close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Презентация 16.09

код для вставкиСкачать
Project
Citizens’ Satisfaction with Local Governance Performance
Main findings of the public survey
Presentation, 09.16.03
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
1
Project Objectives
(from Terms of Reference)
1.
Design and practical testing of specific elements of the standard
model of public evaluation of local governance performance
enabling the regular measurement of citizens’ satisfaction with
municipally-provided public services.
2.
Development of the system of monitoring citizens’ opinion and
evaluation of local governance performance including making up an
integral evaluation
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
2
Subject Matter of the Research
(from Terms of Reference)
• �Public awareness of the performance of local governments, principles of
local self governance and main tasks of the reform; public expectations for
local self governments;
• ВCitizens’ view (image) and evaluation of local governments and their
performance;
• ОEvaluation of the citizens’ satisfaction with public services delivered by
local governments and the agreement between public expectations and
quality of municipal services;
• MMost typical patterns of public response to the need of self-organization
, self-administration and partnership with local governments
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
3
Subject Matter of the Research (chart)
Evaluation of
municipal services
block (III)
Subjective criteria: block
(II)
Local government’s image
Public judgment of local
governments
(of various levels))
Local self governments
User of municipal
services
Services
Social and demographic
status of the user
Objective criteria
block (I)
Opinion and
evaluation
Consumption
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
4
Subject Matter of the Research
(base model)
The base model is using three blocks of survey instruments
(questionnaires):
(I) description of an individual user
of municipal services
(statement of the social and
demographic status)
(II) description of the communication link
between an individual user and a local government
(opinion about the local government, statement of
the ultimate image of the local government,
description of the judgment of and attitude towards
the local government)
(III) user’s evaluation of the quality of municipal
services and performance of the local government
(statement of the level of satisfaction with
municipal services)
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
5
Subject Matter (Block I):
Social and demographic status of the user
User of municipal
services
Social and
demographic
status
(gender, age,
education, etc.)
09.16.03
Marital status
Housing
conditions
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
Welfare
6
Subject Matter (Block II):
Communication link between the user and
the local government
Social communication at the municipal level
Awareness
Awareness of local
self governance principles
(general understanding)
Awareness of local
governance performance
Opinion
Expectations for
local governments
Agreement between
local governance
performance
and expectations
Local
self-governments
Evaluation
Confidence in local
governments
Satisfaction with local
governance performance
Behavior
Typical behavior in event of
the need to self organize
and self administer
Patterns of partnership
with the local government
User-local government
communication measures
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
7
Subject Matter (Block III):
Evaluation of municipal services
Municipal services
Water
Heating
Housing
maintenance and
utility services
Landscaping and
neighborhood
improvement
Public
transportation
Types of
municipal services
Evaluation of
the current
situation
Evaluation of
the last year
changes
Housing for
low-income families
Maintenance and
servicing of nursery and
secondary schools,
polyclinics
Social assistance
programs
Municipal service evaluation
aspects
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
8
Objects of the Research
Table 1. Geographical structure of the sample
в„–
Type
City
Oblast
Perm
Perm Oblast
Saratov
3
4
Population size
Number of inquiry forms
1002500
300
Saratov Oblast
867900
332
Volgograd
Volgograd Oblast
987400
330
Engels
Saratov Oblast
189200
202
Dimitrovgrad
Ulyanovsk Oblast
137500
222
6
Arzamas
Nizhny Novgorod Oblast
109900
202
7
Balakovo
Saratov Oblast
205100
215
8
Buzuluk
Orenburg Oblast
86500
151
Bor
Nizhny Novgorod Oblast
62300
150
Kungur
Perm Oblast
75200
150
Tsivilsk
Chuvash Republic
11200
Yadrin
Chuvash Republic
10200
Magadan
Magadan Oblast
115000
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky
Kamchatka Oblast
188800
1
2
I
5
II
9
III
10
11
75
IV
12
13
75
200
V
14
TOTAL:
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
203
2807
9
Main Findings of the Research
1. Citizens’ understanding of the idea of local self governance
In Russia, there is still a lack of clear and unequivocal public understanding of the core
idea and principles of local self governance. Many citizens do not perceive the difference
between state and non-state governmental authorities. The respondents’ answers
demonstrate no difference in the public understanding of the concept of local self
governance between the cities involved and the cities standing outside municipal
governance reform. In other words, the reform lacks good publicity. The only point on
which the public has reached a full agreement is that city mayors should be elected rather
than appointed by upper-level authorities. “from above”. However, we believe that this is a
result of the public traditional treatment of elections as a general manifestation of
democracy rather than realization of local self governance principles.
