحسن حياة		الناس:												 1راض						2 راض شوية 		
																																																																										3 شوية ماراضيش						4		مرضيش بمرة
.3 العيالات هما اللي استافدوا من داك الشي اللي تدير		الجماعة:		1راض														2 راض شوية		
			3 شوية ماراضيش						4		مرضيش بمرة
.4 الشباب هما اللي استافدوا من داك الشي اللي تدير		الجماعة:						1راض														2 راض شوية 		
																																																																															3 شوية ماراضيش			4		مرضيش بمرة
			
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 75 












IV ‐تواصل
الجماعة مع السكان
.23 فѧѧѧي 12 شѧѧѧهر الأخيرة،آيفѧѧѧاش حصѧѧѧلت علѧѧѧى المعلومѧѧѧات الخاصѧѧѧة بالمشѧѧѧاريع و الأنشѧѧѧطة اللѧѧѧي آتѧѧѧدير الجماعѧѧѧة ديѧѧѧالكم: واش: ←	(إقѧѧѧرأ و ضѧѧѧع دائѧѧѧرة حسѧѧѧب الترميѧѧѧز
التالي :
1) الجرائد:																										1) نعم							2) لا
2) الراديو:																												1) نعم							2) لا
3) التلفزة:																															1) نعم							2) لا
4) الانترنيت																													1) نعم							2) لا
5) المنتديات																															1) نعم							2) لا
6) الأحزاب السياسية																							1) نعم							2) لا
7) المرشح ديال الحي																								1) نعم							2) لا
8) المنشورات اللي معلقين في الجماعة					1) نعم							2) لا
9) العائلة أو الأصدجقاء																								1) نعم							2) لا
10) آخر، حدد................................................................
.24 في 12 شهر الأخيرة،آش من درجة انت متفق أو ما متفقش مع الطريقة ديال التواصل اللي آتدير الجماعة ديالكم: واش من:
←	(إقرأ و ضع دائرة حسب الترميز التالي :
.1 الجماعة آتقدم للناس جميع المعلومات اللي آتهمهم :						1راض														2 راض شوية 		
																																																																	3 شوية ماراضيش						4		مرضيش بمرة
.2		الجماعة آتقدم بطريقة متنظمة المحاضر و الحسابات الإدارية للناس :						1راض						2 راض شوية 		
																																																																				3 شوية ماراضيش						4		مرضيش بمرة
.25 دابا، آيفاش آتشوف الطريقة اللي آتواصل بها الجماعة مع الناس، واش فعالة مزيان، شوية أو ماشي فعالة :			
.1 ناجعة مزيان														2 ناجعة شوية											.3 ماشي ناجعة بمرة
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 76 









V ‐الخدمات
المقدمة من طرف الجماعة
.26 آيفاش آتشوفالنجاعة ديال الجماعة ديالكم باش تلبي حاجيات الناس، واش ناجعة، شوية أو ماشي ناجعة :			
1) ناجعة مزيان														2 ناجعة شوية											.3 ماشي ناجعة بمرة
.27 مѧѧن بѧѧين هѧѧذا المصѧѧالح اللѧѧي غѧѧادي نقѧѧول لѧѧك، قѧѧل لѧѧي حسѧѧب الترتيѧѧب مѧѧن 1 إلѧѧى ،3 شѧѧكون فѧѧيهم		اللѧѧي يمكѧѧن يحسѧѧن حيѧѧاة النѧѧاس هنѧѧا 					: ←	(إقѧѧرأ و ضѧѧع دائѧѧرة واحѧѧدة
على آل سطر حسب الترميز التالي :
1) جمع الأزبال:						1) المرتبة الأولى					.2 المرتبة الثانية				.3 المرتبة الثالثة
2) الماء ديال الشرب:				1) المرتبة الأولى					.2 المرتبة الثانية				.3 المرتبة الثالثة
3) الضوء ديال الديور:			1) المرتبة الأولى					.2 المرتبة الثانية				.3 المرتبة الثالثة
4) الضوء ديال برا :								1) المرتبة الأولى					.2 المرتبة الثانية				.3 المرتبة الثالثة
5) النقل العمومي:												1) المرتبة الأولى					.2 المرتبة الثانية				.3 المرتبة الثالثة
6) إصلاح الطرقات:											1) المرتبة الأولى					.2 المرتبة الثانية				.3 المرتبة الثالثة
7) إصلاح الواد الحار:									1) المرتبة الأولى					.2 المرتبة الثانية				.3 المرتبة الثالثة
8) الصحة و التعليم			:									1) المرتبة الأولى					.2 المرتبة الثانية				.3 المرتبة الثالثة
.28 من بين هذا المصالح اللي ذآرنا، شكون منهم اللي باقي الجماعة ما خدمتوش :		←	إقرأ 		
1) جمع الأزبال:								.2 الماء ديال الشرب:									.3 الضوء ديال الديو
									4) الضوء ديال برا						5) النقل العمومي:											6) إصلاح الطرقات
											7) إصلاح الواد الحار			8)		الصحة و التعليم (بناء السبيطارات و المدارس..)											
.29 آش من درجة انت راض أو ماشي راض على هذا الشي اللي غادي نقول لك:
←	(إقرأ و ضع دائرة واحدة على آل سطر حسب الترميز التالي :
.1المجلس الجماعي آيخدم مصالح الناس: 1 راض 2 راض شوية 		3 شوية ماراضيش		4		مارضيش بمرة
.2المجلس الجماعي آيعرف مشاآل الناس: 1 راض		2 راض شوية 		3 شوية ماراضيش 4		مارضيش بمرة 		
.3آنثيق في المجلس الجماعي في معالجتو لمشاآل الناس: 1 راض 2 راض شوية
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 77 



																																																																					 3 شوية ماراضيش					4		مارضيش بمرة
.4 الجماعة عندها طريقة شفافة في تدبير الشؤون المحلية :		1 راض			2 راض شوية 		
																																																																						3 شوية ماراضيش						4		مارضيش بمرة
شكرا على مساهمتك
ANNEX 5.2.1: Guidance for conducting individual interviews
NOTE: The questions which follow are designed both as guides to the individual interviews and
for the focus groups.  In the case of the focus groups the method of guiding the discussion will
be different and it will be possible to go deeper into the details.   
In the course of conducting the individual interviews with different categories of respondents
considered as key resource people, it is important to keep the following three points in mind as
this evaluation is designed to be a strategic evaluation focusing on the actors and their
strategies and interests:   
1 – The support that the Local Governance Project provided to reinforce the participation of
citizens and especially young people and women in the development of local public policy.
2 – The support that the LGP provided to strengthen the capacity of the elected officials and the
administration of the communes to provide good service to its citizens;  
3 – The support which the LGP provided in terms of strengthening the communication and
transparency between the commune and the local population.
To facilitate the task that the experts will undertake in conducting the interviews four guides
have been developed, each with 12 questions relative to the area that will be investigated.  
Interviewers can of course ask additional questions as lines of inquiry develop,   These 12
questions, however, help to assure that the approach of this evaluation which consists of
gathering precise information on the ground in order to compare the information with
documents and reports of the LGP.   These same 12 questions are designed to structure a
second method of data collection through the use of focus groups.   
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 78 
The interviews should be arranged with principal actors, especially actors at the provincial and
prefectural levels (DCL, ADP, INDH), because these actors represent the central administration
in each region.  It is important to understand the degree of involvement at the regional level
and below of the tutelary administration in all the different aspects of the program. Au fur et à
mesure que les équipes de l’évaluation avancent sur le terrain, des résumés de rapports
d’entretiens doivent être envoyé au chef de l’équipe pour servir à la restitution du rapport
préliminaire.
All documents and recordings of the different interviews must be saved in order to put them in
an archive of the evaluation report.   
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 79 
ANNEX 5.2.2: Guides to Individual Interviews
(Commune Government Staff)
 Date :
 Region :                   
 Region /Province                                 Commune:
 Person interviewed : Name, Institution, Function  
Interviewer :
 Do you know the Local Government Project (LGP)?
 Have you participated in activities supported by the LGP?
 Have you participated in any of the training sessions organized by the LGP ?
 Which training programs have you participated in  
 What did you think about the quality of the training?of the trainer?
 Was the training adequate for your needs
 Has your commune adopted the new communal fiscal system (AFC)?
 Does your commune have a communication strategy?
 How do you manage complaints in your commune?  
 Has your commune been audited by an internal audit?
 Are you comfortable in your position to furnish a good quality of service to the population of
your commune?
 What do you hope to get from the LGP to strengthen your capabilities?
