1 / 56

CITIZEN REPORT CARDS

CITIZEN REPORT CARDS. Session1 - A Brief Introduction. The Citizen Report Card Story. From an IDEA to an INSTITUTION. BACKDROP: BANGALORE 1993. Inadequate and inefficient public services Wide corruption and abuse of discretion Non responsiveness of agencies and political leadership

elin
Télécharger la présentation

CITIZEN REPORT CARDS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CITIZEN REPORT CARDS Session1 - A Brief Introduction

  2. The Citizen Report Card Story From an IDEA to an INSTITUTION

  3. BACKDROP: BANGALORE 1993 • Inadequate and inefficient public services • Wide corruption and abuse of discretion • Non responsiveness of agencies and political leadership • Weak response from citizens, civil society & media • The impetus for change had to come from: • Political leadership and administration, or • Active citizens and civil society

  4. WHY PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY IS WEAK? • Lack of Exit Options • Poor Corrective Actions • Weak Collective Actions

  5. The Way Out.. STRENGTHENING CITIZEN’S / CONSUMER’S “VOICE” TO RAISE THE DEMAND FOR CHANGE & REFORMS & STRENGTHENING AGENCY / PROVIDER’S “RESPONSIVENESS” TO FACILITATE CITIZENS PARTICIPATION & INVOLVEMENT

  6. THE BIG CHALLENGE… Can Citizen’s “VOICE” be a trigger for change?

  7. CITIZEN REPORT CARDS THE CONCEPT

  8. A School Report Card Name: Gopa; Class: IX

  9. USE OF SCHOOL REPORT CARDS • SIMPLE EVALUATION TOOL • STRUCTURED FOR SIMPLE COMMUNICATION • PROVIDES SUMMATIVE FEEDBACK ON PERFORMANCE • SCOPE FOR COMPARISON WITH OTHER STUDENTS • STARTING POINT FOR REFLECTION & CORRECTIVE ACTION

  10. CRCs: Defining Features • Pioneered by Public Affairs Centre as an independent assessment in 1993 • Credible user feedback on public services • Provide opportunities to communities to demand more access, responsiveness & accountability from service providers (from Shouting to Counting) • Creates an effective diagnostic tool for service providers and encourage them to introduce citizen friendly practices • Create an environment to facilitate demand mobilization & `Rights-Based’ strategies • Report always in PUBLIC DOMAIN • Not a one-off effort – continued benchmarking

  11. CONTENT OF CITIZEN REPORT CARDS • FEEDBACK FROM ACTUAL USERS OF SERVICES REGARDING • AVAILABILITY, ACCESS & USAGE OF SERVICES • QUALITY & RELIABILITY • INCIDENCE OF PROBLEMS & RESPONSIVENESS OF SERVICE PROVIDERS • HIDDEN COSTS - CORRUPTION & FORCED INVESTMENTS • SATISFACTION WITH SERVICE • REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION • SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS

  12. LET US NOW SEE SOME EXAMPLES…

  13. Physical Access to Facilities • Access to a protected public drinking water source within 100 mts from residence: 54% • Access to a medical facility within 3 kms from residence: 73% • Access to a Primary School within 1 km from residence: 66% • Access to a public bus throughout the year: 54%

  14. QUALITY / RELIABILITY • Users reporting breakdown of public water taps (at least once in 2 weeks): 53% • Presence of doctors at public hospitals at the time of visit: 34% • Proportion of parents reporting regular attendance of primary school teachers: 12% • Proportion of users expressing complete satisfaction with punctuality of public buses: 14%

  15. Quality of Compliant Redress(Feedback from households who had a Problem)

  16. The Bribery Matrix(General Households)

  17. Corruption & The Urban Poor

  18. Eg. RANKING OF SERVICES BY CITIZEN SATISFACTION Agency Rank Power Company 3 Water Board 4 Food rations 2 Telephone Co. 1 Driving License 6 Urban Authority 7 Police 5

  19. STAGES IN CITIZEN REPORT CARD ASSESSING SITUATION & DEFINING SCOPE OF ACTION PREPARATIONS AND COLLECTING CITIZEN FEEDBACK RATING OF SERVICES DIALOGUE AND RESPONSE OF AGENCIES CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN REFORM PERIODIC BENCHMARKING AND PUBLIC REVIEW

  20. The CRC Journey Defining the Scope of CRC Development of Questionnaire Sampling Design Data collection Data Analysis Interpretation

  21. Defining the Purpose of the CRC Statement of Purpose • General Vs Specific • What service(s) or sectors do you wish to cover? • Do you want to focus on a single service provider or multiple services • Is there a government policy or program that you wish to assess?

  22. Examples General- • getting feedback from people on quality of public services • getting feedback from patients on quality of health services • verifying whether the government is providing the facility it has promised

  23. Examples Specific - • finding out usage, satisfaction with quality of service, satisfaction with behaviour of staff, extent of corruption, problem resolving capabilities of the agency • finding out satisfaction with quality of care provided, level of cleanliness, extent of corruption, behaviour of doctors and other staff • comparing what the charter says with ground realities! eg - free noon meal scheme - is it provided, how is the quality etc

  24. CRC Methodology Session 1 -THE SCIENCE OF SURVEYS (1)

  25. The CRC Journey Defining the Scope of CRC Development of Questionnaire Sampling Design Data collection Data Analysis Interpretation

  26. GATHERING COMMUNITY FEEDBACKFocus Group Discussions • Why FGDs? • Where to conduct? • Who should facilitate? • Who should participate? • What questions to ask?

