Islamic Republic of AfghanistanIndependent Directorate of Local Governance

A Comprehensive Analysis of District-Level Governance in

Afghanistan

Presentation

July 2009

PRESENTATION CONTENT

• Background• Profile of the District Governors• Profile of the Districts• Regional-Level Analysis of the Districts• Provincial-Level Analysis of the Districts

IDLG is developing a comprehensive analysis of governance at the district-level, using data collected during its “Good Governance” workshops as a starting point

ANALYSIS BACKGROUND

• IDLG conducted orientation and evaluation workshops for all of the District Governors, between October 2008 and May 2009

• During these workshops, IDLG evaluated the capacity of the District Governors, and also asked the Governors to conduct a self-assessment and an evaluation of conditions in their districts

• Using the data provided by the District Governors and the Capacity-Evaluation, IDLG has developed an analysis of governance in Afghanistan, at district, provincial and regional level

• IDLG is working on broadening this analysis, by enriching the data captured with other data, for example on provincial investment levels, or district-level poppy cultivation

Due to security problems and other factors, 41 District Governors were not able to attend, but overall the coverage of the country was impressive

PERCENTAGE OF DISTRICTS COVERED PER PROVINCE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Nangrahar

BalkhTakh

ar

KunarhaKabul

Zabul

Bamya

n

Sar e Pol

KapisaPakti

a

Maidan Ward

ak

Parwan

Baghlan

Jozjan

Samangan

Kunduz

Panjshir

Kandahar

Badak

hshan

Faryab

Ghazni

Daikundi

KhostLo

garFara

h

Neermoz

Lagh

manHerat

Badgh

isGhor

Paktika

Nooristan

Helmand

Uruzgan

NotcoveredCovered

TOTAL COVERAGE = 323/364 DISTRICTS

PRESENTATION CONTENT

• Background• Profile of the District Governors• Profile of the Districts• Regional-Level Analysis of the Districts• Provincial-Level Analysis of the Districts

Around two-thirds of District Governors have a high-school level qualification, almost 100 have degrees, and only 22 are educated to primary school level or below

GOVERNOR EDUCATION LEVELS

9

4353

196

19

3

Graduate

Masters

Undergrad

uate

Bacca

laurea

te

Primary

Uneducated

The majority of district governors have more than 5 years of experience, and only 59 have been in their job for 2 years or less.

GOVERNOR EXPERIENCE LEVELS

Experienced is defined in terms of tenure- the length of time for which the DG has held his/her position

6 months - 2 years, 48

None, 1Unclassified, 2Under 6 months, 10

2 to 5 years, 188

More than 5 years, 74

Almost three quarters of District Governors categorize their confidence and motivation level as “Good” or “Very Good”.

GOVERNOR CONFIDENCE & MOTIVATION LEVELS

Medium, 56

Weak, 28Doesn't have, 2

Unclassified, 1

Good, 139

Very good, 97

Only 28 of the DGs consider their grasp of administrative issues be “weak”, and nearly two-thirds consider it to be “good” or “very good”.

GOVERNOR AWARENESS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

Medium, 55

Very Good, 108

Good, 121

Weak, 38Not classified, 1

Only 25 District Governors scored 50 or below in the IDLG capacity evaluation, and 68 scored more than 75 out of 100

IDLG GOVERNOR EVALUATIONS

From 0 to 25, 2

From 26 to 50, 23

From 51 to 75, 230

Above 75, 68

190 District Governors do not have the use of a vehicle, and 251 do not have a source of electrical power in their work place

GOVERNOR ACCESS TO POWER AND VEHICLES

Not classified, 24

Yes, 48

No , 251

Yes, 123

No, 190

Not classified, 10

ACCESS TO POWER SOURCE USE OF VEHICLE

Only 180 out of 364 districts have formal Offices for the District Governor, and District Council Buildings exist in only 47 of the Districts

DGO COMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE

Yes, 180

No , 184

Yes, 47

No, 317

DISTRICT GOVERNORS’ OFFICE DISTRICT COUNCIL BUILDING

Source: Afghanistan Stabilization Programme

PRESENTATION CONTENT

• Background• Profile of the District Governors• Profile of the Districts• Regional-Level Analysis of the Districts• Provincial-Level Analysis of the Districts

Security and Education were named the district main challenges most frequently, and administrative issues and gender were named least frequently.

DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES

138

86 86

34

103

5

185

237 237

289

220

318

Secur

ity

Agricu

lture

Health

Admin

Educa

tion

Wom

en

Not a mainchallenge

Mainchallenge

202 District Governors said that security conditions in their district were good, and only 49 said that they were “Bad” or “Worsening”.

GOVERNOR APPRAISAL OF SECURITY LEVEL

Bad, 28

Worsening, 21Failure, 2 Unclassified, 2

Improving, 68 Good, 202

According to the District Governors, illegal armed groups such as militias and private armies are present in only 50 of the Districts.

PRESENCE OF ILLEGAL ARMED GROUPS

Yes, 50

No, 271

Unclassified, 2

Only 32 District Governors reported that the level of policing in the District was sufficient, and 90 Governors reported that cooperation from the police was weak or negative

ANALYSIS OF DISTRICT POLICING

Few, 192

Sufficient, 32

Very few, 97

Unclassified, 2

Weak, 69

Good, 146

Very Good, 86

Negative, 21Unclassified, 1

SUFFICIENCY OF POLICE POLICE-DGO COOPERATION

Even fewer District Governors (30) reported that the presence of national security forces was sufficient, and 94 reported that cooperation was weak or non-existent

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESENCE IN DISTRICTS

Very little, 64

Doesn't exist, 23

Unclassified, 2

Little, 204

Sufficient, 30

Good, 180

Weak, 62

Doesn't exist, 32

Unclassified, 4

Very good, 45

Very good cooperation,

45

SUFFICIENCY OF NATIONAL SECURITY NAT. SECURITY-DGO COOPERATION

The critical district-level officers are known to be present in around three-quarters of all districts.

CRITICAL DISTRICT OFFICERS: COVERAGE LEVELS

290

238253

280

33

8570

43

Educa

tion

Admin

istra

tor

Judg

e

Chief P

rose

cuto

r

Chief o

f Sec

urity

Not presentor unknown

Present

Although 228 districts have all 4 critical officers, there are 48 districts that have 2 out of 4 or less, and 12 districts that have none of the 4.

CRITICAL OFFICERS- DISTRICT STAFFING LEVELS

1 out of 4, 13

2 out of 4, 23

3 out of 4, 30

4 out of 4, 228

Unknown, 17

0 out of 4, 12

48 districts

Only 74 District Governors described the level of women’s activities as “Good” or “Very Good”, and 107 described the level of women’s activities as “Very Weak”.

LEVEL OF WOMEN’S ACTIVITIES

Good, 56

Weak, 107

Don't have, 77

Medium, 65

Very good, 18

Very good, 17

PRESENTATION CONTENT

• Background• Profile of the District Governors• Profile of the Districts• Regional-Level Analysis of the Districts• Provincial-Level Analysis of the Districts

Unsurprisingly, District Governors in insecure provinces focus more on security. Unfortunately, very few Governors at all identify gender as a challenge.

AVERAGE DG-IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES BY PROVINCES

41.7%

29.5%

52.4%48.9% 50.0% 55.2%

33.3%

14.6%

31.1%

21.4%36.2% 33.3% 27.6%

22.2%

25.0%24.6%

31.0%25.5%

40.5%34.5%

13.0%

16.7%4.9%

7.1%

10.6%

14.3%17.2%

7.4%

25.0%

36.1%38.1%

42.6%

33.3%31.0%

18.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%6.4%

0.0%6.9%

0.0%

North

North

-Eas

tEas

t

South

-Eas

t

South

Wes

t

Centra

l

WomenEducationAdminHealthAgricultureSecurity

The most educated District Governors are in the North and North-East- the least educated are in the South.

AVERAGE GOVERNOR EDUCATION LEVELS BY REGION

3.83.6 3.5

3.2 3.1 3.23.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Uneducated

Primary Only

Baccalaureate

Undergraduate

Masters

Post-graduate

There is very little difference at all between the average tenure of District Governors by region.

AVERAGE GOVERNOR EXPERIENCE LEVELS BY REGION

None

Under 6 months

Between 6 months and 2 years

2 years to 5 years

More than 5 years

4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Experienced is defined in terms of tenure- the length of time for which the DG has held his/her position

The District Governors from the north seem to have the highest capacity, while those from the South have the lowest

AVERAGE GOVERNOR CAPACITY SCORING BY REGION

70.768.5 68.0

65.1

58.5

65.167.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

North

North-Ea

stEa

st

South-Ea

stSo

uth W

est

Central

11.1 10.3 10.89.5 8.7 9.6

11.1

0

24

6

810

12

14

1618

20

The North, North-East and Centre have the best security ratings, and also the highest quality of security resources, while the South has the opposite relationship.

ANALYSIS OF SECURITY BY REGION

4.8 4.7 4.54.0

3.53.8

4.7

0

0.51

1.5

22.5

3

3.5

44.5

5

Bad

Improving

Good

Worsening

Failure

AVERAGE SECURITY LEVEL

AVERAGE SECURITY RESOURCE QUALITY** Compound index based on presence of police, presence of national security, and cooperation between DGO and security forces

Districts in the North and North-East almost all have the 4 key public officials; the districts in the South and the South East are missing many or most of them

AVERAGE NO. OF 4 KEY PUBLIC OFFICIALS PER DISTRICT BY REGION

3.9 4.0

3.6

2.7

1.5

2.9

3.9

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

PRESENTATION CONTENT

• Background• Profile of the District Governors• Profile of the Districts• Regional-Level Analysis of the Districts• Provincial-Level Analysis of the Districts

Unsurprisingly, District Governors in insecure regions focus more on security. Unfortunately, very few Governors at all identify gender as a challenge.

AVERAGE DG-IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES BY REGION

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Badak

hsha

n

Badgh

is

Baghl

anBalk

h

Bamya

n

Daikun

di

Farah

Farya

b

Ghazn

i

Ghor

Helman

dHer

at

Jozja

n

Kabul

Kanda

har

Kapisa

Khost

Kunar

ha

Kundu

z

Lagh

man

Loga

r

Mai

dan

War

dak

Nangr

ahar

Neerm

oz

Nooris

tan

Paktia

Panjsh

ir

Parwan

Saman

gan

Sar e

Pol

Takha

r

Uruzg

an

Zabul

WomenEducationAdminHealthAgricul tureSecuri ty

The District Governors in some of the insecure Southern and Western provinces have the lowest education levels.

AVERAGE DISTRICT GOVERNOR EDUCATION LEVELS BY PROVINCE

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.83.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1

3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Farya

b

Kunarha

Bamya

nLo

gar

Jozjan

Badak

hshan

Daikundi

Sar e

Pol

Kapisa

Lagh

man

Kunduz

Paktia

Helman

dBalk

h

Nooristan

Maidan

Ward

ak

Uruzga

nHerat

Kabul

Farah

Neermoz

Saman

gan

Takh

ar

Parwan

Khost

Nangrah

arGhor

Baghlan

Ghazni

Panjsh

ir

Kandah

ar

Badgh

isZa

bul

Uneducated

Primary Only

Baccalaureate

Undergraduate

Masters

Post-graduate

We see that a lot of the insecure provinces have District Governors who are somewhat less experienced in their positions

AVERAGE GOVERNOR EXPERIENCE LEVELS BY PROVINCE

None

Under 6 months

Between 6 months and 2 years

2 years to 5 years

More than 5 years 4.6

4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

3.53.3

3.0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Paktia

Bamya

n

Saman

gan

Ghor

Panjsh

irKab

ul

Baghlan

Nooristan

Sar e

Pol

Daikundi

Farya

bBalk

h

Takh

ar

Kapisa

Kunduz

Neermoz

Parwan

Khost

Badgh

isJozja

nHerat

Zabul

Badak

hshan

Kandah

ar

Kunarha

Nangrah

ar

Helman

d

GhazniLo

garFa

rah

Maidan

Ward

ak

Lagh

man

Uruzga

n

Experienced is defined in terms of tenure- the length of time for which the DG has held his/her position

The northern provinces have the highest average DG capacity, while Badghis, Helmand, Uruzgan and Zabul have the lowest

AVERAGE DISTRICT GOVERNOR CAPACITY BY PROVINCE

7472 72 72 72 72 70 69 69 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 65 65 65 64 64 63 62 61

59

53 5250

Kunarha

Bamya

nPak

tiaBalk

hJozja

n

Farya

b

Badak

hshan

Khost

Parwan

Sar e

Pol

Takh

arGhor

Saman

gan

Baghlan

Daikundi

Panjsh

ir

Kapisa

Maidan

Ward

ak

Neermoz

HeratKab

ul

Nangrah

ar

Kunduz

Farah

Nooristan Lo

gar

Lagh

man

Ghazni

Kandah

ar

Badgh

is

Helman

d

Uruzga

nZa

bul

It is no surprise to see that many of the least secure provinces have a low number of key government officials per district

AVERAGE NO. OF 4 KEY PUBLIC OFFICIALS PER DISTRICT BY PROVINCE

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.83.7

3.6 3.63.5

3.33.1

2.92.7

2.2

1.3 1.3

1.00.9 0.9

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.2

5.0

4.0

5.0

4.3

4.84.5

3.8

4.9 5.0 4.9

3.5

5.0 4.94.4

5.0 5.0

3.8

5.04.6

4.9 4.8 4.8

3.3 3.54.0

4.74.2

2.83.3

3.0

4.03.6

1

2

3

4

5

There is a striking correlation between the capacity of the District Governors and the level of security in their provinces

CONNECTION BETWEEN GOVERNOR CAPACITY AND SECURITY

Bad

Improving

Good

Worsening

Failure

AVERAGE GOVERNOR CAPACITY

AVERAGE SECURITY LEVEL

52.8% Correlation

74 72 72 72 72 72 70 69 69 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 65 65 65 64 64 63 62 61 5953 52 50

01020

30405060

7080

Kunarha

Bamya

nPakti

aBalk

hJozja

n

Faryab

Badak

hshan

Khost

Parwan

Sar e Pol

Takhar

Ghor

Samangan

Baghlan

Daikundi

Panjshir

Kapisa

Maidan Ward

ak

Neermoz

HeratKabul

Nangrahar

KunduzFara

h

Nooristan

Logar

Lagh

man

Ghazni

Kandahar

Badgh

is

Helmand

Uruzgan

Zabul

9.5

11.4

9.5

11.7 12.3

10.3 10.010.8

11.6 11.8

9.5

11.811.0 10.910.7

9.9 10.38.9

10.6 10.69.4 9.7 9.4 9.0 8.9

11.4

8.09.7

11.0

8.6

10.89.3

8.5

0

5

10

15

There is also a strong correlation between the security level and the quality of security resources- their quantity and how well they coordinate with the District Governors

ANALYSIS OF SECURITY BY PROVINCES

5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.8

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Bad

Improving

Good

Worsening

Failure

AVERAGE SECURITY LEVEL

AVERAGE SECURITY RESOURCE QUALITY*

* Compound index based on presence of police, presence of national security, and cooperation between DGO and security forces

Approx. line of best fit, 52.5% Correlation

5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.8

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.8

2.7

4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

2.9

3.7 3.9

3.13.6 3.6

1.0

2.2

3.5

1.3

3.8

0.9

3.3

1.30.9

0

1

2

3

4

There is also a strong correlation between security conditions and the presence of the 4 key government officers in the districts

CONNECTION BETWEEN SECURITY AND GOVERNMENT PRESENCE

Bad

Improving

Good

Worsening

Failure

AVERAGE SECURITY LEVEL

AVERAGE NO. OF KEY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS

Approx. line of best fit, 73% Correlation

THANK YOU