Generally, despite of the lack of clear and unequivocal understanding of the idea of local
self governance by the public, the majority of it still supports the constitutional definition
of it.
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
10
Main Findings of the Research
1.
Citizens’ understanding of the idea of local self governance
On the one hand, there is a believe that local governments are local representatives of the State, on the
other - that it is a form of public self administration. With statement would you support?
80
70
60
50
The first
40
The second
pl
30
20
10
M
ag
ad
an
Pe
t ro
pa
vl
ov
sk
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
Ya
dr
in
k
Ts
iv
i ls
Ku
ng
ur
Bu
zu
lu
k
Bo
r
Ba
la
ko
vo
itr
ov
gr
ad
Ar
za
m
as
im
En
ge
ls
D
09.16.03
Vo
lg
og
ra
d
Sa
ra
to
v
Pe
rm
0
11
Main Findings of the Research
2. Evaluation of municipal services
In response to the request to evaluate the quality of municipal services in the
last year, most respondents in all sample cities answered that they did not
notice any changes - clear evidence that the situation is stable.
At the same time the initial assumption that inhabitants of cities implementing
local self- governance reform might more frequently register favorable changes
in the delivery of municipal services, generally, turned out to be true
– The
integral satisfaction with municipal services is higher in the base group, while
none of the control cities has fallen on the group of cities with the high rate of
public satisfaction: in cities standing outside the local self-governance reform
the integral index of public satisfaction with municipal services is either the
lowest (Balakovo, Kungur, Yadrin), or medium (Volgograd, Petropavlovsk) as
against the sampled totality.
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
12
Main Findings of the Research
Integral index
of public
satisfaction
09.16.03
0.73
0.84
0.54
0,66
0,2
0,67
0,91
1,3
0,92
0,47
0,93
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
0,98
0,48
0,63
Petropavlovsk
Magadan
Yadrin
Tsivilsk
Kungur
Buzuluk
Bor
Balakovo
Arzamas
Dimitrovgrad
Engels
Volgograd
Saratov
Perm
Среднее по городам
контрольной группы
Среднее по городам
РѕСЃРЅРѕРІРЅРѕР№ РіСЂСѓРїРїС‹
Среднее по всем
городам
2. Evaluation of municipal services
0,34
1,03
0,75
13
Main Findings of the Research
3. Public judgment of local governments
The sample cities have significant differences in public opinions about the
performance of their local governments. There is a group of cities where local
governments are rated high by the public and enjoy the public trust. These cities
are Dimitrovgrad, Arzamas, Buzuluk and Bor. Quite the opposite situation is in
Petropavlovsk, Saratov, Volgograd, Kungur and Balakovo where these indicators
are very low. Notice that four of five cities in this group are controls, i. e. cities
not involved in municipal governance reform.
Local legislative authorities appear to be less trustworthy to the public than local
governments; furthermore, in most cities (exceptions are Arzamas, Dimitrovgrad
and Bor) the public that do not believe local legislators exceeds in number those
who are confident in them.
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
14
Main Findings of the Research
3. Public judgment of local governments
To w hat extent are you confident in the city m ayor (head of the city/rayon adm inistration), %?
