Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Familiar Calderon Pamela Cox Country Director: J. Humberto Frigenti Practice Manager/Manager: Ming Zhang Ethel Sennhauser Project Team Leader: Victoria Stanley Mark A. Austin ICR Team Leader: Victoria Stanley ICR Primary Author: Ana Isabel Aguilera De F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The Project development objective is to improve the administrative, financial and technical processes, systems and capacity of local governments to deliver basic services, as prioritized by local communities, in the medium and long-term. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) (a) PDO Indicator(s) Indicator Baseline Original Target Values (from approval documents) Formally Revised Target Values Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target Years Indicator 1: All locally defined and prioritized municipal subproject investments of 262 municipalities, are financed by the Project, are implemented in accordance with fiduciary and safeguards policies as well as national standards. Value quantitative or Qualitative) 0% 100% 98% Date achieved 06/02/2010 06/02/2010 12/31/2016 Comments (incl. % achievement) Substantially achieved. Percentage achieved for this indicator is 98% (87% for fiduciary and 97.7% for safeguards). Indicator 2: Percentage of local governments that progress by at least one capacity category on areas for which they received technical assistance. See Annex 10 for explanation of capacity categories. Value quantitative or Qualitative) 0% 100% 85% 87%
Comments (incl. % achievement) Achieved. 97% of the CCCs supervise construction and 81% agree to monitor the functioning of project financed investments. The indicator was measured through a representative sample of investments or described in the Final Evaluation Report. Indicator 4: Percentage of governments that have plan for maintenance of Value (quantitative or Qualitative) 0% 80% 98% Date achieved 01/08/2013 01/08/2013 12/31/2016 Comments (incl. % achievement) 123% of target value achieved. Indicator 5: Number of local governments that have completed and implemented a public finances (fiscal consolidation) (quantitative or Qualitative) 0 128 112 149 Date achieved 01/08/2013 01/08/2013 07/29/2014 12/31/2016 Comments (incl. % achievement) 133% of target value achieved. Indicator 6: Number of local governments that have completed a disaster risk management plan. Value (quantitative or Qualitative) 0 209 131 174 Date achieved 01/08/2013 01/08/2013 07/29/2014 12/31/2016 Comments (incl. % achievement) 133% of target value achieved. Indicator 7: Number of local governments that have completed and implemented strategic participatory plans (PEP). Value (quantitative or Qualitative) 0 114 54 70 Date achieved 01/08/2013 01/08/2013 07/29/2014 12/31/2016 Comments (incl. % achievement) 130% of target value achieved. This indicator was revised as part of the Mid-Term Review evaluation. Indicator 8: Number of local governments that have implemented and are using the financial management system (SAFIM) developed by the Ministry of Finance. Value (quantitative or Qualitative) 0 47 93 Date achieved 01/08/2013 01/08/2013 12/31/2016 projects projects.
3 08/12/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 41.00 4 05/02/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 42.51 5 09/22/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 44.54 6 02/09/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 48.54 7 08/17/2013 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 52.38 8 01/07/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 60.52 9 06/12/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 62.38 10 11/30/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 67.31 11 06/23/2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 72.00 12 07/14/2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 72.50 13 10/13/2015 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 73.48 14 05/16/2016 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 77.26 15 11/02/2016 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 79.73 16 12/13/2016 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 79.73 H. Restructuring (if any) Restructuring Date(s) Board Approved PDO Change ISR Ratings at Restructuring Amount Disbursed at Restructuring in USD millions Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made DO IP 01/08/2013 S S 48.54 Given implementation arrangements were not working as originally expected and ISDEM was not able to implement Component 2 due to limited managerial capacity, a Level 2 restructuring was requested to make changes to the implementation arrangements, results framework and reallocation of resources among disbursement categories. 07/29/2014 N S S 62.69 A Level 2 restructuring was requested to make further modifications to the results framework. More specifically, changes were made to: (i) clarify what will be measured and how; (ii) ensure consistency between the English