Annex 13:
2-3PR: Village Government Capacity-Building in
1. Project description
Project number |
2-3PR |
Project title |
Village Government Capacity-Building in |
Responsible institution |
The |
NASPAA partner |
International Centre for Democratic Governance, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Dan Durning |
NISPAcee partner |
Ural |
Budget: planned |
$12,000 USD |
Budget: resources really used |
$12,000 USD |
Project period: |
8.12.2003 – 30.9.2004 |
2. Project purposes and goals
This project addressed the problem of inadequate local government training in
The main objectives were: (1) identify problems in employee training and development that clearly answer the question of why village government offers no employee training; (2) develop policy recommendations to overcome the problems that have been identified; (3) assist village government to implement training policy and programs; and (4) evaluate the training program.
Specific issues and questions expected to be explored were defining the types of training that would have the highest priority, defining methods and ways of developing the training courses, analysis of international experience in solving identical problems in training of village government’s employees, surveying off-center or non-traditional ways of organizing employee training. On the basis of the project realization, the sustainable training practice in Leninskoe village was expected to be created.
The Ministry of Local Self-Governance and Regional Affairs of the
Main stages of the project were defined as follows:
1. Information gathering.
2. Analysis of the information and identification of the problems.
3. Policy formulation.
4. Translation of recommendations and their presentation to the Leninskoe village government in a series of meetings.
5. Policy implementation.
6. Training policy and program evaluation.
7. Writing the report and dissemination the experience.
3. Project realization
No major problems occurred during the project realization. The project team actively cooperated with government officials; all team members and other participants actively cooperated in the project and fulfilled their roles and responsibilities with quality work.
The only limited problem of the project is connected with timeframe of planned training courses. Because of other activities of project partners and some unexpected occurrences (a car accident, a heart attack), the training was postponed and a part of it was provided by Orokov alone using notes and materials prepared by Pushkarev and Durning.
4. Project outputs, outcomes and impacts
To carry out the project, the project team realized a lot of activities as planned by the project proposal, as follows:
1. Conducted a survey of village government employees on their past training opportunities and their desire for additional training.
2. Carried out a two-day training program aimed at teaching basic policy analysis while assisting village government employees in addressing the question of their training needs and desires.
3. Drafted a village policy on training for consideration by village leaders.
4. Consulted with village leaders to assist them in adapting a policy that reflects village needs and constraints.
5. Identified the types of training now available to village governments in which village employees might participate.
6. Conducted a survey of village government employees on their assessment of a draft training policy document.
7. Conducted a survey of village government employees on their assessment of the basic policy analysis training.
More important outputs can be identified. The most important one is realization of the training course. The first day of training was attended by ten employees of the
Training materials were prepared including interesting policy analysis materials. Training materials used for employee training in Leninskoe village government can be now used for teaching students in Bachelor, Master and Doctoral Programs in Public Administration at the
The main outcome is strengthened capacity of the