50
45
40
35
30
Average for the base group
25
Average for the control group
20
15
10
5
0
Not confident
09.16.03
Confident
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
15
Main Findings of the Research
Table 3. Rate of public confidence in local governments (average score under the 5-grade scoring scale)
3. Public judgment of local governments
Aver
age
for
all
cities
Aver
age
for
the
base
grou
p
Aver
age
for
the
contr
ol
grou
p
Perm
Sarat
ov
Volg
ogra
d
Enge
ls
Dimit
rovgr
ad
Arza
mas
Bala
kovo
Bor
Buzu
luk
Kung
ur
Tsivi
lsk
Yadri
n
Maga
dan
Petro
pavl
ovsk
Confidence in mayor, city/district
head
3.1
3.1
2.7
3,1
2,5
2,0
3,1
3,7
2,6
3,5
3,9
3,6
3,1
3,2
2,1
3,0
1,8
Confidence in oblast governor,
republican president
3.1
3.1
3.2
3,6
3,1
2,2
2,7
3,0
2,3
3,3
3,9
3,4
3,7
3,5
2,0
3,6
3,1
Confidence in city council, city
duma
2.8
2.8
2.4
2,8
2,7
1,8
2,6
3,1
2,5
2,8
3,7
3,2
2,4
2,8
1,9
2,6
2,0
Confidence in oblast duma
2.7
2.7
2.4
2,9
2,9
1,8
2,5
2,7
2,4
2,8
3,5
2,8
2,6
2,4
1,9
2,8
2,3
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
16
Main Findings of the Research
3. Public judgment of local governments
Control cities
4 ,5
( ср ед н и й б ал л п о 5- т и б ал л ь н о й ш к ал е)
Base cities
Д о в ер и е м эр у го р о д а, гл ав е ад м и н и ст р ац и и
5 ,0
4 ,0
Р” Рё Рј Рё С‚ СЂ Рѕ РІ РіСЂ Р° Рґ
Арзам ас
Бор
Пермь
3 ,5
Р‘ СѓР· СѓР» СѓРє
Цивильск
РЇРґСЂРёРЅ
3 ,0
Рњ Р° РіР° Рґ Р° РЅ
Р­ РЅ РіРµ Р» СЊ СЃ
Б ал аково
2 ,5
Рљ СѓРЅ РіСѓСЂ
Р’ Рѕ Р» РіРѕ РіСЂ Р° Рґ
2 ,0
С а р а то в
П е тр о п а в л о в с к
1 ,5
1 ,0
0 ,0
0 ,2
0 ,4
0 ,6
0 ,8
1 ,0
1 ,2
1 ,4
Р� РЅ С‚ Рµ РіСЂ Р° Р» СЊ РЅ Р° СЏ Рѕ С† Рµ РЅ Рє Р° Рј СѓРЅ Рё С† Рё Рї Р° Р» СЊ РЅ С‹ С… СѓСЃ Р» СѓРі
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
17
Main Findings of the Research
4. Public readiness to self organizing
The grass-roots self-administration (as a form of public self-organization) is
still very weak (both in terms of available practices and in terms of the
willingness of local communities to form community associations in order to
attend their needs themselves). Citizens’ activities are typically limited to the
declaration of their readiness to appeal to respective authorities, and as for
practical self-organization, subbotnics (participation in unpaid work on
neighborhood improvement) actually remains the only example of such.
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
18
Main Findings of the Research
4. Public readiness to self organizing
Subbotnik, cleaning neighborhood yards and streets
33
37
26
Meetings (of house/neigborhood/city residents)
15
17
12
Collective w ritten appeal to state authorities and local governments
14
13
15
Meetings, pickets, protest events
6
4
8
Cultural and sports events
6
5
7
Material (including cash) support of joint events or a specific family
3
3
4
2
2
2
Joint security and order protection
2
2
2
Other
1
1
1
45
2
44
1
46
2
Did not participate in any activities
Did not know
09.16.03
Project "Citizens' Satisfaction with Local Governance
Performance"
19
Документ
Категория
Презентации
Просмотров
7
Размер файла
412 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа