On the Long Way of Reforms: The System of RA Local Government in the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

On the Long Way of Reforms: The System of RA Local Government in the Eyes of Citizens

Presentation of “CELoG” survey results

Caucasus Research Resource Center-Armenia

Yerevan, December 11, 2015

Agenda

• Research Overview
• Public Awareness of the Local Self-Government System
• Public Opinion on the Performance of Local Self-

Government Bodies

• Civic Participation in the activities of Local Self-

Government Bodies

• Sources of Information on reforms regarding LSG
• Attitude toward NGOs and International Programs
• “CELoG” Index

Research Overview

Data Collection

• Household (HH) Survey
• Survey of individuals well-aware of the

activities of LSG bodies, and well-known in communities

Sampling

• Sampling method: multilevel cluster sampling
• Stratification by region and area of residence,

combined with purposed sampling of target pilot communities

• Randomly selected HHs in each cluster (11 HH)
• Selection of Respondents: selection of HH adult

member according to Kish selection grid.

• Sample size: 1500 HHs: 540 in Yerevan, 465 in other

urban areas and 495 in rural areas.

Sampling (ctd.)

• Sample framework: Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA)

database of electricity users

• Sample structure:
• Countrywide sample of randomly selected 100 clusters

(according to probability-proportional-to-size sampling approach)

• 35 pilot communities included in CELoG project
• The smallest and the most distant communities that are

included in the 3 pilot community groups of the Community Consolidation Project, but were left out from the random sample

Content of Questionnaires

• HH survey (278 questions)
• Public Awareness of the Local Self-Government Bodies
• Public Opinion on the Performance of Local Self-Government Bodies
• Civic Participation in the activities of Local Self-Government Bodies
• Sources of Information on reforms regarding LSG
• Attitude toward NGOs and International Programs
• Survey of individuals well-aware of the activities of LSG bodies, and well-

known in communities (27 Questions)

• Attitude toward the efficacy of the provision of the community services
• Knowledge of subordination in provision of community services
• Opinion on optimal subordination in provision of community services

Description of the Final Database

• Actual Sample size: 1463 HHs selected from 133

clusters (communities) including:

• 100 randomly selected communities
• 27 target communities (left out of the random sample)
• 6 communities selected from the 3 pilot groups of the

Community Consolidation Project

• 18 out of 23 communities included in the Social

Reform Project were selected.

Note

All the charts in the presentation are expressed in percentages (if not mentioned otherwise)

Public Awareness of the Local Self-Government System

Main findings of the section

• The vast majority of the respondents know the head
• f their community, but do not know the members of

local council (Avagani).

• The vast majority of the respondents are not aware
• f the decisions made by their local governments.
• The vast majority of the respondents are not aware of

the Armenian legislation on Local Governance.

• The majority of the respondents are not interested in

reforms taking place in the Local Government.

Q1.1. Do you know the head of your community?

73 27 Yes No

Q 1.2.1 How many local council members of your community do you know?

14.8 5.3 5.2 17.4 8.8 48 0.5 Everyone Almost everyone Half A few One None Do not know/ difficult to say

Q1.11.1 Are you familiar with the decisions passed at your Local Self-Government (LSG) bodies?

13 87 Yes No

Q1.6.1 Do you know the budget of your community for 2015?

2.2 91 6.8 Yes No Do not know/ Difficult to say

Q1.4 In your opinion who can suspend the mandate of a local council (Avagani) member?

43.4 33.1 14.4 11.7 5.3 7.3 4.5 20 0.6 Residents Head of the Community Avagani Regional Governor The National Assebly The President of the Country Nobody Do not know Other

Q1.9.1 Are you aware of the Community Consolidation process?

41 59 Yes No

Q1.9.2 In your opinion, what impact will this process have on your community?

13.0 15.9 23.3 23.9 19.2 4.7 do not know/ difficult to say No impact Very negative Negative Positive Very positive

Public Opinion on the Performance of Local Self-Government Bodies

Main Findings of the Section

• Only a small part of the respondents is fully satisfied with the

performance of LSG bodies.

• Only a small part of the respondents is satisfied with the level
• f transparency and accountability of their LSG bodies.
• The majority of the respondents believe that corruption,

social status, position and acquaintances can be an important factor to solve issues in LSG bodies.

• In general, trust toward the Head of the Community and local

council members is low.

Q5.8 Overall, how satisfied are you with the work of LSG bodies?

1.5 10.1 46.8 17.3 18.7 5.6 Completely satisfied Very satisfied To some extent Very little Not satisfied at all Do not know/ difficult to say

Is the Head of the Community the closest to the people?

Q2.2 In the past 6 months, 16.5 % of the respondents contacted the Head of their Community for a personal

• r community problem.

In comparison:

5.1 % contacted local council members 1 % contacted their Parliament Member 0.8 % contacted an NGO representative

Q2.4 How easy or difficult was it to raise your concerns in front of the following persons?

6.3 6.3 9.2 10 17.8 33.3 37.4 54.8 43.8 56.3 50.8 50 65.8 26.7 44.1 12.9 31.3 31.3 21.5 10 11 20 11.3 19.4 6.3 15.4 10 2.7 6.7 4.2 12.9 6.3 6.3 3.1 10 2.7 13.3 2.9 6.3 10 An Official of any Government Agency Businnes representative An Official of any Political Party Other Local Government Official An NGO representative Your local council member Your member of the Parliament The Head of your Community Very easy Easy Neither easy nor difficult Difficult Very difficult DK/DA

Q2.5 How fast do the following persons respond to your concerns?

6.3 6.5 12.3 12.5 13.3 20 23.3 35.7 37.5 41.9 23.1 31.3 40 10 42.5 31.5 25 12.9 20 31.3 20 20 17.8 13.4 19.4 7.7 6.3 6.7 20 2.7 7.1 12.5 9.7 10.8 6.7 4.1 4.6 18.8 9.7 26.2 12.5 13.3 20 9.6 7.1 6.3 10 0.4 An Offiacial of any Palotical Party An Official of any Government Agency Other Local Government Official Business Representative Your Member of the Parliament An NGO Representative Your local council member (Avagani) The Head of your Community Very Fast Fast Neither late nor fast Late Very Late Never Respond DK/DA

Q3.2.1 In your opinion, how often should the head of your community meet with his/her electorate to discuss and agree on the development plan of the community? Q3.1.1 In the past 6 months, how often did the head of your community meet with his/her electorate to discuss and agree on the development plan of the community?

8 29 34.3 12.6 7.8 0.8 7.5 Every week Every month Every 3 months Twice in a year Once in a year Never Do no know/ difficult to say 3.7 6.2 8.4 5.5 5.3 38.3 32.5 Every week Every month Every 3 months Twice in a year Once in a year Never Do not know/ difficult to say

Q 3.2.2 In your opinion, how often should the head of your community meet with his/her electorate to let the public know about the decisions of the LSG bodies? Q3.2.1 In the past 6 months, how often did the head of your community meet with his/her electorate to let the public know about the decisions of the LSG bodies?

7.9 28.8 34.4 12.5 7.6 0.8 8 Every week Every month Every 3 months Twice in a year Once in a year Never Do no know/ difficult to say 3.5 5.7 8.1 4.7 4.2 39.9 33.9 Every week Every month Every 3 months Twice in a year Once in a year Never Do not know/ difficult to say

Q5.1. How well or badly your LSG bodies implement these activities?

2.1 2.8 2.8 3.9 4.5 5.2 6.1 7 13.2 19.8 23.2 23.2 19.9 17.1 27.5 24.5 30.7 33.5 29.9 31.5 31.5 24.3 24.5 28.2 31.1 28.2 28.6 13 11.7 11.7 11.4 7.1 15.2 9.1 7.5 10.5 7.1 7.8 5.5 7.4 3.6 10.3 5.5 4.6 8.6 4 4.2 3.3 4.9 3.3 5.1 4.3 3 4 22.7 18.4 21.6 27.8 38.9 8.1 18.8 18.4 1.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1

Monitoring the sanitation compliance standards at local food stalls Managing health institutions Monitoring the shopping center activity regulations Protecting water resources and forests Solving local disputes Maintaining local roads and bridges Maintaining law and order Managing the domains of education, culture and sport Keeping the community clean Very well Fairly well Neither badly nor well Fairly badly Very badly Not practicing at all DK/DA Other

Q5.2 In your opinion, in the past 6 months, how often, did the members of your community have to offer a gift (cash

• r goods) to a state official to receive public services?

31.7 32.2 32.7 36.5 36.9 60.5 58.8 60.4 56.4 57.1 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.3

Other officials Social service providers Marzpet and his staff Head of the community and his staff Member of Avagani Always and often Seldom Never DK/DA Other

Q5.3. To what extent can the following factors help the citizens to solve their problems via LSG Bodies?

19 20.3 21 21.6 27.1 33.6 44.9 59.5 59.8 34.6 35.4 31.6 29.9 32.1 36.2 13.7 18.8 19.8 40.2 39.1 43.1 42.7 35.9 25.3 32 16.2 15.4 6.1 5.2 4.4 5.8 4.9 4.9 9.4 5.4 4.9

Appearance Age Patience Luck Persistence Professional abilities Bribe Social status/position Connections To a great extent To some extent Not at all DK/DA

Q3.8.1. Overall, how would you rate the level of accountability of your LSG Bodies?

43 17 10 24 6 1

DK/DA Very low Low Neither low nor high High Very high

Q4.2.1. Overall, how would you assess the transparency of your LSG Bodies?

19 23 17 29 11 2

DK/DA Very low Low Neither low nor high High Very high

Q4.1 How well or badly do you think your LSG Bodies implement the following procedures?

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 6 9 7 11 8 10 12 17 15 20 17 23 20 20 27 23 16 20 13 13 13 13 17 33 25 28 25 22 26 25 25 20 38 23 38 30 30 32 18

Providing community residents with information about community budget Management of complaints on local state officials Involving residents in local authority decision-making Ensuring transparency in procurement, e.g. conducting tenders Providing social services Consultation with community residents about utilization, rent and sales of public resources (such… Targeted and fair spending of community revenue Informing the community residents about the activities of the LSGBs Very well Fairly well Neither badly nor well Fairly badly Very badly DK/DA

Q3.3. How much do you trust the following individuals?

1.00 1.20 1.50 1.70 1.80 3.60 4.00 9.30 17.90 3.70 3.80 5.20 7.10 3.70 9.10 7.40 15.10 20.20 17 20 21 24 11 20 19 23 23 12.0 9.1 8.9 9.9 8.1 7.7 8.5 6.1 5.1 9.9 9.8 7.4 6.3 6.9 7.7 7.8 5.3 6.2 47.6 48.0 38.9 37.8 51.1 46.8 39.5 27.6 23.0 8.5 7.8 16.6 13.7 17.7 5.3 13.9 13.9 5.0 Politicians Other state officials An NGO representatives Social service providers Non-formal leaders The President of the country Your mamber of the Parliament Local council member (Avagani) Head of the Community Fully Trust A lot Neither mistrust nor trust Little Very Little Do not trust at all DK/DA

Civic Participation in the activities

• f Local Self-Government Bodies

Main findings of the section

• The participation rate of the respondents in the work of LSG

bodies (council meetings, project or budget discussions, etc.) is substantially low.

• The few respondents who participated in the work of LSG

bodies are satisfied with the results of their participation.

• The participation rate of the respondents in the elections of

LSG bodies is considerably high.

• The majority of the respondents do not trust in the fairness and

transparency of the recent LSG elections.

• The level of the respondent membership in any community
• rganization is negligible.

Q2.7.1. In the past 6 months did you participate in the following activities?

99.6 98.3 98.2 97.9 97.7 97.6 0.4 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.4

Media (newspaper, radio, TV) interview/ program about local problems Local community budget hearings/discussions Meetings organized by NGO-s to discuss problems Protest march or demonstration Discussions of community policies and plans Meetings of avagani Yes No

Q2.7.3. Were they effective?

27.6 33.3 40 46.2 54.2 54.5 27.6 33.3 48.6 46.2 41.7 39.4 17.2 16.7 5.7 3.8 4.2 6.1

24.1 5.7

3.4 16.7 3.8

Protest march and demonstration Media (newspaper, radio, TV) interview/ program about local problems Meetings of Avagani Meetings organized by NGO-s to discuss problems Local community budget hearings/discussions Discussions of local community policies and plans Very much To some extent Very little No DK/DA

2.10. Did you participate in the last elections to vote for the following people?

75 72 74 84 25 28 26 16 0.3 0.3 Head of the community Avagani Member of the Parliament President of the country Yes No DK/DA

Q 2.10.2 In your opinion, were those elections transparent?

20.9 21.1 28.3 30.2 15.9 15.7 16.9 17.1 12.2 12.3 9.6 9.7 26.6 30.8 20.7 20.8 0.6 24.5 19.5 24.5 22.2

Member of the Parliament President of the country Avagani Head of the Community Yes Rather transparent Rather not transparent No DK/RA DK/DA

Q2.6 What is the status of your membership?

