Usaid Citizen Participation Program in Nine Pilot Cities

Home , Ijevan, Jermuk, Kapan, Sisian, Yeghegnadzor

K:\IAC\AGreer\SHARE\6901-LGA Task Orders\To_008 Armenia LGA\Products\LG Resource Manual\LG Household Survey_02\06901-008-FINAL 2003 LGA HH.rpt.doc LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT

USAID CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROGRAM IN NINE PILOT CITIES:

REPORT ON 2002 SECOND FOLLOW-UP HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINDINGS

Prepared for Prepared by

Sam Coxson Chief of Party The Urban Institute/Armenia

Armenia Local Government Program United States Agency for International Development Contract No. EEU-I-00-99-00015-00, Task Order No. 807

THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 833-7200 May 2003 www.urban.org UI Project 06901-008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND...... 1 Findings...... 1 Levels of Interest and Satisfaction with City Hall...... 2 Levels of Information and Sources Accessed ...... 3 Accessing Information from City Hall ...... 4 Attitudes Toward Local Government Affairs and Services ...... 4 Knowledge about Local Government Affairs ...... 5 Willingness to Pay for Services...... 6 New Measures on the National Assembly...... 6 Demographic Measures ...... 6 Summary of Major Findings ...... 7

TABLES Table 1: Number of interviews conducted by city...... 8 Table 2: Dwelling type by city...... 9 Table 3: Level of interest in the work of City Hall ...... 9 Table 4: Means and breakdowns for level of interest in the work of City Hall by city (sorted by means)...... 10 Table 5: Information source accessed about City Hall...... 10 Table 6: Information source accessed about City Hall by city...... 11 Table 7: Accuracy of information source accessed...... 12 Table 8: Means and breakdowns for accuracy of information source accessed by city (sorted by means)...... 12 Table 9a: Television source when accessed...... 12 Table 9b: Newspaper source when accessed...... 13 Table 9c: Radio source when accessed...... 13 Table 10: Level of how well informed about City Hall...... 13 Table 11: Means and breakdowns for level of how well informed about City Hall by city (sorted by means) ...... 13 Table 12: Level of satisfaction with information about City Hall ...... 14 Table 13: Means and breakdowns for level satisfaction with information about City Hall by city (sorted by means)...... 14 Table 14: Levels of satisfaction with work of City Hall...... 15 Table 15: Means and breakdowns for level of satisfaction with work of City Hall by city (Sorted by means) ...... 15 Table 16: The work of City Hall is better, the same or worse than last year ...... 15 Table 17: Means and breakdowns for differences in the work of City Hall between years (Sorted by means)...... 16 Table 18: Have tried to obtain information from City Hall...... 16 Table 19: Have tried to obtain information from City Hall by city...... 16 Table 20: Where/why appealed to in city government ...... 17 Table 21: Where/why appealed to in city government by city ...... 17 Table 22: Problems in obtaining the requested information...... 18 Table 23: Problems in obtaining the requested information by city...... 18 Table 24: Types of problems encountered when trying to obtain information from city government ...... 19 Table 25: Types of problems encountered when trying to obtain information from city government by city ...... 19 Table 26a: Central government in Yerevan is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think .. 20 Table 26b: The Marzpet is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think...... 20 Table 26c: City Hall is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think...... 20 Table 26d: If I had a problem and needed help from City Hall, I would know whom to contact...... 20 Table 26e: I am pleased with water and sewage services...... 21 Table 26f: City Hall does a good job in solving the city’s problems...... 21 Table 26g: City Hall does better job this year than last year in solving the city’s problems ...... 21 Table 26h: I have more information about City Hall activities this year than last year ...... 22 Table 26i: I would be more active in local politics if I had more information about City Hall activities ...... 22 Table 26j: If I had more information about the budget, I would be more active in following City Hall decisions ...... 22

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Table 27: Means for attitude measures in Tables 26a through 26j ...... 23 Table 28: Means by city for attitudes toward City Hall solving problems this year better than last year...... 23 Table 29: Means by city for attitude toward having more information this year than last year about the activities of City Hall ...... 24 Table 30a: Name of the Mayor...... 24 Table 30b: Mayor elected or appointed...... 24 Table 30c: Marzpet elected or appointed...... 25 Table 30d: When City Council meetings take place...... 25 Table 30e: Name a member of the City Council ...... 25 Table 30f: When city budget is approved...... 25 Table 30g: Who decides land/property tax...... 25 Table 30h: If problem with income tax, where would go ...... 26 Table 30hh: Incorrect answers given ...... 26 Table 30i: If problem with water/sewage, where would go...... 26 Table 30ii: Incorrect answers given...... 26 Table 32a: Willingness to pay for waste collection...... 27 Table 32b: Willingness to pay for streetlights...... 28 Table 32c: Willingness to pay for landscaping streets ...... 28 Table 32d: Willingness to pay for control of street dogs and cats...... 28 Table 32e: Willingness to pay for centralized heating...... 28 Table 32f: Willingness to pay for public transportation...... 29 Table 32g: Willingness to pay for maintenance of roads...... 29 Table 32h: Willingness to pay for nursery schools...... 29 Table 32i: Willingness to pay for music and arts schools...... 29 Table 32j: Willingness to pay for sports schools ...... 30 Table 32k: Willingness to pay for libraries...... 30 Table 32l: Willingness to pay for maintenance of city monuments...... 30 Table 32m: Willingness to pay for maintenance of apartment buildings ...... 30 Table 32n: Willingness to pay for maintenance of cemeteries...... 31 Table 33: Table of means for willingness to pay measures in Table 32a through 32n by city ...... 31 Table 34: Name of the Chairman of the National Assembly ...... 31 Table 35: Breakdowns by cities name of the Chairman of the National Assembly ...... 32 Table 36: Name of the Deputy from this district in the National Assembly...... 32 Table 37: Breakdowns by cities the name of the Deputy from this district in the National Assembly ...... 32 Table 38: Age...... 33 Table 39: Gender by city ...... 33 Table 40: Highest level of education obtained ...... 34 Table 41: Any one in household with full or part time job and/or self-employment ...... 34 Table 42: If apartment, membership in condominium association ...... 34 Table 43: Income sources (multiple responses permitted)...... 35

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT USAID CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROGRAM IN NINE PILOT CITIES: REPORT ON 2002 SECOND FOLLOW-UP HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINDINGS

BACKGROUND

Sponsored by USAID, the Urban Institute (UI) is providing technical assistance to the Government of the Republic of Armenia (ROA) through the Local Government Assistance Program. UI has asked the Center for Policy Analysis (CPA) at the American University of Armenia (AUA) to participate in the research component of the Citizens Participation Program. The objectives of this program are to reinforce the rights of citizens to participate in local government activities, to increase citizen access to public information, and to enhance opportunities for citizens to play a meaningful role in local government decision-making and the formulation of local government policies.

The Program is being carried out through work in nine pilot cities: Alaverdi, Gyumri, Ijevan, Jermuk, Kapan, Sevan, Sisian, Vanadzor, and Yeghegnadzor.

This report presents the findings of one of the tasks constituting the Citizens Participation Program, a second follow-up household survey in the nine cities. A baseline household survey was conducted in the nine pilot cities in 2000 in order to determine citizen access to and participation in local government, to assess levels of information about local government, to assess attitudes and levels of satisfaction toward local government, and to collect data on information sources used by citizens. A follow-up survey was conducted in 2001 in order to determine changes since the baseline survey.

A second study was conducted in 2001 focusing on the knowledge and attitudes of various key participants toward citizen participation and outreach efforts, and these findings were presented in a separate report. Various recommendations on methods for increasing citizen knowledge and participation in local government were made in this second report. The summary findings and tables of the this report and the findings of the baseline household survey along with the recommendations were translated into Armenian and meetings were held with city hall and city council officials in each of the nine cities to discuss the findings and recommendations and how the recommendations might be implemented given the needs and resources of each city. UI followed up with training and in implementing recommendations in the nine cities.

The second follow-up household survey reported here was conducted in order to determine changes during the past year in citizen access to and participation in local government, to assess changes in levels of information about local government, to assess changes in attitudes and levels of satisfaction toward local government, and to assess changes in information sources used by citizens.

Findings

In December 2002, the Center for Policy Analysis at the American University of Armenia conducted 1,012 interviews in the nine pilot cities (See Table 1). Random sampling was conducted in selected neighborhoods within each city, and an effort was made to include representative proportions based on dwelling type (See Table 2) and to select samples from the same neighborhoods selected in the original

Armenia 2 Local Governance Program

2000 baseline survey. Demographic data for the three sets of random samples for 2000, 2001, and 2002 were similar except for employment rates, which have increased steadily over the three surveys (See below). In order to conduct comparisons across years, the questionnaire used measures exactly as worded in the 2000 and 2001 surveys. Qualitative data were recoded and all data were input in SPSS for analysis.

Levels of Interest and Satisfaction with City Hall

Of all respondents combined, 52.1 percent reported that they are interested in the work of City Hall (See Table 3). This finding represents a statistically significant increase of 10.5 percentage points from the 2001 survey. (There were no statistically significant differences found between 2000 and 2001 in the first follow-up report last year.) The mean for all cities combined is 2.83 and the mode is 2, where 1 is very interested and 4 is very uninterested (See Table 3). Table 4 displays the means by city with Sisian respondents indicating the highest levels of interest and Yeghegnadzor respondents indicating the lowest levels of interest in the work of City Hall.

When asked about their satisfaction with the work of City Hall, 67 percent responded that they were at least somewhat satisfied (See Table 14). This finding represents a statistically significant increase of 15.7 percentage points from the 2001 survey. (There were no statistically significant differences found between 2000 and 2001 in the first follow-up report last year.) The mean for this measure is 2.48 and the mode is 2, where 1 equals very satisfied and 4 equals very unsatisfied. In the 2001 survey, the most satisfied respondents were Jermuk, Gyumri, and Ijevan, and overall in five of the nine cities more than half of the respondents indicated they were dissatisfied. Table 15 displays the means by city for the 2002 survey and in all cities more than half of the respondents are satisfied with the work of City Hall, with Jermuk, Ijevan, and Gyumri being the most satisfied.

When asked if the work of City Hall is better, the same, or worse than last year, 53.8 percent reported that things are better which is a statistically significant increase of 17.4 percentage points from the 2001 survey. (See Table 16.) (There were no statistically significant differences found between 2000 and 2001 in the first follow-up report last year.) Only 5 percent reported that the work of City Hall is worse than in 2001; 17.3 percent had reported in the 2001 survey that the work of City Hall was worse than in 2000. Table 17 provides breakdowns by city, and it indicates that respondents in all 9 pilot cities believe the work of City Hall is better or the same as in 2001.