  27. FGD – The Process Background Information to be collected prior to the FGDs (from the key community informant) • Social (communities, settlements) & Institutional mapping (access & use of key public, social and traditional institutions) – separately for different communities • Profile of basic services in the village: drinking water sources, nearest school, health facility, credit (formal and informal), police station, post office, telephone, bus, power • Presence of non governmental organizations and private agencies in the delivery of water & sanitary services • Sources of livelihood • Special problems if any encountered by households in the locality

  28. FGD – The Process (2) • Getting the introduction right • The Right Group Size • The Questioning Route – “Funnel method”; Open ended; Avoid too many “why” • Right Moderation – Giraffes & Wolves • Collecting Data • Analysing Data

  29. FGD – THE PROCESS (3) KEY THEMES TO FOCUS: • ISSUES IN RELATION TO THE SERVICE – AVAILABILITY, ACCESS,USAGE & QUALITY • INCIDENCE & TYPE OF PROBLEMS • PATTERN OF RESPONSE TO PROBLEMS • COSTS – HIDDEN, LEGAL, FORCED, WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR BETTER SERVICES • RECAP OF PROBLEMS AND ISSUES • SUGGESTIONS FOR SERVICE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT • POST DISCUSSION ANALYSIS – RELEVANT ISSUES FOR SURVEY

  30. Designing the Instrument Components of a schedule/ questionnaire • Investigator information • Lead-in / Introduction • Filter / qualifiers questions • Demographics • The body of the schedule - sections if needed - sub- schedules if required

  31. Sections of the Questionnaire (1)* IDENTIFICATION : Name & date of survey LEAD IN QUESTION - Good morning. We are from abc NGO and collecting data about the work of the new health facility. FILTER QUESTIONS – Has anybody in your family used the facility during the last 1 year? (Yes/No) – If No Skip to Q No x (Q36.) DEMOGRAPHICS – How old are the members of your family AWARENESS: Do you know that you can get free medicines? (Y/N) (Q43.) AVAILABILITY: Does your village have the health facility? (Y/N) (Q35.) EASE OF ACCESS: How far away is the facility from your home? … USAGE: Which facility do you normally use for major illness? (GRID) Dist. Hospital/Private doctor/Village health facility

  32. Sections of the Questionnaire (2)* RELIABILITY: Was the doctor/paramedic present when you went for treatment most recently? – Yes/No (Q.167) QUALITY: How long did you have to wait to meet the doctor/paramedic? (Q39.) …. BEHAVIOUR: What do you feel about behaviour of the doctor/paramedic in treating you? Fully satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not satisfied SATISFACTION: What do you feel about quality of treatment? Fully satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not satisfied REASONS: Why are you dissatisfied? …………… COSTS: How much did you pay for treatment? ….. HIDDEN COSTS: Did you pay any extra money or bribe for getting medicines from the health facility? Yes/No (Q174) SUGGESTIONS

  33. Basic Tools in Instrument Design • Different types of questions • Close ended: Yes/No; Scale (Very satisfied, Partly Satisfied, Dissatisfied); Range (Kms/Hours/Minutes) • Considering Standards • Coding - pre and post coding • Scaling - 5 pt or 2 pt • Skips • Grids

  34. Thumb Rules for a Schedule • All research objectives to be covered • Shortest length possible (45 minutes) • Language - simple and convenient based on respondents’ and investigator’s level of understanding • Clear instructions for the investigator • Avoid too many open-ended questions • Avoid double-barreled questions

  35. EXAMPLE OF A DOUBLE-BARRELED QUESTION "What do you do to cope with poor quality of water?" • 1- Go to a well • 2- Ask a neighbor • 3- Buy from a shop • 4- Other (Please specify_____________)

  36. THE CORRECT APPROACH! In the past one year, have there been instances when the quality of water has been poor? • 1- Yes (ask next question) • 2- No (skip next question) • What did you do in these instances?_____________

  37. Pre – Testing • Test whether the flow of the Questions are in Order • Whether the Respondents understand the Questions Properly • Whether major issues have been left out • Time taken to complete the Questionnaire • Identify Pointers For Refinement

  38. Post Pre-Test – Group Exercise • Did the respondents understand the purpose of the exercise? • Were all the questions comprehensible to you? • Did the respondents have any difficulty in understanding the questions? • Was the questionnaire too long? • Were the questions ordered properly? • What changes would you like to make to improve the questionnaire?

  39. CRC Methodology Session 3- The science of surveys (2)

  40. The Research Journey... Defining Research Objectives Development of Questionnaire Sampling Data collection Data Analysis Interpretation

  41. The Issues... • Right team • Briefing • Regular reporting • Time schedules • Cost

  42. The Right TeamHow do we decide? • Familiarity with topography, language • Presentability • Able to relate to target audience • Intelligence • Involvement • Available for the entire duration of fieldwork • And, INTEGRITY

  43. MOCK INTERVIEWS – SELECTING THE RIGHT INVESTIGATOR

  44. The Right TeamHow many? • f { Productivity, Timelines, Sample size } • Sample size : 2000 • Timeline : 20 days • Productivity per man day : 5 • Team size = [(2000/20) / 5] = 20

  45. The Final Team... Field Manager Field Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Field Supervisor 5 Interviewers 5 Interviewers 5 Interviewers 5 Interviewers

  46. Quality Checks At all stages • Before launching fieldwork • During fieldwork • After fieldwork

  47. Quality Checks Before fieldwork • Pilot exercise • 10-15 interviews • Check for • Length • Comprehension • Flow • Sensitiveness

  48. Quality Checks During fieldwork • Sample of each interviewers’ work checked • 100% scrutiny • 10% back checks • Accompanied interviews

  49. Quality Checks After fieldwork • Sample sizes • Quotas • Representation • Check for Inconsistencies • Match with Secondary Data

More Related