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 of their community, but do not know the members of local council (Avagani). • The vast majority of the respondents are not aware of 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 Yes No 27
Q 1.2.1 How many local council members of your community do you know? 48 17.4 14.8 8.8 5.3 5.2 0.5 Everyone Almost Half A few One None Do not know/ everyone difficult to say
Q1.11.1 Are you familiar with the decisions passed at your Local Self-Government (LSG) bodies? 87 Yes No 13
Q1.6.1 Do you know the budget of your community for 2015? 91 6.8 2.2 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 20 14.4 11.7 7.3 5.3 4.5 0.6 Residents Head of the Avagani Regional The National The President of Nobody Do not know Other Community Governor Assebly the Country
Q1.9.1 Are you aware of the Community Consolidation process? Yes No 59 41
Q1.9.2 In your opinion, what impact will this process have on your community? 23.9 23.3 19.2 15.9 13.0 4.7 do not know/ No impact Very negative Negative Positive Very positive difficult to say
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 of 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? 46.8 18.7 17.3 10.1 5.6 1.5 Completely Very satisfied To some extent Very little Not satisfied at all Do not know/ satisfied 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 or 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? Very easy Easy Neither easy nor difficult Difficult Very difficult DK/DA The Head of your Community 37.4 44.1 11.3 4.2 2.9 Your member of the Parliament 33.3 26.7 20 6.7 13.3 Your local council member 2.7 17.8 65.8 11 2.7 An NGO representative 10 50 10 10 10 10 Other Local Government Official 9.2 50.8 21.5 15.4 3.1 An Official of any Political Party 6.3 56.3 31.3 6.3 Businnes representative 6.3 43.8 31.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 An Official of any Government Agency 54.8 12.9 19.4 12.9
Q2.5 How fast do the following persons respond to your concerns? Very Fast Fast Neither late nor fast Late Very Late Never Respond DK/DA The Head of your Community 35.7 31.5 13.4 7.1 4.6 7.1 0.4 Your local council member (Avagani) 23.3 42.5 17.8 2.7 4.1 9.6 An NGO Representative 20 10 20 20 20 10 Your Member of the Parliament 13.3 40 20 6.7 6.7 13.3 Business Representative 12.5 31.3 31.3 6.3 12.5 6.3 Other Local Government Official 12.3 23.1 20 7.7 10.8 26.2 An Official of any Government Agency 6.5 41.9 12.9 19.4 9.7 9.7 An Offiacial of any Palotical Party 6.3 37.5 25 12.5 18.8
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? 34.3 29 12.6 8 7.5 7.8 0.8 Every week Every month Every 3 Twice in a Once in a year Never Do no know/ months year difficult to say 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? 38.3 32.5 8.4 6.2 5.5 5.3 3.7 Every week Every month Every 3 Twice in a Once in a year Never Do not know/ months year 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? 34.4 28.8 12.5 7.9 8 7.6 0.8 Every week Every month Every 3 Twice in a Once in a year Never Do no know/ months year difficult to say 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? 39.9 33.9 8.1 5.7 4.7 4.2 3.5 Every week Every month Every 3 Twice in a Once in a year Never Do not know/ months year difficult to say
Q5.1. How well or badly your LSG bodies implement these activities? Very well Fairly well Neither badly nor well Fairly badly Very badly Not practicing at all DK/DA Other Keeping the community clean 13.2 33.5 28.6 10.5 8.6 4 1.4 0.1 Managing the domains of education, culture and sport 7 30.7 28.2 7.5 4.6 3 18.4 0.3 Maintaining law and order 6.1 24.5 31.1 9.1 5.5 4.3 18.8 0.3 Maintaining local roads and bridges 5.2 27.5 28.2 15.2 10.3 5.1 8.1 0.2 Solving local disputes 4.5 17.1 24.5 7.1 3.6 3.3 38.9 0.5 Protecting water resources and forests 3.9 19.9 24.3 11.4 7.4 4.9 27.8 0.2 Monitoring the shopping center activity regulations 2.8 23.2 31.5 11.7 5.5 3.3 21.6 0.2 Managing health institutions 2.8 23.2 31.5 11.7 7.8 4.2 18.4 0.2 Monitoring the sanitation compliance standards at 2.1 19.8 29.9 13 7.1 4 22.7 0.7 local food stalls
Q5.2 In your opinion, in the past 6 months, how often, did the members of your community have to offer a gift (cash or goods) to a state official to receive public services? Always and often Seldom Never DK/DA Other Member of Avagani 36.9 57.1 3.3 Head of the community and his staff 36.5 56.4 3.3 Marzpet and his staff 32.7 60.4 3.6 Social service providers 32.2 58.8 3.2 Other officials 31.7 60.5 3.2
Recommend
More recommend