About 62 percent of the respondents agreed that they would be more active in local government affairs if they had more information about City Hall activities (See Table 26i), representing a steady decrease from 67 percent in 2001 and 70.8 percent in 2000. About 56 percent said that they would follow local decisions more closely if they had more information about the local budget (See Table 26j), again representing a steady decrease from 63 percent in 2001 and 69.1 percent in 2000. Although the respective figures in the 2000 and 2001 survey were higher, the 2002 figures are still quite high and may indicate that respondents feel less need for such information. It is also important to remember that respondents in 2002 were more satisfied, which could lead to a sense that personal involvement is not needed.

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 3

Levels of Information and Sources Accessed

Of all respondents, 54.5 percent indicated that they were at least somewhat informed about the activities of City Hall, with a mean of 2.79 and a mode of 2 where 1 equals very well informed and 4 equals not at all informed (See Table 10). This finding represents a statistically significant increase of 11.3 percent from the 2001 survey. (There were no statistically significant differences found between 2000 and 2001 in the first follow-up report last year.) Table 11 displays the differences by city and indicates that Yeghegnadzor is the only city in which less than half of the respondents believe that they are not well informed.

About 55.9 percent of all respondents combined reported that they are satisfied with the amount of information they now have about City Hall (See Table 12) with an overall mean of 2.64 and a mode of 2. This finding represents a statistically significant increase of 10 percentage points from the 2001 survey. The differences between 2000 and 2001 also were statistically significant, which indicates a steady increase over the three surveys. Table 13 displays these means by city and indicates that half or more of the respondents in Jermuk, Alaverdi, Gyumri, Ijevan, Sevan, and Yeghegnadzor are satisfied.

Respondents were asked about the one main source used for information about City Hall in an open-ended question. As in the 2001 survey, about 30 percent of the respondents indicated that they did not have a source of information about City Hall (See Table 5), down from about 40 percent in 2000. Changes in this percentage would be expected only if there had been changes over the past year in the local media outlets to which respondents have access. Of those respondents who named a source, 23.4 percent rely on television, down from 27.6 percent in 2001. Newspapers and radio continue to play a negligible role as information providers on local government affairs, with respondents reporting higher levels of use of friends and families for such information, as they did in 2000 and 2001. However, when television, radio, or newspapers are accessed for information about local affairs, they are overwhelmingly local media (See Table 9a through 9c), as was found in the 2000 and 2001 surveys. Differences by city can be found in Table 6. Differences by city in the use of a mass medium (television, newspapers, and radio) as the primary source of information is related to whether or not the city has corresponding and functioning local mass media outlets.

When asked to judge the accuracy of the sources named, 91.5 percent rated the source of information used as accurate (See Table 7), about the same percentage found in the 2000 and 2001 surveys. Most of the respondents who indicated that they used television, radio, or even friends and family members for information about City Hall rated these sources as accurate. Table 8 displays the means for accuracy by city.

As in the 2000 and 2001 surveys, there is a statistically significant positive but weak correlation between the ratings of the accuracy of the information source and levels of information about City Hall and a higher positive correlation for the relationship between levels of information about City Hall and satisfaction with information about City Hall.

Armenia 4 Local Governance Program

Accessing Information from City Hall

The questionnaire included a measure asking if the respondent had tried to obtain information from City Hall during the past year, and 170 (16.8 percent) said yes (See Tables 18 and 19), which is very close to the numbers reported the 2000 and 2001 surveys (17.6 percent and 16.9 percent, respectively). As in 2000 and 2001, most of these respondents had contacted City Hall for aid assistance or employment inquiries (See Table 20).

The percentage of respondents who reported that they had problems getting the information they needed upon contacting City Hall (28.2 percent) is a statistically significant decrease of 11.8 percentage points from 2001; this percentage had increased in the 2001 follow-up. (See Table 22.) As in the previous two annual surveys, most of these problems surrounded bureaucratic red tape and unresponsive public officials (See Table 24). It should be noted that in many cases requests made to City Hall could be considered inappropriate and that there were instances in which the request for information was still met. Differences by city can be found in Tables 21, 23, and 25.

Attitudes Toward Local Government Affairs and Services

Respondents were asked for their agreement with several statements in order measure their attitudes toward local government affairs (See Tables 26a through 26h). As in the 2000 and 2001 surveys, most respondents continued to believe that the central and marz (regional) governments do not provide proper levels of attention to their problems (See Tables 26a and 26b). About 32 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that “the central government in Yerevan is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think,” which is up from 24 percent in 2001. 39 percent agreed with a similar statement regarding the marz government, which is up from 35.8 percent in 2001. Mean responses by city can be found in Table 27.

However, 60.2 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement “City Hall is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think.” (See Table 26c.) This finding represents a statistically significant increase of 19.2 percentage points from the 2001 survey and an increase of 22.2 percent from the 2000 survey.

About 67 percent of the respondents were pleased with their current water and sewage service (See Table 26e), a statistically significant increase of 14.8 percentage points from 2001.

70 percent of the respondents indicated that City hall is doing a good job solving their city’s problems (See Table 26f), a statistically significant increase of 20.8 percent from 2001.

About 68 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement “City Hall is doing a better job this year than last year in solving the city’s problems.” (See Table 26g.) This finding represents a statistically significant 20.1 percent increase from 2001. More than half of the respondents in each of the cities agreed with the statement (See Table 28.)

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 5

About 44 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement, “I have more information about City Hall activities this year than I did last year,” up from 36.2 percent in 2001. Table 29 provides the breakdowns by city.

Knowledge about Local Government Affairs

9 separate open-ended measures were asked that tested knowledge about local government (See Tables 30a through 30ii). As in the 2000 and 2001 surveys, almost all respondents (94.6 percent) were able to correctly name the Mayor of their city (See Table 30a). Respondents in Kapan (88 percent) were the least likely to be able to name their city’s mayor (See Table 31).

About 91 percent of the respondents knew that the Mayor is elected to his position (See Table 30b), a statistically significant increase of six percent from the 2001 survey.

As in the 2000 and 2001 surveys, a much lower percentage of respondents knew that the Marzpet is an appointed position than the percentage with correct information about city Mayors. 61 percent of the respondents correctly knew that the Marzpet is an appointed position (See Table 30c); the 2001 rate was 59.6 and the 2000 rate was 61.8.

Only 1.4 percent could correctly state when their City Councils meet (See Table 30d), showing no statistically significant improvement over the 2000 and 2001 responses. About three percent could correctly state when city budgets are approved (See Table 30f), showing no statistically significant improvement from the 2000 and 2001 surveys.

About 47 percent of the respondents could name correctly at least one member of their City Council, a statistically significant increase from 34 percent in 2000 and 28.3 percent in 2001 (See Table 30e). 50 percent or more of the respondents in the cities of Alaverdi, Jermuk, Sevan, and Sisian could name a member of their City Councils (See Table 31). In 2000 and 2001, only the cities of Jermuk and Sisian reached this level.

The percentage of respondents who were able to correctly answer a question about who decides land/property taxes went down from 16.4 percent in 2000 to 11.6 percent in 2001 and decreased again in 2002 to 10.2 percent (See Table 30g).

About 17 percent of respondents were able to correctly answer a question about where they should go if they had an income tax problem (See Table 30h), down from 20 percent in 2000 and 19 percent in 2001 (which are not statistically significant decreases). As in 2000 and 2001, most respondents who gave incorrect answers believed that the Mayor’s Office or City Hall were the places to go for income tax problems (See Table 30hh).

About 74 percent of the respondents gave correct answers about where they should go if they had water or sewage problems (See Table 30i), a statistically insignificant decrease of one percent from 2001. As in 2000 and 2001, most of those respondents who gave incorrect answers believe that they should appeal to City Hall or the Mayor (See Table 30ii).

Armenia 6 Local Governance Program

When asked in a separate question, about 80 percent of the respondents believe that they know which government office to contact if they have problems (See Table 26d), which is similar to the 2000 and 2001 survey findings.

Willingness to Pay for Services

Respondents were asked about their willingness to pay for fourteen different government services. (See Tables 32a through 32n; breakdowns by city are displayed in Table 33.) The majority of respondents (where 51 percent and above indicated that they were at least “somewhat willing”) stated that they were willing to pay for all of the services listed. These findings represent statistically significant increases from 2001 in willingness to pay for each of the services listed. In 2001, the majority of respondents had indicated they were not willing to pay for landscaping streets, control of street dogs and cats, maintenance of roads, libraries, and maintenance of apartment buildings. The 2001 findings showed statistically significant increases in willingness to pay from 2000 for all services except maintenance of apartment buildings.

New Measures on the National Assembly

The USAID Armenian Legislative Strengthening Program, implemented by Development Associates, requested that three measures be included in the second follow-up survey to test knowledge and attitudes toward the National Assembly in the nine pilot cities.

About 63 percent of the respondents could correctly name the Chairman of the National Assembly (See Tables 34 and 35). About 37 percent of the respondents in 7 of the cities could correctly name the Deputy from their city in the National Assembly (See Tables 36 and 37).

Respondents were asked in an open-ended question to state the one most important function of the National Assembly besides the writing and passing of legislation. About 44 percent of the respondents could not provide an answer or said that the National Assembly had no other function. Other answers included responses that can be understood as the representative function (about 25 percent) and solving economic problems (about 10 percent), and about 14 percent gave answers related to legislation.

Demographic Measures

Age, gender, and education were similar to the random samples created for the 2000 and 2001 surveys, with a 5 percent decrease from 2001 in male respondents. The mean age of respondents was 45 years (See Table 38), with most respondents being women (72.8 percent, See Table 39). Nearly 30 percent of the respondents had completed 10 years of schooling and another 61.4 percent had some higher education (See Table 40).

About 58 percent of the respondents were employed in a full or part time job (See Table 41), up from 56.1 percent in 2001 and 51.6 percent in 2000.

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 7

Of all households that were apartments, 20.3 percent belonged to a condominium association (See Table 42), up with statistical significance from 19.7 in 2001. There was a statistically significant increase in 2001 from 2000 of 15.5 percent.

Income sources for the households were mostly pensions (46.8 percent) and government social welfare programs (18.3 percent) however, pensions, government social welfare payments, and disability payments decreased from 2001. (See Table 43.)

Summary of Major Findings

• There is a 17 percent increase from the 2001 survey, to 54 percent, in the number of respondents who say that the work of City Hall is better than in 2001. Only 5 percent say that things are worse than in 2001, a 12 percent decrease from 2001.

• There is a 20 percent increase from 2001, to 68 percent, in the number of respondents who believe City Hall is doing a better job than last year in solving city problems.

• There is a 21 percent increase from 2001, to 70 percent, in the number of respondents who believe City Hall is doing a good job solving city problems.

• There is a 16 percent increase from 2001, to 67 percent, in the number of respondents who say they are satisfied with the work of City Hall. In all nine pilot cities, more than half of the respondents are satisfied compared to only four cities that reached this threshold in 2001.

• There is a 19 percent increase from 2001, to 60 percent, in the number of respondents who agree that “City Hall is very interested in pays and proper attention” to citizens, indicating a second year of increases.

• There is a 10.5 percent increase from 2001, to 52 percent, in the number of respondents who say they are interested in the work of City Hall.

• There is an eight percent increase from 2001, to 44 percent, in the number of respondents who say they have more information this year than last year about City Hall activities.

• About six in ten respondents say that they would be more active in local government affairs if they had more information about City Hall activities, indicating a small but steady decrease from 2001 and 2000.

• There is an 11 percent increase from 2001, to 54.5 percent, in the number of respondents who say that they are informed about the activities of City Hall.

• There is a 10 percent increase from 2001, to 56 percent, in the number of respondents who say they are satisfied with the amount of information they have about City Hall, indicating a steady increase from 2001 and 2000.

Armenia 8 Local Governance Program

• Seven in ten respondents can name a source of information they used about City Hall, the same percentage as in 2001. Local radio and newspapers continue to play negligible roles as information sources.

• About 17 percent of the respondents had tried to obtain information from City Hall during the past year, similar to both 2001 and 2000, and again most of these inquiries were related to financial aid or employment.

• There is a 12 percent decrease from 2001, to 28 percent, in the number of respondents who say they had problems getting information from City Hall, indicating a steady decrease from 2001 and 2000.

• There is a 15 percent increase from 2001, to 67 percent, in the number of respondents who are pleased with their current water and sewage service.

• There is a 6 percent increase from 2001, to 91 percent, in the number of respondents who know that the Mayor holds an elected position. As in the 2000 and 2001 almost all respondents (94.6 percent) are able to correctly name the Mayor of their city.

• As in 2001 and 2000, almost no respondents know when their City Council meets or when city budgets are approved.

• More respondents say they are willing to pay for city-provided services than in the 2001 survey.

• Employment rates of respondents increased for the second year, to 58 percent.

Table 1: Number of interviews conducted by city

City Frequency Percent Alaverdi 114 11.3 Gyumri 116 11.5 Ijevan 111 11.0 Jermuk 115 11.4 Kapan 108 10.7 Sevan 117 11.6 Sisian 111 11.0 Vanadzor 115 11.4 Yeghegnadzor 105 10.4 Total 1,012 100.0

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 9

Table 2: Dwelling type by city

City Private house Apartment Domic Total Alaverdi Count 26 88 114 Percent within city 22.8 77.2 100.0 Gyumri Count 47 45 24 116 Percent within city 40.5 38.8 20.7 100.0 Ijevan Count 66 45 111 Percent within city 59.5 40.5 100.0 Jermuk Count 115 115 Percent within city 100.0 100.0 Kapan Count 20 88 108 Percent within city 18.5 81.5 100.0 Sevan Count 59 58 117 Percent within city 50.4 49.6 100.0 Sisian Count 54 57 111 Percent within city 48.6 51.4 100.0 Vanadzor Count 25 90 115 Percent within city 21.7 78.3 100.0 Yeghegnadzor Count 59 46 105 Percent within city 56.2 43.8 100.0 Total Count 356 632 24 1,012 Percent in all cities 35.2 62.5 2.4 100.0

Table 3: Level of interest in the work of City Hall

Frequency Percent Valid Percent** Cumulative Percent Very interested 81 8.0 8.1 8.1 Somewhat interested 443 43.8 44.0 52.1 Somewhat uninterested 49 4.8 4.9 57.0 Very uninterested 433 42.8 43.0 100.0 Don’t know/can’t say 6 0.6 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.83 (1=Very interested and 4=Very uninterested; don’t know/can’t say excluded) **Valid percent is percentage without don’t know/can’t say

Armenia 10 Local Governance Program

Table 4: Means and breakdowns for level of interest in the work of City Hall by city (sorted by means)

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Mean Total interested interested uninterested uninterested Sisian 2.70 Count 15 48 3 45 111 Percent Within city 13.5 43.2 2.7 40.5 100.0 Gyumri 2.71 Count 11 55 7 43 116 Percent Within city 9.5 47.4 6.0 37.1 100.0 Kapan 2.75 Count 11 49 5 42 107 Percent Within city 10.3 45.8 4.7 39.3 100.0 Sevan 2.75 Count 7 57 10 42 116 Percent Within city 6.0 49.1 8.6 36.2 100.0 Alaverdi 2.78 Count 6 58 5 45 114 Percent Within city 5.3 50.9 4.4 39.5 100.0 Jermuk 2.84 Count 10 45 10 47 112 Percent Within city 8.9 40.2 8.9 42.0 100.0 Ijevan 2.85 Count 9 48 3 50 110 Percent Within city 8.2 43.6 2.7 45.5 100.0 Vanadzor 2.97 Count 9 45 1 60 115 Percent Within city 7.8 39.1 0.9 52.2 100.0 Yeghegnadzor 3.14 Count 3 38 5 59 105 Percent Within city 2.9 36.2 4.8 56.2 100.0 Total 2.83 Count 81 443 49 433 1,006 Percent in all cities 8.1 44.0 4.9 43.0 100.0 (1=Very interested and 4=Very uninterested; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 5: Information source accessed about City Hall

Source Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Television 237 23.4 23.4 Newspapers 14 1.4 24.8 Radio 42 4.1 28.9 Family, Friends, Neighbors, Workplace 344 34.0 62.9 City Hall, Other local government 37 3.7 66.6 Other 16 1.6 68.2 None 299 29.5 97.7 Don't know/Can't say 23 2.3 100.0 Total 101 100.0