0.2 0.1 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.4 1.3 6.7 0.8 0.2 0.9 90.8 98.3 99.4 97.7 0.2

A political party or its local branch An NGO, a community-based

• rganization or an

association A group of political activitists A religious group Official leader Active member Passive member Not a member DK/DA

Sources of Information on reforms regarding LSG

Main findings of the section

• For the respondents the main sources of

information are national, local, Russian television and the Internet.

• The respondents receive information about the LSG

bodies from national, local television and the Internet.

• Only a small percentage of the respondents are

satisfied with the information on LSG body reforms provided by the television and the Internet.

Q1.15.1 How often do you use the following sources?

4.7 6.9 10.3 9.8 12.4 31.6 37.1 51.4 82.5 4.2 4.9 4.2 10.9 10.9 7.8 8.2 17.2 8.4 2.3 3.3 2.7 6.9 3.7 3.8 2.2 5.1 2.3 50.8 88.6 69.2 82.6 72.2 72.1 56.5 28.3 26.1 6.7 43.3 0.2 15.7 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.3 23.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3

Local radio Russian newspapers National radio Other Russian internet resources Armenian newspapers International television channels Other internet resources, social networks Local televiosion Russian television channels National television Each day 1-2 times a week 1-2 times a month Never N/A DK/DA

Q 1.16.2 How satisfied are you with the information on reforms from these sources?

0.8 1 1.3 2.6 3 3.3 3.4 7.3 12.4 16 8.1 7.4 15.1 7.4 6.9 52.7 45.5 49 44.2 54.2 44.8 49.7 51.7 16.4 24.8 20 27.6 24.7 23.9 26.2 29 23.6 16.5 14 18.9 11.1 13.2 13.4 9

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Local radio National radio Community website and notice board National television National newspapers Internet resources, social networks Local television Local newspapers Completely Very much Somewhat Very little Not at all

Q 1.16.3 How satisfied are you with the ethics of the journalists representing these sources?

1.1 2.6 3.6 5.1 5.4 6 6.3 7.5 18.5 16.9 23.6 23.3 17.4 29.3 16.2 25.7 57.6 49.1 40 46.1 50.5 39.7 50 41.9 15.2 20.3 12.7 16.5 20.7 12.9 19.7 16.2 7.6 11.1 20 9.1 6 12.1 7.7 8.6

Community website and notice board Internet resources, social networks Local radio National television National newspapers National radio Local newspapers Local television Completely Very much Somewhat Very little Not at all

Attitude toward NGOs and International Programs

Main findings of the section

• The respondents do not perceive the NGOs to

represent the interests of vulnerable groups in the society.

• The respondents rate the level of accountability

and transparency of NGOs rather low.

• The

respondents do not know whether international organizations are implementing any development project in their communities.

Q 2.14 In your opinion, to what extent are the NGOs representing the interests of the following groups?

3.5 4.2 4.9 7.6 7.1 24.7 23.9 28.2 30.7 29.1 26.3 25.6 25.3 22.9 23.4 19.2 17.1 15.5 13.1 13.2 26.2 29.1 25.8 25.3 26

Youth Women People with disabilities Poor, socially vulnerable people Refugees Entirely Very much To some extent Very little Not at all DK/DA

Q3.9.1 How much would you rate the level of accountability of NGOs?

0.3 3.9 19.1 6.1 10.3 60.3

Very high High Neither low nor high Low Very low DK/DA Very high High Neither low nor high Low Very low DK/DA

Q4.3.1 Overall how would you assess the transparency of NGOs?

0.4 6.3 22.7 8.6 12.1 49.8

High Somewhat high Neither low, nor high Somewhat low Low DK/DA High Somewhat high Neither low, nor high Somewhat low Low DK/DA

Q6.3.1. Are you aware of any development program implemented by international organizations at your community?

17 83

Yes No

Q6.3.2 How would you describe the changes triggered by these program(s)? (N=240)

84.6 9.2 0.4 5.8

Positively Neither negatively nor positively Negatively I do not see any difference

“CELoG” index

• a) Awareness of local government sector (0-1)
• b) Civic participation in local governance (0-1)
• c) Satisfaction with the performance of LSGB (0-2)

0,18 0,6 0,16

Thank you