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 80 
ANNEX 5.2.3: Interview Guide for People Involved with Associations and Civil Society
 Date :
 Region :                   
 Region /Province                                  Commune:
 Person Interviewed : Name institution,  function  
Interviewer :
1. Have you participated in awareness (sensibilisation) activities concerning issues of local
governance in your region ?
2. Have you participated in any of the commissions supported by the LGP (CPEC, Youth Councils,
Local Development Committees etc…?
3. Do you know about the Communal Development Plan (PCD)?  Who is responsible for the
development of the PCD?  Have you participated in its development
4. Did you participate in the consultation process for defining the needs of the local population ?
5. Do you think that the local elected officials listen to your needs?
6. Do the communes communicate with you?  By what means?  
7. How satisfied are you with the services provided by your commune ?
8. How do you deal with complaints in your commune ? How does the commune communicate
with you with regard to complaints?  How are they handled?
9. What do you think about the degree to which your communal government is transparent?
10. What do you hope to achieve in terms of local democracy ?
11. What is your opinion about the Council President and the members of the communal council?   
12. What do you hope to get from the communal administration and its elected officials
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 81 
ANNEX 5.2.4: Interview Guide for Local Elected Officials
 Date :
 Region :                   
 Region /Province                                  Commune:
 Person Interviewed : Name institution,  function  
Interviewer :
1. Does your commune have a Communal Development Plan (PCD)?
2. Do you know the Local Governance Project (LGP)?  
3. Were you assisted by the LGP in developing your PCD?   
4. What kinds of support did the LGP provide to your commune?
5. Have you attended any of the training programs run by the LGP?   
6. Has your commune created a CPEC or a youth council?
7. Did the CPEC or youth council participate in the development of the PCD?  
8. How did the LGP help strengthen the capacity of the communal administration in your
commune?  
9. What is your opinion of the coordination between the state tutelary authority (DGCL) and the
LGP?   
10. Has your commune put into operation the new fiscal system (AFC)? Did the LGP help in this
process?  
11. What do you think about the support that the LGP provides to help strengthen your commune’s
communications?   
12. Does your commune have an internal audit process?
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 82 
ANNEX 5.2.5: Interview Guide for Elected Women
 Date :
 Region :                   
 Region /Province                                  Commune:
 Person Interviewed :                Name institution,  function  
Interviewer :
1. Do you know the Local Government Project?
2. Have you attended any of the activities supported by the LGP?  
3.Have you participated in the training session organized by the LGP to strengthen your capacities?  
4. What is your opinion about how the gender approach has been applied in your commune?   
5. Are you able to express your opinions in the communal council?
6. Did you participate in creating a CPEC in your commune?
7. What is your opinion about the way the CPEC is created in communes?  How can this process be made
more sustainable?  
8. Did the process of developing a communal development plan (PCD) take into account a gender
dimension?
9. Does your commune have any programs and action plans defined in the PCD that that take into
consideration gender?  
10. Do the communication practices employed in your commune take into consideration a gender
dimension?
11. What needs do you have that need to be addressed in order to integrate women into public life in all
of its dimensions?
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 83 
12.What do you hope to get from the LGP in terms of helping strengthen your capacities as an elected
woman?  
ANNEX 5.3.1: Focus Group Guides
To adapter to various groups as follows:
 Focus groups with elected officials‐ Presidents of communes, elected women
 Focus Groups with commune technical staff (General Secretaries and Technical workers)  
 Focus Groups with representatives of civil society – youth organizations, CEPECs etc.)   
 Date :                                           Interviewer :
 Region :                                    Province:
 Actors and concerned parties  
 Number of participants  :    Men  Women  
Questions About the Local Governance Project (LGP)
1. Were you consulted about the start‐up of the LGP’s activities? How? What Activities?
2. Did you participant in the start‐up of the project’s activities? At what level? decision making,
financial involvement, contributions  in kind ?
3. Did you attend any of the LGP’s training programs? What was the impact of this training on your
organization?
4. Did the training programs help meet the needs of your organization or institution?
5. Who got to attend? All of the actors or just some?
At the Commune Level
1. To what degree did the activities of the LGP support your commune to better its governance?
 To promote citizen participation?
 To promotion involving others in decision‐making
 To satisfy the needs of citizens and institutional actors
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 84 
 To institutionalize citizen participation
2. To what extent was civil society involved in decision making and monitoring? (associations,
youth organizations, CEPECs)
3. Have you participated in monitoring and evaluation exercises performed at the local level?  
How?  
4. What should the LGP set as priorities in the future to improve local government?
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 85 
ANNEX 5.3.2: Focus Group Guide For Women’s Focus Groups
1. General Advice  
This methodological tool contains open ended questions.  You should enter the responses of
the respondents in a notebook and follow the order of the questions posed.  
2. Objective  
The objective of this discussion is to facilitate a discussion among principal female actors who
have, such as elected women, members of CEPECs and women involved in associations as well
as with women from the private sector and ordinary women. In the course of the discussions
the participants should focus on the effectiveness of actions taken to benefit the integration of
women in local governance.  They will also show what their perceptions are about how well
they feel that their needs are being met in terms of the activities that have been undertaken.  
They can do this in an all‐female environment in which they may be freer to talk and express
their opinions
QUESTIONS
1. In general what is your opinion of the activities conducted by the LGP intended to help integrate women
in local life?
2. How has the LGP participated in the integration of women in local governance?
3. Have the training and support activities contributed to reinforcing your professional skills?  How?
4. To what degree has the LGP responded to the specific needs of women and taken into consideration their
limited integration in local management?
5. Can you cite examples of changes that have taken place in the behavior of official where you work that
have reinforced your role in the governance process?
6. How have the activities supported including the leadership training that the LGP offered reinforced
including the leadership training that the LGP offered reinforced your active participation?
7. How has the GLP reinforced your participation in communal councils and in the elected commissions?
8. How has the consideration of the role of women in the commune and in local affairs in general evolved?
9. What activities do you consider to be the most effective in assuring the sustainability of the program and
should be repeated?
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 86 
Annex 5.3.3: Focus Group Recording Sheet for Women in Fès (FG1)
(Recording sheets from Focus Groups)
Focus Group – Women Fes (FG 1)
Instructions
In the table below to the left note the theme each time it is evoked and the number of times it was
mentioned. In the column to the right note the themes or words/expression that were used repeatedly
during the discussion. At the bottom of the form fill in the box with your remarks about what you
learned from the focus group discussion.  
Date: 16/10/2012 Where: Hotel Zahrataljabal, Fès Number of Participants: 8   
Length: 2 hours Moderator: Ibtissam Mzibri Assistant: Fadoua Brour
Themes Subthemes Speech patterns, expressions, key words,
terms
Frequency
used
1. Women in local
management
1.1.
   The LGP
Training on personal development not
useful for daily life.
The reality is completely different from
what we learn in training sessions.
The biggest problem that women face is
the impossibility of women to integrate
into the society.
Women don’t know the rules of the
political game. When they are included it
is most often for decoration.
5
4
2
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 87 
1.2.
Difficulty to integrate into
this society   
1.3 Socio‐economic problems
1.4. Legal structure
The government lacks the will to really
support the role of women. It is only a
matter of satisfying international
pressures that demands a more equal role
for women.
The president of the commune said to one
participant “don’t ever come here (the
commune) to resolve issues that you
aren’t interested in.”
Poverty and lack of resources are the
principal factors that limit the
development of the intelligence of
women.
The laws relative to women’s participation
in political life are insufficient and not
encouraging enough.  Men are not
interested in having women be in the
center of decision making.
The existing structures have the objective
of helping women have a supplementary
income and not in her role in local
management.
The opportunities for women to play a
role in local management in the
framework of associational life are very
limited. Apart from the CPEC that these
women didn’t even know about, there is
2
1
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 88 
2. Actions to
better integrate
women
3. Solutions/
recommendations
?
2.1. existing structures
2.2. Approach to change  
no mechanism for integrating female
citizens into local management.
More training for women in politics.
More technical training for women so that
she can acquire a skill that will make her
indispensable.
Need structures other than associations
that work for the economic development
of women and their situation– structures
that integrate women into local
management.
Communication and information are two
factors that women need. Women need to
know what is going on and what the
opportunities are.
The media can play an important role in
the process of awakening women— a role
that they do not currently play.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 89 
Narrative—what did we learn about the activities and impact of the LGP and about the state of
participation in local governance?
With the exception of two elected women who attended very few training sessions, the others did not
know of the LGP or other programs of that nature.   
The participants were able to easily identify the obstacles to their integration into local management.
The efforts furnished to this end are insufficient and in most cases do not achieve their objectives. They
spoke about the training centers for economic integration that reache a very small percentage of
women.   