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 11

Table 6: Information source accessed about City Hall by city

City local None Other Radio News- papers Family/ Friends/ Can't say Hall/other Television Workplace Neighbors/ Don't know/ government

Alaverdi Count 51 2 2 22 5 2 30 Percent within city 44.7 1.8 1.8 19.3 4.4 1.8 26.3 Gyumri Count 71 1 3 20 1 18 2 Percent within city 61.2 0.9 2.6 17.2 0.9 15.5 1.7 Ijevan Count 5 1 53 3 1 43 5 Percent within city 4.5 0.9 47.7 2.7 0.9 38.7 4.5 Jermuk Count 3 13 53 4 5 32 5 Percent within city 2.6 11.3 46.1 3.5 4.3 27.8 4.3 Kapan Count 21 9 35 4 1 34 4 Percent within city 19.4 8.3 32.4 3.7 0.9 31.5 3.7 Sevan Count 22 1 56 6 1 30 1 Percent within city 18.8 0.9 47.9 5.1 0.9 25.6 0.9 Sisian Count 28 6 6 35 4 1 29 2 Percent within city 25.2 5.4 5.4 31.5 3.6 0.9 26.1 1.8 Vanadzor Count 35 3 5 28 3 4 35 2 Percent within city 30.4 2.6 4.3 24.3 2.6 3.5 30.4 1.7 Yeghegnadzor Count 1 4 42 7 1 48 2 Percent within city 1.0 3.8 40.0 6.7 1.0 45.7 1.9 Total Count 237 14 42 344 37 16 299 23 Percent in all cities 23.4 1.4 4.2 34.0 3.7 1.7 29.5 2.3

Armenia 12 Local Governance Program

Table 7: Accuracy of information source accessed

Source Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Accurate 249 36.1 38.0 38.0 Somewhat accurate 351 50.9 53.5 91.5 Inaccurate 56 8.1 8.5 100.0 Don’t know/can’t say 34 4.9 100.0 Total 690 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=1.71 (1=accurate and 3=inaccurate; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 8: Means and breakdowns for accuracy of information source accessed by city (sorted by means)

Somewhat Mean Accurate Inaccurate Total accurate Sisian 1.61 Count 35 34 6 75 Percent within city 46.7 45.3 8.0 100.0 Jermuk 1.64 Count 34 35 7 76 Percent within city 44.7 46.1 9.2 100.0 Sevan 1.67 Count 29 50 2 81 Percent within city 35.8 61.7 2.5 100.0 Ijevan 1.68 Count 23 32 4 59 Percent within city 39.0 54.2 6.8 100.0 Alaverdi 1.69 Count 31 43 6 80 Percent within city 38.8 53.8 7.5 100.0 Gyumri 1.72 Count 34 51 8 93 Percent within city 36.6 54.8 8.6 100.0 Kapan 1.73 Count 22 37 5 64 Percent within city 34.4 57.8 7.8 100.0 Yeghegnadzor 1.78 Count 17 32 5 54 Percent within city 31.5 59.3 9.3 100.0 Vanadzor 1.85 Count 24 37 13 74 Percent within city 32.4 50.0 17.6 100.0 Total 1.71 Count 249 351 56 656 Percent in all cities 38.0 53.5 8.5 100.0 (1=accurate and 3=inaccurate; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 9a: Television source when accessed

Frequency Percent Armenian National Channel 1 6 2.5 Other Yerevan TV channel 8 3.4 Local TV 222 93.7 Don’t know 1 0.4 Total 237 100.0

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 13

Table 9b: Newspaper source when accessed

Frequency Percent Local newspaper 14 100.0 Total 14 100.0

Table 9c: Radio source when accessed

Frequency Percent Local radio 42 100.0 Total 42 100.0

Table 10: Level of how well informed about City Hall

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very well informed 52 5.1 5.1 5.1 Somewhat informed 499 49.3 49.4 54.5 Somewhat not informed 66 6.5 6.5 61.0 Not at all well informed 394 38.9 39.0 100.0 Don’t know/ can't say 1 0.1 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.79 (1=very well informed and 4=not at all informed; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 11: Means and breakdowns for level of how well informed about City Hall by city (sorted by means) Very Somewhat Not at all Somewhat Mean well not well Total informed informed informed informed Gyumri 2.62 Count 4 69 10 33 116 Percent within city 3.4 59.5 8.6 28.4 100.0 Alaverdi 2.65 Count 9 61 5 39 114 Percent within city 7.9 53.5 4.4 34.2 100.0 Jermuk 2.74 Count 7 57 10 41 115 Percent within city 6.1 49.6 8.7 35.7 100.0 Sisian 2.74 Count 9 53 7 42 111 Percent within city 8.1 47.7 6.3 37.8 100.0 Kapan 2.81 Count 3 57 5 43 108 Percent within city 2.8 52.8 4.6 39.8 100.0 Vanadzor 2.84 Count 4 59 3 49 115 Percent within city 3.5 51.3 2.6 42.6 100.0 Ijevan 2.87 Count 6 51 5 49 111 Percent within city 5.4 45.9 4.5 44.1 100.0

Armenia 14 Local Governance Program

Very Somewhat Not at all Somewhat Mean well not well Total informed informed informed informed Sevan 2.89 Count 4 54 9 49 116 Percent within city 3.4 46.6 7.8 42.2 100.0 Yeghegnadzor 2.99 Count 6 38 12 49 105 Percent within city 5.7 36.2 11.4 46.7 100.0 Total 2.79 Count 52 499 66 394 1,011 Percent in all cities 5.1 49.4 6.5 39.0 100.0 (1=very well informed and 4=not at all informed; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 12: Level of satisfaction with information about City Hall

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very satisfied 103 10.2 10.7 10.7 Somewhat satisfied 436 43.1 45.2 55.9 Somewhat unsatisfied 134 13.2 13.9 69.7 Very unsatisfied 292 28.9 30.3 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 47 4.6 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean= 2.64 (1=very satisfied and 4=very unsatisfied; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 13: Means and breakdowns for level satisfaction with information about City Hall by city (sorted by means) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Mean Total satisfied satisfied unsatisfied unsatisfied Jermuk 2.39 Count 11 63 13 20 107 Percent within city 10.3 58.9 12.1 18.7 100.0 Alaverdi 2.50 Count 12 58 16 26 112 Percent within city 10.7 51.8 14.3 23.2 100.0 Gyumri 2.52 Count 13 54 19 26 112 Percent within city 11.6 48.2 17.0 23.2 100.0 Ijevan 2.52 Count 14 52 9 30 105 Percent within city 13.3 49.5 8.6 28.6 100.0 Sevan 2.64 Count 10 54 18 33 115 Percent within city 8.7 47.0 15.7 28.7 100.0 Yeghegnadzor 2.71 Count 11 38 17 32 98 Percent within city 11.2 38.8 17.3 32.7 100.0 Kapan 2.78 Count 10 38 14 36 98 Percent within city 10.2 38.8 14.3 36.7 100.0 Vanadzor 2.84 Count 14 37 15 47 113 Percent within city 12.4 32.7 13.3 41.6 100.0 Sisian 2.85 Count 8 42 13 42 105 Percent within city 7.6 40.0 12.4 40.0 100.0 Total 2.64 Count 103 436 134 292 965 Percent in all cities 10.7 45.2 13.9 30.3 100.0 (1=very satisfied and 4=very unsatisfied; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 15

Table 14: Levels of satisfaction with work of City Hall

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Very satisfied 105 10.4 11.0 11.0 Somewhat satisfied 535 52.9 56.0 67.0 Somewhat unsatisfied 62 6.1 6.5 73.5 Very unsatisfied 253 25.0 26.5 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 57 5.6 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean= 2.48 (1=Very satisfied and 4=Very unsatisfied; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 15: Means and breakdowns for level of satisfaction with work of City Hall by city (Sorted by means)

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Mean Total satisfied satisfied unsatisfied unsatisfied Jermuk 2.19 Count 23 62 6 19 110 Percent within city 20.9 56.4 5.5 17.3 100.0 Ijevan 2.36 Count 14 65 3 25 107 Percent within city 13.1 60.7 2.8 23.4 100.0 Gyumri 2.39 Count 14 64 13 23 114 Percent within city 12.3 56.1 11.4 20.2 100.0 Alaverdi 2.46 Count 11 60 9 25 105 Percent within city 10.5 57.1 8.6 23.8 100.0 Kapan 2.53 Count 6 62 2 28 98 Percent within city 6.1 63.3 2.0 28.6 100.0 Yeghegnadzor 2.54 Count 8 56 6 27 97 Percent within city 8.2 57.7 6.2 27.8 100.0 Sisian 2.55 Count 11 57 8 31 107 Percent within city 10.3 53.3 7.5 29.0 100.0 Sevan 2.58 Count 8 60 8 31 107 Percent within city 7.5 56.1 7.5 29.0 100.0 Vanadzor 2.77 Count 10 49 7 44 110 Percent within city 9.1 44.5 6.4 40.0 100.0 Total 2.48 Count 105 535 62 253 955 Percent in all cities 11.0 56.0 6.5 26.5 100.0 (1=Very satisfied and 4=Very unsatisfied; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 16: The work of City Hall is better, the same or worse than last year

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Better 499 49.3 53.8 53.8 Same 382 37.7 41.2 95.0 Worse 46 4.5 5.0 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 85 8.4 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=1 Mean= 1.51 (1=Better, 2-Same and 3=worse; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Armenia 16 Local Governance Program

Table 17: Means and breakdowns for differences in the work of City Hall between years (Sorted by means)

Mean Better Same Worse Total Gyumri 1.37 Count 71 31 4 106 Percent within city 67.0 29.2 3.8 100.0 Ijevan 1.40 Count 69 35 4 108 Percent within city 63.9 32.4 3.7 100.0 Kapan 1.40 Count 60 32 3 95 Percent within city 63.2 33.7 3.2 100.0 Alaverdi 1.45 Count 61 44 2 107 Percent within city 57.0 41.1 1.9 100.0 Vanadzor 1.47 Count 65 38 7 110 Percent within city 59.1 34.5 6.4 100.0 Jermuk 1.57 Count 51 45 7 103 Percent within city 49.5 43.7 6.8 100.0 Sisian 1.62 Count 44 50 6 100 Percent within city 44.0 50.0 6.0 100.0 Sevan 1.66 Count 43 53 8 104 Percent within city 41.3 51.0 7.7 100.0 Yeghegnadzor 1.68 Count 35 54 5 94 Percent within city 37.2 57.4 5.3 100.0 Total 1.51 Count 499 382 46 927 Percent in all cities 53.8 41.2 5.0 100.0 (1=Better, 2-Same and 3=worse; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 18: Have tried to obtain information from City Hall Frequency Percent Yes 170 16.8 No 842 83.2 Total 1,012 100.0