According to the participants, women, unlike men, cannot confront the sphere of local management. It
is sometimes linked to politics. Women lack information and training in this area and need more support
in practical terms rather than theoretical information. For them the reality is much different than the
training.
They keep coming back to the lack of serious will to integrate women. There are gaps in the law and an
absence of permanent structures to support women.   
The participants are unable to propose solutions because the problem is structural and cultural. Serious
action must be based on qualitative results and not on diverse activities that they don’t find useful. All
women are interested in local affairs, but women who have a role in the commune do not represent
women in general, and efforts must not be restricted to these women.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 90 
ANNEX 5.3.4: Focus Group Recording Sheet for Representatives of Civil Society
Associations, Fes (FG2)
Date: 16 October 2012, Fès Number of Participants: 12 of which 5 were women   
Length of session: 2 hours Moderator: Mhammed Abderebbi
Themes Sub Themes Categories that emerged as terms,
words, expressions  
Frequency of
use  
1.Involvement
with the
activities of
the LGP
1.1. consultation for
starting up an LGP
activity
1.2. Impact of the
LGP training sessions
Some associations invited to participate
in meetings at Fes for startup.  
The form of involvement was deliberation
and participation in the diagnostic study
but not in its actual implementation.
Associations were invited to the training
programs organized by the LGP but they
did not consult us on the implementation
of these trainings. That is why many
people did not attend. They wanted a
certificate of attestation of attendance
and a coffee break.
The training sessions did not have a
positive impact in organizational or
institutional terms.
The LGP did not improve citizen
participation. Citizens are “far from the
commune.”
In the commune of Ain Chegag, the youth
Consulted: 7
Not consulted :
5
Planning for the
training was not
well adapted to
the needs of the
potential: 5
Little or no
positive impact:
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 91 
2.The LGP did
impact on
governance at
the communal
level  
2.1. Promotion of
citizen participation
2.2. Promotion of
sharing in decision
making
2.3. Satisfaction of
citizen needs and
those of institutional
actors
2.4.
Institutionalization
of citizen
training had a negative impact on their
relationship with the council. The youth
adopted a critical approach and
organized demonstrations against the
communal council that did not want to
involve the youth.
Youth and civil society actors were not
involved in decision making.
Institutional actors were involved in the
development of the PCD especially in the
diagnostic deliberation phases but not in
decision making because decisions were
made at the central ministerial level.
Interests of the citizens have not yet been
taken in consideration by the commune.  
Some youth councils were created but
the only one functioning well was in
Sefrou. Others having problems with the
commune.  
10
11
2
7
10
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 92 
participation  
11
8
Narrative—What did we learn about the activities and impact of the LGP and about the state of
participation in local governance?
The LGP needs to more often involve elected officials to help change their attitudes toward their
relationship with citizens. This needs to go beyond giving them information. The LGP needs to mobilize
and train them on an ongoing basis. The LGP needs to adopt an active approach to communicate its
objectives and involve more actors and means of communication.  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 93 
ANNEX 5.3.5: Focus Group Recording Sheet Elected Officials El Jadida (FG3)
Date: October 11 2012, El Jadida  Number of Participants: 11 of which 5 were women  
Length: 2 hours Moderator: Mhammed Abderebbi
Themes Sub‐themes Categories that emerged as terms, words,
expressions
Frequency
of use of
category
1.Involvement
in LGP  
activities  
1.1. Consultation for
start‐up of LGP activities
1.2. Impact of the LGP
activities  
The LGP had an action plan that it presented
to the commune. Discussion with the
commune involved only aspects of
implementing the plan.  
The communal council identified which
people could participate in the LGP activities.
Representatives of the commune of Oulad
Hcein did not know the LGPs objectives. That
explains why only three people from that
commune participated in the LGP activities,
and only for the creation of the CEPEC. Others
were not interested in creating the CPEC.
The LGP did not base its interventions on the
elected councilors, only on the technical staff
and civil society. The result was that the
different actors gained different levels of
skills and knowledge.  
The LGP adopted a top‐down approach.
There wasn’t enough discussion between the
LGP and the various actors. That  is why the
8
11
1
11
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 94 
2. The LGP and
the
improvement
of commune‐ 
level
governance
2.1. Promotion of
citizen participation
impact was not very significant.
Thanks to the LGP actors did acquire a more
objective vision of the commune— its
strengths and weaknesses. In the past there
were a lot of subjective criticisms in the
communal council. Now people try to
understand the various constraints linked to
the management of the commune. This helps
overcome conflicts and non‐constructive
criticisms.   
The LGP supported the communes in
developing their PCDs. It reinforced the skills
of the actors involved in the PCD. They
became skilled in involving citizens and in the
development of the PCD.  
The amount of intervention by the LGP varied
tremendously from commune to commune.
This is why the level of participation varied so
much  in different communes. Where  the
LGP had a lot of activities there was much
more participation.
When commune presidents did not want to
involve the council, how would they involve
the ordinary citizens? The elected officials
were excluded in many cases.
The LGP did strengthen the skills of elected
7
8
10
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 95 
2.2. Promotion of
decision making  
2.3. Satisfying the needs
of citizens and
institutions  
women in leadership and management, but
the communal councils did not want to
involve women in significant ways in the
management of the commune.   
Thanks to the LGP the commune has become
more open and participatory. It now involves
more actors and the communes have
developed a more strategic vision of their
intervention strategy.  
Only the actors directly involved in the LGP
program benefited from it.  
Needs of ordinary citizens are not taken into
consideration as much as they should be by
the communal council  
Our experience as elected officials shows that
there has not been much change at the level
of local governance. The governor or wali
continue to intervene in communal budgets
and management.   
The way the commune is managed is
incompatible with the objectives of the LGP.
We are far from the commune that the LGP
would like to put in place.  
The communes have not gotten to the point
of involving the young people in decision
making.  
Thanks to the LGP there has been an
important evolution at the commune level. In
11
8
6
7
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 96 
2.4. Institutionalizations
of citizen participation  
El Jadida there is now an office of complaint
management. A number of complaints have
been resolved in this way.  
The LGP has supported the communes in the
development of their PCDs. Most of the
communes now have teams that have
become expert in developing a PCD.  
El Jadida, My Abdellah and Safi have
functioning plans now.
Four communes did create youth councils—
the only commune with a functioning CPEC is
My Abdellah, although Oulad Hcein is in the
process of creating one.
Safi and El Jadida have internal audit and
communication strategies in place.  
7
4
6
4
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 97 
11
4
8
        4
Narrative—What did we learn about the activities and impact of the LGP and about the state of
participation in local governance?
Elected officials have an important role in the improvement of local governance because they are more
in touch with the citizens. To attain its objectives the LGP must put in place other activities and not rely
so heavily on the council president. But the elected officials are not very motivated by the LGP. To
involve them the LGP must coordinate its activities at the central level with the DGCL and at the
provincial level with the wali/governors. A guidance committee (pilotage) could be formed to do this.    
The LGP could also think about creating a mechanism at the central and provincial levels to assure
continuing training, especially for elected officials and candidates for communal council seats.
The LGP must think about spreading its different mechanisms to other communes in the Doukkala‐Abda
region.  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 98 
ANNEX 5.3.6: Focus Group Recording Sheet‐The Technical Services , El Jadida (FG4)
Date: 11 October 2012, El Jadida Number of participants: 7     
Length: 2 hours Moderator: Mhammed Abderebbi
Themes Sub themes Categories that emerged as terms, words,
expressions Frequencies
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 99 
1. Involvement
in activities of
LGP
2. The LGP and
1.1. consulted for start‐
up of GP activities  
1.2. The impact on
training programs
organized by the LGP.  
2.1. Promotion of
citizen participation  
The LGP organized several meetings with the
technical services at the beginning of the
project.
The decentralized technical services were
involved in particular with the development
of the PCD.
There is a communication problem with the
LGP. We don’t know who to coordinate with.
Sometimes it’s with the president of the
commune, sometimes with the secretary
general, sometimes with the leaders of the
operational teams. That’s why there was a
slowdown of activities. Sometimes they
arrive at the last minute. This explains why
people are not present at their trainings.  
The LGP supported the formation of
operational teams within the communes.  
The LGP trained the technical staff of the
commune to put in place the different
mechanisms of the LGP— youth councils,
communication strategy, internal audit.   
Thanks to the personnel of the LGP the
personnel of the commune did acquire the
skills needed to respond to different needs
of the commune.  
The LGP didn’t give the same attention to
the different components of its program. It
gave most of its attention to youth
organization and spent most of its resources
on that. The other components were
marginalized.  
7
5
7
7
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 100 
the
improvement
of communal
governance
2.2. Promotion of
decision making  
2.3. Satisfying the needs
of citizens and
institutional actors
2.4. Institutionalization
of citizen participation  
Thanks to the LGP young people changed
their relationship with the commune. They
started to participate in local management.
Before the LGP they were suspicious of the
communal government. Now they  come
and make proposals and participate.
The problem is with the elected officials of
the commune who don’t want to involve the
youth and the civil society.  
The PCD process created a new dynamic in
the society. It involved all segments of the
society— citizens’ associations and technical
services. But this dynamic was centered on
the diagnosis of needs and not on satisfying
them.   
The LGP was able to open the commune up
to its citizens. This same dynamic is absent in
the other components of the LGP. There
isn’t participation in the other components
in comparison with the PCD.   
The LGP was able to succeed in putting into
place different mechanisms such as the
youth councils, communication and audit,
but everything depends on the will of the
communal council.
That is why the other mechanisms have not
spread to other communes.
Neither the LGP nor the commune have
6
5
5
7
6
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 101 
provided the resources and the logistics
needed to make the intervention work.
We have to work with the resources we have
and that has a negative impact on putting
into practice these mechanisms.   
There is no coordination between the LGP
and the elected officials. No involvement of
the governor or wali. Without that the
elected officials are not going to be
mobilized to institutionalize citizen
participation.    
7
6
5
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 102 
Narrative—What did we learn about the activities and impact of the LGP and about the state of
participation in local governance?
The LGP should constitute an advisory committee (comate de pilotage) at the provincial level to
coordinate with the various actors and to mobilize the designated actors— elected officials, civil society,  
and youth.
The LGP should adopt an integrated approach to its interventions, selling its products as an integrated
package instead of a series of activities dispersed in time and space. The different mechanisms that the
LGP has put in place need ongoing support.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 103 
ANNEX 5.3.7: Focus group Recording Sheets ‐Representatives of Civil Society, El Jadida
(FG5)
Date: 11 October 2012, El Jadida Number of participants: 7  
Length: 2 hours Moderator: Mhammed Abderebbi
Themes Sub themes Categories that emerged as terms,
expressions, words
Frequency
1.Involvement
in the
activities of
the LGP  
1.1. consultation at the
start‐up phase of LGP
activities  
1.2. Impact of the
training organized by
the LGP
2.1. Promotion of
citizen participation   
The LGP identified the needs of the actors
through the use of a questionnaire, and
established a plan for training.
It organized several meetings for awareness
and information in the various communes to
set its objectives and approach.  
To inform the civil society it sent out
invitations and fliers to the homes of young
people.  
The LGP organized several training sessions
for the representatives of civil society and in
particular around the PCD, the youth council
and the creation of projects.
The selection criteria for choosing
associations included was not clear. The
criteria were not objective.   
Thanks to this training the LGP strengthened
the capacity of youth organizations and of
civil society.  
7
5
5
7
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 104 
2. The LGP and
the
improvement
of commune‐ 
level
governance  
2.2. The promotion of
decision making  
2.3. Satisfaction of
citizen and institutional
actors  
2.4. Institutionalization
Today we avoid conflicts and have an
adequate accounting system that  makes the
associations more transparent.    
The LGP fostered an understanding between
the commune, the youth and the
associations. Now there are ties between
these different actors.   
Thanks to the LGP, young people are taking
more interest in local management issues.
They have become a force and can make
proposals. They negotiate their status and
role in local governance.   
Thanks to the LGP young people are now
involved in decision making. That is because
the youth councils have gone through two
stages of development. At first the youth
council was created by the communal council.
This produced demonstrations and protests
leading to a second stage in which the young
people were involved in the creation of a new
youth council. This council was elected only
by representatives of civil society without the
intervention of the commune.  
Thanks to the LGP young people are going to
participate in the next elections and will
choose their own elected officials.  
Civil society and youth were involved in the
development of the PCD in the diagnostic
phase.
Citizens were not involved in the PCD and the
commune has not addressed their needs.  
4
7
6
5
7
5
7
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 105 
of citizen participation    
The LGP has put into place youth councils in
several communes— El Jadida, Safi and My
Abdellah— and a complaint bureau, a
communication strategy and an internal audit
in El Jadida.   
7
Narrative—What did we learn about the activities and impact of the LGP and about the state of
participation in local governance?
The representatives of civil society want the  LGP to organize a press conference each year and to invite
media and other actors. During this conference they would present a report on their state of
advancement for everyone to see. The civil society would present its own report parallel with that of the  
LGP.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 106 
ANNEX 5.3.8: Focus group Recording Sheets ‐ Technical Services‐ Fes (FG6)
Date: 16 October 2012, Fès  Number of participants: 10 of which 3 were women
Length: 2 hours Moderator: Mhammed Abderebbi
Themes Sub themes Categories that emerge from conversation;
words, terms  
Frequency
1.Involvement
in activities of
LGP  
1.1. consulted for
start‐up  
1.2. Impact of the
training organized
by  the LGP
All actors were involved in the startup of PCD in
Fes, but mainly as sources of information, and
not for decision making.
They did not know the objectives of the  LGP
project.  
At Sefrou, the LGP reinforced the capacities of
the actors. It involved them at every level.  
The training session touched on several themes.
The pertinence of the content of the training.
Lack of motivation for participants because of
lack of transportation, coffee break, certificate
of presence.  
This caused some strain between the personnel
of the commune in terms of the skills they
acquired.  
Elected officials were not motivated to
Attendance: 8
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 107 
participate in the training sessions. Most of the
themes did not interest them, particularly the
management of complaints.
The strengthening of the capacities of the staff
of the commune was not accompanied by
logistical and material support. This limited the
application of the skills acquired.  
Resistance from the elected officials who feared
that the mechanisms put in place would oblige
them to give up some of their power to civil
society actors.  
The LGP influenced the staff of the commune
but it is still far from the citizens.  
Thanks to the LGP youth are now connected to
the communal government. The youth council
and the CEPEC have permanent ties to the
commune and they participate in meetings and
other activities of the commune.  
There isn’t yet the involvement of different
actors in decision making. Only the communal
council can decide. Civil society and youth
councils are not involved at that level.  
At Sefrou, Sidi Hrazem and Ain Chegag the PCD
was developed with the support of the LGP
using a participatory method. Everyone was
involved. Citizens were involved by expressing
their needs. The decentralized technical services
brought their expertise and participated in the
Non‐
involvement
of the elected
officials: 7
Resistance of
the elected
officials: 12
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 108 
2. The LGP
and the
improvement
of communal
government  
2.1. Promotion of
citizen  
2.2. Promotion of
decision making  
2.3. Satisfying the
needs of citizens
and other
institutional actors  
diagnostic. After the initial work the technical
services could not contribute anything more
because they had no authority. All decision
making depended on individual ministries.  
At Sefrou, Sidi Hrazem and Ain Chegag, several
mechanisms were put in place (youth councils,
CEPEC, communication strategy) but these
commissions confronted several constraints.
The CEPECs for example were presided over by
the presidents of the communal councils who
are not neutral.  
The staff of
the commune
is satisfied
with the LGP:
10
Youth
councils: 12
Non‐
involvement
of young
people and
civil society in
decision
making: 8
The LGP
helped the
commune
develop its
PCD: 6
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 109 
2.4. Making citizen
participation more
institutionalized  
The technical
services don’t
have decision
making
power: 10
The creation
and operation
of these
different
participatory
mechanisms
depend on
the
communal
council and
its president:
10
Narrative—What did we learn about the activities and impact of the LGP and about the state of
participation in local governance?
To improve local governance the LGP should focus on elected officials and  civil society, which in most
cases  are in permanent conflict with the council.   
The elected officials need to be reassured that the involvement of civil society will not force them to
give up their power. They need special assistance in areas such as communication and conflict
resolution. For its part, civil society suffers from a number of weaknesses, such as lack of experience and
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 110 
lack of financial and material resources.  
The LGP focused its assistance on the commune, particularly on the technical staff of the commune. Due
to this assistance the staff has gained skills needed to make the commune perform better and to be
more open to its citizens. But without the agreement of the council the staff cannot put into practice the
practical objectives foreseen by the LGP.   
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 111 
ANNEX 5.3.9: Focus group Recording Sheets‐Elected Officials from Fes (FG7)
Date: 15 October 2012, Fès Number of participants 3, of which 1 was a woman     
Length: 40 minutes Moderator: Mhammed Abderebbi
Themes Sub themes   Categories emerging from the conversation—
terms, expressions, words  
Frequency
1.Involvment
in activities of
the LGP  
2. The LGP
and
improving
commune‐ 
level
governance  
1.1. Consulted for
the start‐up  
1.2. Impact of the
LGP  
2.1. Promotion of
citizen participation  
2.2. Promoting
At Sefrou, the LGP strengthened the capacity of
the actors in terms of their knowledge of the
Communal Charter, especially with regard to the
PCD, CEPEC, youth councils and communication
strategy.  
The LGP supported the commune in the
development of its PCD. They made an expert
available and several facilitators for the different
steps in the LGP process.
In spite of the efforts of the LGP, even in the
framework of the PCD, we were not able to get
everyone involved. A small number of citizens
and civil society actors had the chance to be
heard during the diagnostic process.   
The commune has become more open to its
citizens, but there are only about a dozen
associations that have permanent relations with
the commune. The citizens are still far from the
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 112 
decision making  
2.3. Satisfying the
needs of citizens
and institutional
actors  
2.4.
Institutionalizing
citizen participation  
commune. They are consulted but never
involved in decision making.   
The technical services were involved actively in
the diagnostic phase of the PCD but their
involvement with the other commissions
remains minimal. Thus far they do not get
involved in monitoring and evaluation.    
A youth council and CEPEC were created. The
CEPEC has been blocked for political reasons.
The communication strategy is in process.    
The CEPEC and the youth council had some
difficulties when first started but have overcome
these now.   
Narrative—What did we learn about the activities and impact of the LGP and about the state of
participation in local governance?
The impact of the LGP remains limited to a small number of elected officials, the staff of the commune,
and some civil society actors.    
The LGP succeeded in producing a tool kit of support for training in several areas but remains unable to
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 113 
open the commune up to its citizens. It can’t apply the content of its training.   
Citizen involvement is not at the forefront of the LGP’s approach or concerns. All of its attention is
focused on the elected officials, civil society and the staff.  
ANNEX 5.3.10: Focus group Recording Form ‐ Women’s Group at El‐Jadida (FG8)
Date: 19/10/2012 Where: Hotel El Morabitine Number of participants: 8  
Length: 2:30 Hours Moderator: Ibtissam Mzibri Assistant: Raouiaousdi
Themes Sub themes
  
Categories that emerged from the discussion‐ terms,
expressions, words
Frequency
1. Women
and the LGP
1.1. Elected
women  
1.2. Women in
the other
components of
the LGP
1.3.
Sustainability
of the
program’s
benefits
The training did not take into consideration the level of
some of the elected women who did not have sufficient
education to effectively follow the training.  
Some women did not participate because of the lack of
reimbursement for transportation.   
The training only involved the personality of elected
women (leadership) and not technical skills that could be
used in their daily lives and that would help them have
their opinion taken seriously.   
In most cases it was the officials close to the president
who got the training.  
Male officials attended only the opening session about
the role of women.  
Apart from the training program for elected women the
LGP has not undertaken any other action to benefit other
categories of women and to strengthen their
participation.   The commissions function with no
consideration of a gender approach. In most cases only
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 114 
men are present.   
The LGP program has created a certain dynamic among
the women officials, and now they communicate more
among themselves and inform each other of professional
matters.
The training did support some women in developing a
spirit of research and self‐help, but only for a very small
number of women because of the low level of education
among many women.   
There are no permanent structures to integrate women
into local management— just sporadic activities.   
The
integration of
women into
local
management
in general  
Training  
Changing
mentalities  
Efforts of a
more militant
civil society   
It is vital to fight against sexism. It is vital for the success
of women.
Need to have permanent structures to encourage women
and put them on the road to integration.  
It is vital to oblige those with the power to decide to
consider gender and base their evaluation of success of
their programs on this.   
Recommen‐
dations
Training
Awareness
Make programs available to women in associations and
not just to elected women.  
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 115 
Gender
approach with
results  
Ongoing
technical
assistance  
Programs of donors more aware of gender approach.  
Creation of mechanisms for integration of women and of
communication.   
Respect the gender approach in budgeting to help
women accomplish projects.
More transparency in the criteria used to enroll women
in training programs.
Training more useful for professional advancement.
Make council presidents more responsible to the LGP for
respecting its approach.
Encourage those who benefit from the training to share
their knowledge more widely.  
More follow‐up of the actions to ensure more
sustainability.   
Narrative—what did we learn about the activities and impact of the LGP and about the state of
participation in local governance?
The LPG is mainly interested in its program to integrate women by training elected women
representatives in general themes. But it does not provide them with concrete tools to help them  
perform in a professional environment. The result is that women may have a strong personality but lack
practical needed competence. These women want to be able to act on the budget, intervene in
discussions of tax revenues and on other areas of local governance.  
Apart from strengthening the capacities of elected women there is no mechanism to integrate women
into various structures created in the commune. Even if they exist they limit women to a quantitative
participation only.
According to the participants in this focus group it is necessary to prepare the environment to integrate
women and strengthen their competences.   
What is notable is the absence of a role for civil society in this dimension of the LGPs program.   
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 116 
Various participants stated that they had no idea what the LGP had as a clear vision of its objectives and
means. These kinds of actions require participation that cannot be gained by sitting down at a table with
the potential beneficiaries and discussing the working methods.   
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 117 
ANNEX 5.3.11: Focus group Recording Sheets for a mixed group of actors from the
commune of  Ameur‐ Salé (FG9)
Date: 23 October 2012, Commune of  Ameur‐ Salé Participants: 12; 7 women, one elected woman, 2
decentralized technical services officials, and 6 representatives of civil society and members of the
CEPEC  Length:  2 hours Moderator: Mhammed Abderebbi
Themes Sub themes Categories that emerges from the discussion :
terms, expressions, words  
Frequency
1. Involvement
in the
activities of
the LGP  
1.1. Consultation on the
activities at start‐up
None of the participants know of the LGP and
its objectives. They don’t know about it directly
from LGP personnel. They have only heard
about it from mail sent to the commune.   
The LGP never consulted with the participants.  
Whatever consultation occurred was only with
the president of the commune without
involving anyone else.  
The president receives invitations from the LGP
and he appoints people who can participate in
meetings or training sessions.  
The LGP sent a questionnaire to the commune
to identify the needs of those people
designated for the training.  
The LGP held several training sessions for
women elected to offices outside the
commune.   
Each of the four women attended one training
session.   
The LGP organized several trainings and
encounters for members of the CEPEC which is
still in the process of being created.  
12
12
12
5
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 118 
2. The LGP and
improvement
of local
governance    
1.2. Impact of the
trainings organized by
the LGP  
2.1.The promotion of
citizen participation
2.2. Promoting
participation in decision
making  
2.3. Satisfaction of the
needs of citizens and
institutional actors  
2.4. Institutionalization
of citizen participation  
The Sanad project organized training for youth
councils, but these sessions did not lead to the
creation of a youth council in this commune.
The Sanad project supported the development
of the PCD and organized training to benefit
designated members of the commune.  
It organized individual interviews and focus
group meetings to identify the needs of the
commune.  
SANAD helped them with an expert to help
write their PCD. It is still in process.
Apart from the CEPEC there has been no
initiative to promote citizen participation.
Associative life in the commune is weak and
suffers from a lack of experience and
competence. Of the 30 associations that exist in
the commune the majority are just looking for
financing and small grants. There are no NGOs
specially trained in lobbying or the rights of
youth and human rights.   
The inhabitants of this commune suffer from a
lot of problems— lack of proper sanitation,
drinking water and electricity, and insecurity.
Since the commune was created in 2008 it has
been unable to meet the needs of its
population.
This is a rural commune classified by the central
authorities as one of the poorest in the country.
The president of the commune designated the
members of the CEPEC.
The communal council approved the creation of
the CEPEC on October 22, 2012.
2
2
10
9
11
10
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 119 
  
Narrative—What did we learn about the activities and impact of the LGP and about the state of
participation in local governance?
The LGP should consider paying some attention to this commune. It offers great opportunities to help
put in place different mechanisms to promote citizen participation and local governance—youth
councils, management of complaints, and a plan for communication.  
This is a young commune with young staff and newly created associations that have a strong need for
training.
The LGP should communicate its objectives and its approach to the actors involved and not limit itself to
the president of the commune.    
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 120 
ANNEX 6: Household Survey Data‐ Preliminary results
Annex 6.1 By Commune
Commune Total
El Jadida My Abdellah Sefrou Ain Chegag Ameur Tabrekt
Have you heard anything about
the Equal Opportunity
Committee (CPEC?)
yes 13,3% 6,7% 5,0% 11,7% 5,0% 10,0% 8,6%
no 86,7% 93,3% 95,0% 88,3% 95,0% 90,0% 91,4%
Do you know about the
development of the Communal
Development Plan (PCD)?
yes 10,0% 5,0% 3,3% 13,3% 8,3% 15,0% 9,2%
no 90,0% 95,0% 96,7% 86,7% 91,7% 85,0% 90,8%
How interested are you in
local government affairs?
Very interested 8,3% 6,7% 6,7% 15,0% 16,7% 10,0% 10,6%
Somewhat
interested
35,0% 18,3% 20,0% 23,3% 21,7% 15,0% 22,2%
Not at all
interested
56,7% 75,0% 73,3% 61,7% 61,7% 75,0% 67,2%
Do you think that the elected
officials of the commune are
responsive to the priorities of
citizens or are only interested
in their own needs ?
Electedofficials
are responsive   18,3% 10,0% 8,3% 11,7% 28,3% 20,0% 16,1%
Elected officials
are distant 81,7% 90,0% 91,7% 88,3% 71,7% 80,0% 83,9%
The commune always works
in the interest of the citizens
Strongly agree
5,0% 1,7% 1,7% 5,0% 11,7% 10,0% 5,8%
Somewhat 28,3% 15,0% 28,3% 15,0% 18,3% 36,7% 23,6%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 121 
agree
Somewhat
disagree
15,0% 23,3% 18,3% 25,0% 20,0% 23,3% 20,8%
Strongly
disagree
51,7% 60,0% 51,7% 55,0% 50,0% 30,0% 49,7%
The actions of the commune
help improve the life of its
citizens
Strongly agree 5,0% 6,7% 1,7% 6,7% 10,0% 3,3% 5,6%
Somewhat
agree
21,7% 13,3% 18,3% 13,3% 21,7% 30,0% 19,7%
Somewhat
disagree
21,7% 20,0% 11,7% 11,7% 21,7% 26,7% 18,9%
Strongly
disagree
51,7% 60,0% 68,3% 68,3% 46,7% 40,0% 55,8%
Women have benefited from
the commune’s activities
Strongly agree 5,0% 5,0% 1,7% 3,3% 1,7% 5,0% 3,6%
Somewhat
agree
16,7% 11,7% 23,3% 15,0% 23,3% 18,3% 18,1%
Somewhat
disagree
20,0% 23,3% 13,3% 8,3% 15,0% 26,7% 17,8%
Strongly
disagree
58,3% 60,0% 61,7% 73,3% 60,0% 50,0% 60,6%
Young people have benefited
from the activities of the
commune
Strongly agree 3,3% 3,3% 1,7% 3,3% 3,3% 3,3% 3,1%
Somewhat
agree
16,7% 11,7% 25,0% 10,0% 20,0% 25,0% 18,1%
Somewhat
disagree
13,3% 20,0% 13,3% 21,7% 16,7% 20,0% 17,5%
Strongly
disagree
66,7% 65,0% 60,0% 65,0% 60,0% 51,7% 61,4%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 122 
How efficient is your
commune in communicating
with its citizens
Very efficient 1,7% 1,7% 3,3% 6,7% 5,0% 3,1%
Somewhat
efficient
36,7% 33,3% 31,7% 46,7% 43,3% 41,7% 38,9%
Not at all
efficient
63,3% 65,0% 66,7% 50,0% 50,0% 53,3% 58,1%
I have confidence in the
capacity of my commune to
resolve problems of the
commune
Strongly agree 1,7% 3,3% 6,7% 13,3% 4,2%
Somewhat
agree
20,0% 6,7% 18,3% 15,0% 18,3% 20,0% 16,4%
Somewhat
disagree
13,3% 26,7% 16,7% 30,0% 23,3% 30,0% 23,3%
Strongly
disagree
66,7% 65,0% 65,0% 51,7% 51,7% 36,7% 56,1%
The commune has adopted a
transparent approach to the
management of public affairs
Strongly agree 1,7% 6,7% 1,4%
Somewhat
agree
18,3% 6,7% 18,3% 13,3% 16,7% 20,0% 15,6%
Somewhat
disagree 13,3% 11,7% 15,0% 15,0% 26,7% 28,3% 18,3%
Strongly
disagree 68,3% 81,7% 66,7% 70,0% 56,7% 45,0% 64,7%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 123 
Knowledge/Involvement with LGP
Program and Structures
Commune
El Total Jadida My Abdellah Sefrou Ain Chegag Ameur Tabrekt
Do you know about the LGP
Project ?
yes 1,7% 5,0% 11,7% 1,7% 1,7% 3,6%
no 98,3% 95,0% 100,0% 88,3% 98,3% 98,3% 96,4%
Have you had the
opportunity to be involved
with an activity supported by
the LGP?  
yes 3,3% 0,6%
no 5,0% 10,0% 3,3% 10,0% 1,7% 5,0% 5,8%
Not relevant 95,0% 90,0% 96,7% 86,7% 98,3% 95,0% 93,6%
Analysis: The level of knowledge of the Local Governance Program is extraordinarily low (3.6%) for the
whole sample and is virtually identical for the pilot and control communes.
Knowledge of the two most important participatory mechanisms— the CPEC and the Communal
Development Plan (PCD)— is very low. Only about 10% of those sampled reported knowing about either
one.   
Confidence in local government varies from commune to commune with the most supportive
population being in the control commune of Salé Tabrekt— a semi‐urban commune near the capital of
Rabat. This was the only clearly statistically significant difference by commune found in this study.  
Respondents reported that they did not believe that women and youth benefited from the activities of
the communal government and there was no statistically significant difference between the pilot
communes (El Jadida, My Abdellah, Sefrou and Ain Chegag) and the control communes of Ameur and
Tabrekt.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 124 
6.2 Results of household survey by sex of respondent
Sex
Total
Male Female
How interested are you in local
government affairs
Very 7,4% 12,1% 10,6%
moderately 20,7% 23,0% 22,2%
Not at all 71,9% 64,9% 67,2%
Do you think that local elected
officials are close to the citizens and
care about the priorities and needs
or are not close to them and only
care about their own interests ?
They are close to the citizens 9,9% 19,2% 16,1%
They are not close to citizens
90,1% 80,8% 83,9%
Have you been involved in any of
the activities supported by the LGP? Yes 2,5% 4,2% 3,6%
No 97,5% 95,8% 96,4%
Do you know about the
development of the Communal
Development Plan (PCD)?
Yes 10,7% 8,4% 9,2%
No 89,3% 91,6% 90,8%
Have you heard anything about the
Equal Opportunity Committee
(CPEC?)
Yes 9,9% 7,9% 8,6%
No 90,1% 92,1% 91,4%
What is your opinion about how the
commune involves women in the
management of public affairs ?
Strongly Favorable 3,3% 6,3% 5,3%
Moderately favorable 28,1% 16,7% 20,6%
Not at all favorable 57,9% 62,3% 60,8%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 125 
I don’t know 10,7% 14,6% 13,3%
The commune always works in the
interests and needs of its citizens
Strongly agree 3,3% 7,1% 5,8%
Somewhat agree 14,0% 28,5% 23,6%
Somewhat disagree 26,4% 18,0% 20,8%
Strongly disagree 56,2% 46,4% 49,7%
The actions that the local
government takes help improve the
life of its citizens
Strongly agree 4,1% 6,3% 5,6%
Somewhat agree 11,6% 23,8% 19,7%
Somewhat disagree 20,7% 18,0% 18,9%
Strongly disagree 63,6% 51,9% 55,8%
Women benefit from communes
activities
Strongly agree 4,1% 3,3% 3,6%
Somewhat agree 11,6% 21,3% 18,1%
Somewhat disagree 21,5% 15,9% 17,8%
Strongly disagree 62,8% 59,4% 60,6%
Young people benefit from the
communes activities
Strongly agree 3,3% 2,9% 3,1%
Somewhat agree 7,4% 23,4% 18,1%
Somewhat disagree 24,0% 14,2% 17,5%
Strongly disagree 65,3% 59,4% 61,4%
How efficient do you think your
commune is in terms of
communicating with its citizens?
Very efficient 1,7% 3,8% 3,1%
Somewhat efficient 33,1% 41,8% 38,9%
Not at all efficient 65,3% 54,4% 58,1%
I have confidence in the capacity of Strongly agree 1,7% 5,4% 4,2%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 126 
the communal council to resolve
communal problems)
Somewhat agree 10,7% 19,2% 16,4%
Somewhat disagree 23,1% 23,4% 23,3%
Strongly disagree 64,5% 51,9% 56,1%
The communal council has adopted
a transparent approach to the
management of local affairs
Strongly agree 2,1% 1,4%
Somewhat agree 7,4% 19,7% 15,6%
Somewhat disagree 16,5% 19,2% 18,3%
Strongly disagree 76,0% 59,0% 64,7%
Analysis: There are no statistically significant differences between the views of men and women.
Women are no more likely to know about the CPEC than men (92% don’t know about it). Women
interviewed stated that they were slightly more interested and less critical of local government than
were men. About 60% of the women interviewed stated that they were not at all favorable to the way
the communal government involves women, but this was not statistically different than men.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 127 
6.3 RESULTS OF HOUSEHOLD SURVEY BY AGE OF RESPONDENT
18‐25 years 25 and plus
How interested are you in local government affairs ?
Very interested
10,20% 11,38%
Somewhat interested 23,80% 22,00%
Not at all interested 66,00% 66,62%
Do you think that the elected officials of the commune are responsive
to the priorities of citizens or are only interested in their own needs ?
Elected officials are
responsive 12,20% 17,94%
Elected officials are distant 87,80% 82,06%
Do you know about the Local Governance Project (LGP)?
yes 4,10% 3,70%
no 95,90% 96,30%
Have you been involved in any of the activities supported by the LGP?
yes 1,40% 0,00%
no 2,70% 8,18%
not concerned 95,90% 91,82%
Have you heard anything about the Equal Opportunity Committee
(CPEC?)
yes 12,90% 5,40%
no 87,10% 94,60%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 128 
Do you know about the development of the Communal Development
Plan (PCD)?
yes 10,00% 8,98%
no 90,00% 91,02%
The commune always works in the interests and needs of its citizens
Strongly agree 4,80% 6,76%
Somewhat agree 19,00% 25,00%
Somewhat disagree 24,50% 19,10%
Strongly disagree 51,70% 49,14%
The actions that the local government takes help improve the life of
its citizens
Strongly agree 5,40% 5,92%
Somewhat agree 18,40% 19,76%
Somewhat disagree 20,40% 17,44%
Strongly disagree 55,80% 56,90%
Young people benefit from the communes activities
Strongly agree 4,80% 2,06%
Somewhat agree 14,30% 19,82%
Somewhat disagree 21,80% 15,66%
Strongly disagree 59,20% 59,92%
How efficient do you think your commune is in terms of
communicating with its citizens?
Very efficient   1,40% 3,72%
Somewhat efficient 38,80% 39,78%
Not at all efficient 59,90% 56,46%
I have confidence in the capacity of the communal council to resolve
communal problems)
Strongly agree 2,00% 5,06%
Somewhat agree 12,20% 17,88%
Somewhat disagree 25,90% 23,48%
Strongly disagree 59,90% 53,62%
The communal council has adopted a transparent approach to the
management of local affairs
Strongly agree 2,24%
Somewhat agree 10,20% 17,00%
Somewhat disagree 15,60% 21,46%
Strongly disagree 74,10% 59,28%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 129 
Analysis: Age Differences (18‐25, versus over 25)
The responses of both age groups were virtually identical. About 66% of both age groups reported that
they were not at all interested in local affairs. One difference that did appear to be significant was the
view by youth respondents that the communal council did have the capacity to resolve communal
problems (23% of the youth interviewed strongly or moderately agreed as compared to 14% of those
over 25).
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 130 
6.4 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESPONSE BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
Relationship between citizens and
communal government
Level of Education  
PRIMARY SECONDARY UNIVERSITY NO EDUCATION Other
TOTA
L
How interested
are you in local
government
affairs ?
Very interested 14.3% 8.6% 16.6% 8.5% 20.0% 10,6%
Somewhat interested 20.4% 24.1% 24.0% 16.0% 80.0% 22.2%
Not at all interested 65.3% 67.3% 60.0% 75.5% 0.0% 67.2%
Do you think that
the elected
officials of the
commune are
responsive to the
priorities of
citizens or are
distant
Elected officials are
responsive
20.4% 12.3% 8.0% 23.4% 40.0% 16.1%
Elected officials are
distant
79.6% 87.7% 92.0% 76.6% 60.0% 83.9%
The commune
always works in
the interest of
the citizens
Strongly agree 10.2% 3.1% 4.0% 8.5% 20.0% 5.8%
Somewhat agree 24.4% 19.8% 20.0% 33.0% 20.0% 23.6%
Somewhat disagree 14.3% 26.5% 16.0% 17.0% 20,0% 20.8%
Strongly disagree 53.1% 50.6% 60.0% 41.5% 40.0% 49.7%
The actions of
the commune
help improve the
life of its citizens
Strongly agree 8.2% 4.9% 4.0% 6.4% 0.0% 5.6%
Somewhat agree 26.5% 13.6% 22.0% 24.5% 40.0% 19.7%
Somewhat disagree 12.2% 21.0% 26.0% 16.0% 0.0% 18.9%
Strongly disagree 53.1% 60.5% 48.0% 53.2% 60.0% 55.8%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 131 
Women have
benefited from
the commune’s
activities
Strongly agree 4.1% 3.7% 4.0% 2.1% 20.0% 3.6%
Somewhat agree 28.6% 12.3% 12.0% 24.5% 40.0% 18.1%
Somewhat disagree 16.3% 20.4% 26.0% 10.6% 0.0% 17.8%
Strongly disagree 51.0% 63.6% 58.0% 62.8% 40.0% 60.6%
Young people
have benefited
from the
activities of the
commune
Strongly agree 4.1% 3.7% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 3.1%
Somewhat agree 26.5% 14.8% 10.0% 22.3% 40.0% 18.1%
Somewhat disagree 12.2% 20.4% 26.0% 11.7% 0.0% 17.5%
Strongly disagree 57.1% 61.1% 64.0% 62.8% 60.0% 61.4%
How efficient is
your commune in
communicating
with its citizens
Very efficient 4.1 1.9% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 3.1%
Somewhat efficient 44.9% 40.1% 32.0% 36.2% 60.0% 38.9%
Not at all efficient 51.0% 58.0% 68.0% 57.4% 40.0% 58.1%
I have confidence
in the capacity of
my commune to
resolve  
problems of the
commune
Strongly agree 6.1 3.7% 0.0 5.3% 20.0% 4.2%
Somewhat agree 20,4% 13.0% 14.0% 21.3% 20.0% 16.4%
Somewhat disagree 18.4% 22.8% 32.0% 21.3% 40.0% 23.3%
Strongly disagree 55.1% 60.5% 54.0% 52.1% 20.0% 56.1%
The commune
has adopted a
transparent
approach to the
management of
public affairs
Strongly agree 2.0 0.6 0.0 3.2% 0.0 1.4%
Somewhat agree 16.3% 12.3% 8.0% 23.4% 40.0% 15.6%
Somewhat disagree 18.4% 15.4% 16.0% 25.5% 0.0% 18,3%
Strongly disagree 63.3% 71.6% 76.0% 47.9% 60.0% 64.7%
Knowledge/Involvement with LGP Program
and Structures
Level of Education
PRIMARY SECONDARY UNIVERSITY NO EDUCATION OTHER TOTAL
Do you
2.5% 6.0 3.2% 0.0% 3.6%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 132 
know about
the LGP
Project ?
no 93.9% 97.5% 94.0% 96.8% 100.0% 96.4%
Have you
had the
opportunity
to be
involved
with an
activity
supported
by theLGP?
yes 0.0 0.6 2.0 0.0% 0.0 0.6
no 8.2% 3.1% 6.0% 9.6% 0.0% 5.8%
Not relevant 91.8% 96.3% 92.0% 90.4% 100.0% 93.6%
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 133 
ANNEX 7: Table of concentration and dispersion of activities of LGP by type
and locality
    
Total
    
PCD
ELECTE
D
WOME
N
    
YOUTH
    
COMMUNICATION
   
CONFLICT/COMPLAIN
T
   
CEPEC
El Jadida Ville 61 13 4 10 11 7 3
My Abdellah 7 1 1 3
Safi 55 12 1 11 11 5
Fes Ville 18 5 3 1 7 1
Ain Chegag 8 1 5 1
Sefrou 40 14 14 3 1 5
My Yacoub 7 6
Rabat‐Salé 14 3 2 2
Ameur 2 2
Other
communes
Azemour 6 6
Mohammedia 1 1
Sidi Hrazem 8 3 1 1
Ben Mellal 1
AUDIT GENERAL NGOS Elected
others
Gender Public Forums Other
El Jadida Ville 7 6 2
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 134 
My Abdellah 2
Safi 7 5
Fes Ville 1
Ain Chegag 1
Sefrou 2 1 1
My Yacoub 1
Rabat‐Salé 3 1 3
Ameur 2
Other
communes
Azemour
Mohammedia
Sidi Hrasem 1 1
Ben Mellal
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 135 
ANNEX 8: Focus Group Observations Relevant to Expanded Participation,
Especially of Youth
I. Expanded participation, especially youth
Achieved objectives
The LGP did open up participation somewhat in terms of consultation and initial stages of the PCD
process. (FG3, FG7)
It helped create a more positive relationship between citizens and the communal government. (FG3)
This point is refuted by a number of others who say that participation did not permit a real role to civil
society or youth. (FG2, FG5)
The functioning of the communal government did not significantly change (“still far from the citizens”).
(FG3, FG2) Local governmental officials still not prepared to share power (decision‐making roles). FG1
Women were not integrated into its programs at the commune level. (FG3)
Methods
Coordination between the LGP and elected officials was poor. (FG4)
Training of women councilors was not appropriate to their needs and did not reach beyond a very small
number of women (FG1); Project did not improve representation or skills of council members. (FG1 FG3)
Institutionalization of participation   
Some institutions created (youth councils, CPEC). (FG7) (See El Jadida, Safi, My Abdellah). (FG5)
No permanent structures for these new institutions. (FG8)
New institutions lack coordination with the Ministry Interior DGCL, DCL. (FG3)
Sustainability of practices   
LGP did strengthen youth organizations through training. (FG5)
Most of these are not functioning (Sefrou and El Jadida excepted) (FG2) or are having difficulties with
communal councils. (FG2) Only My Abdellah functioning (FG3)
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 136 
Youth organizations in a few cases demanded a say and protested, but this process was not
institutionalized. (FG5)
New institutions did not integrate women. (FG8)
Only those directly involved benefited—no institutional spreading. (FG3)
Involvement of citizens
Important results achieved in El Jadida. (FG3)
Various actors were involved, especially in early stages of PCD, but not much later. (FG7)
Youth feels itself more involved now in local affairs. (FG5)
The PCD was developed with civil society involvement (participatory methods). (FG6)
Councils resisted decision‐making roles for citizens— any form of power sharing. (FG6, FG1, and FG2)
Not everyone was included. (FG7) Only beneficiaries profited from the trainings. (FG3),  
Communal government still distant from citizens. (FG7)
Ordinary citizens not involved. (FG6)
Involvement often depended on the will of the communal president. (FG6)
Needs of ordinary citizens not taken into consideration. (FG3)
LGP method of coming with an already decided‐upon program and consulted only on implementation
not seen as inclusive. (FG3)
Women’s involvement  
LGP did enhance the skills of some women councilors in leadership and management. (FG3)
LGP training did help elected women form informal network for exchanging information. (FG8)
Program very narrowly defined— why only women officials? (FG1)
Program not open— president often named those to be trained. (FG7)
Communal council did not want to share power or decision making with women. (FG3)
Apart from CPEC no other activity specifically involved women. (FG8)
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 137 
Annex 9: Bibliography
1‐      ABOUHANI Abdelghani, « Enjeux urbains et luttes d’institutions dans les villes marocains »,
in ABOUHANI Abdelghani (dir.), Enjeux et acteurs de la gestion urbaine, Dakar : CODESRIA,
2000, p. 51‐70.    
2‐       ABOUHANI Abdelghani (sous dir.), L’Etat et les quartiers populaires au Maroc : de la
marginalisation à l’émeute. Habitat spontané et mouvements sociaux, Dakar (Sénégal) : Série
des livres du CODESRIA, juillet 1995, 173 pages.  
3‐      AZOUAOUI Hassan, Essai sur la gouvernance locale au Maroc, site web Bougafer, 14 mars
2010.   
4‐      CATUSSE Myriam et VAIREL Frédéric, « Le Maroc de Mohammed VI : mobilisation et action
publique », Revue Politique Africaine, n° 120, décembre 2010.  
5‐      DE MIRAS Claude, « De la gouvernance à la gouvernementalité? Action publique territoriale
au Maroc », Revue Maghreb‐Machrek, n° 202, hiver 2009‐2010, p. 33‐48.  
6‐      DI MEO Guy, Les murs invisibles. Femmes, genre et géographie sociale, Paris : Armand Colin,
2011.  
7‐      EL MOUMNI Nadir, « La participation de la société civile aux politiques publiques. Etudes de
cas », Revue Abhat (Recherches), n° 59, février‐mai 2010, p. 147‐164, in Arabic.  
8‐       EL MESKINI Essaid, « La gouvernance urbaine: une approche multidisciplinaire », Revue
Marocaine des Politiques Publiques, n° 4, printemps 2009.
9‐       FAUREAlain et DOUILLET Anne‐Cécile (dir.), L’action publique et la question territoriale,
Grenoble: PUG, 2005.  
10‐  FIJALKOW Yankel, Sociologie des villes, Paris : La Découverte, coll. Repères, 2007.  
11‐   GANDOLFI Paola, La société civile au Maroc : signification et issues des processus de
changement social et politique, FourthMediterranean Social and PoliticalResearch, Meeting
Robert Schuman Centre For Advanced Studies, Florence‐Montecatini Terme, 19‐23 March
2003.  
12‐  GAUDIN Jean‐Pierre, Pourquoi la gouvernance ?, 2002, Paris, Les Presses de Sciences Po,
2002.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 138 
13‐   LE GALES Patrick, « Gouvernance »,in BOUSSAQUET Laurie, JACQUOT Sophie et RAVINET
Pauline, Dictionnaire des politiques publiques, Paris, les Presses de Sciences Po, 2004.  
14‐ LE GALES Patrick, « Du gouvernement des villes à la gouvernance urbaine », Revue
Française de Science Politique, n°1, 1995.  
15‐ GUERRAOUI Driss, « Cinquante ans de politique sociale au Maroc. Enseignements pour
l’avenir », in Rapport 50 ans de développement humain au Maroc et perspectives 2025.  
16‐ MULLER Pierre, Les politiques publiques, Que sais‐je ?  Paris, PUF, 2004.  
17‐ MOUKITE Khalid, « L’Initiative Nationale pour le Développement Humain », in Centre
d’Etudes Internationale (sous dir.), Une décennie de réforme au Maroc (1999‐2009), Paris: Ed.
KARTHALA, 2010, p. 187‐198.   
18‐ NAVEZ‐BOUCHANINE Françoise, La fragmentation en question: des villes entre  
19. Fragmentation spatiale et fragmentation sociale?, Paris : L’Harmattan, 2002.
20‐ ROUDANI CHERKAOUI, Le Maroc vers une gouvernance citoyenne, AgoraVox, 5 juin 2010.   
21‐  ZOUITEN  Mounir, « La question de la pauvreté urbaine au Maroc : stratégies et acteurs »,
in ABOUHANI Abdelghani (dir.), Enjeux et acteurs de la gestion urbaine, Dakar : CODESRIA,
2000, p. 205‐221.  
22‐ ZNIBER‐SEFRIOUI Myrième, La bonne gouvernance au Maroc: l’action du PNUD, (entretien),
Institut de recherche et débat sur la gouvernance.  
Government of Moracco
Royaume du Maroc, Commission Consultative de la Régionalisation, Rapport sur la
régionalisation avancée, no date.
Project Documents
23. LGP/RIT.  Appui sur l’élaboration des Plans communaux de développement : Mécanismes de
participation et de concertation‐ Etat d’avancement de la composante, April, 2011
24.LGP/RIT.   Appui sur l’élaboration des Plans communaux de développement : Session de
formation des équipes opérationnelles chargées de l’élaboration des PCD, April 2011
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ON 
CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Local Governance Program‐ Mid‐Term Evaluation 139 
25.RIT. Appui à l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre des plans communaux de développement:
Bilan, enseignements et perspectives : Journée de capitalisation sur la planification locales et
l’élaboration des PCD, Mai 19, 2011.
26. Royaume du Marco, Direction Générale des Collectivités Locales,  La Lettre des Collectivités
Locales : Dossier‐ La Coopération marco‐canadienne. Le projet Gouvernance Locale au Marco,
avril, 2012.
27. RIT. Mécanismes de participation et de concertation: Appui à l’élaboration et la mise en
œuvre des Plans Communales de développement: Evaluation de l’appui et pertinence d’un
système de suivi‐évaluation des PCD. November 2011.
28. Rapport Resultat du Diagnostic Partiicipatif sur la Praqtique de la Formation des Elus et La
participation des Femmes a la Governance, novembre 2010
29. RIT Appui a l’elaboration des Plans Communaux de developpement : Axe 1 –Mechanisms de
participation et de concertation
30. LGP, Resume de La Place de la femme dans la gouvernance locale au Maroc. Juillet 2008.
31. MSI, Evaluation du projet de Gouvernance Locale: Rapport de l’evaluation 04 juin 2009.
Other Donor Reports
32. ACDI/DGCL. Projet de Gouvernance Local au marco. Rapport Final Periode du 3 novembre
2006 au 30 juin 2012‐version finale 14 juillet 2012.