Table 19: Have tried to obtain information from City Hall by city

City Frequency Percent Alaverdi Count 16 Percent within city 14.0 Gyumri Count 20 Percent within city 17.2 Ijevan Count 14 Percent within city 12.6 Jermuk Count 25 Percent within city 21.7 Kapan Count 11 Percent within city 10.2

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 17

City Frequency Percent Sevan Count 22 Percent within city 18.8 Sisian Count 21 Percent within city 18.9 Vanadzor Count 18 Percent within city 15.7 Yeghegnadzor Count 23 Percent within city 21.9 Total Count 170 Percent all cities 16.8

Table 20: Where/why appealed to in city government

Frequency Percent City Hall/City Council–employment inquiry 30 17.6 City Hall/ City Council–land/housing problem 29 17.1 City Hall/ City Council–various documents 31 18.2 City Hall/ City Council–property privatization 12 7.1 City Hall/ City Council–city services 17 10.0 City Hall/ City Council–aid assistance 32 18.8 City Hall/ City Council–other problems 17 10.0 Refused to answer 2 1.2 Total 170 100.0

Table 21: Where/why appealed to in city government by city

Aid Other Totals inquiry answer answer Various Property problems g problem assistance assistance Refused to Refused documents privatization Land/housin Employment City services City services

Alaverdi Count 4 4 1 2 3 1 1 16 Percent within city 25.0 25.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 6.3 6.3 100.0 Percent within question 13.3 13.8 3.2 11.8 9.4 5.9 50.0 9.4 Gyumri Count 6 8 1 2 3 20 Percent within city 30.0 40.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 100.0 Percent within question 20.0 27.6 3.2 16.7 9.4 11.8 Ijevan Count 1 2 5 1 3 2 14 Percent within city 7.1 14.3 35.7 7.1 21.4 14.3 100.0 Percent within question 3.3 6.9 16.1 8.3 17.6 11.8 8.2 Jermuk Count 5 3 2 3 2 25 Percent within city 20.0 52.0 8.0 12.0 8.0 100.0 Percent within question 16.7 41.9 11.8 9.4 11.8 14.7 Kapan Count 1 5 3 2 11 Percent within city 9.1 45.5 27.3 18.2 100.0 Percent within question 3.3 17.2 9.4 11.8 6.5

Armenia 18 Local Governance Program

Aid Other Totals inquiry answer answer Various Property problems g problem assistance assistance Refused to Refused documents privatization Land/housin Employment City services City services

Sevan Count 6 1 1 2 5 4 3 22 Percent within city 27.3 4.5 4.5 9.1 22.7 18.2 13.6 100.0 Percent within question 20.0 3.4 3.2 16.7 29.4 12.5 17.6 12.9 Sisian Count 3 4 3 2 5 3 1 21 Percent within city 14.3 19.0 14.3 9.5 23.8 14.3 4.8 100.0 Percent within question 10.0 13.8 25.0 11.8 15.6 17.6 50.0 12.4 Vanadzor Count 3 4 1 3 1 3 3 18 Percent within city 16.7 22.2 5.6 16.7 5.6 16.7 16.7 100.0 Percent within question 10.0 13.8 3.2 25.0 5.9 9.4 17.6 10.6 Yeghegnadzor Count 1 1 9 1 2 8 1 23 Percent within city 4.3 4.3 39.1 4.3 8.7 34.8 4.3 100.0 Percent within question 3.3 3.4 29.0 8.3 11.8 25.0 5.9 13.5 Total Count 30 29 31 12 17 32 17 2 170 Percent within city 17.6 17.1 18.2 7.1 10.0 18.8 10.0 1.2 100.0 Percent within question 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 22: Problems in obtaining the requested information

Frequency Percent Yes 49 28.8 No 121 71.2 Total 170 100.0

Table 23: Problems in obtaining the requested information by city

City Frequency Percent Alaverdi Count 4 Percent within city 25.0 Gyumri Count 8 Percent within city 40.0 Ijevan Count 2 Percent within city 14.3 Jermuk Count 1 Percent within city 4.0 Kapan Count 7 Percent within city 63.6 Sevan Count 9 Percent within city 40.9 Sisian Count 6 Percent within city 28.6 Vanadzor Count 5 Percent within city 27.8

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 19

City Frequency Percent Yeghegnadzor Count 7 Percent within city 30.4 Total Count 49 Percent within city 28.8

Table 24: Types of problems encountered when trying to obtain information from city government

Frequency Percent Problems obtaining necessary documents 4 8.2 Officials promise but respondents never see results 12 24.5 Bureaucratic red tape 16 32.7 Official rejected respondent’s requests 17 34.7 Total 49 100.0

Table 25: Types of problems encountered when trying to obtain information from city government by city City Total reject Officials Officials requests obtaining Problems c red tape no results necessary documents Bureaucrati promise but but promise

Alaverdi Count 1 1 2 4 Percent within city 25.0 25.0 50.0 100.0 Gyumri Count 1 5 2 8 Percent within city 12.5 62.5 25.0 100.0 Ijevan Count 1 1 2 Percent within city 50.0 50.0 100.0 Jermuk Count 1 1 Percent within city 100.0 100.0 Kapan Count 1 3 3 7 Percent within city 14.3 42.9 42.9 100.0 Sevan Count 3 2 4 9 Percent within city 33.3 22.2 44.4 100.0 Sisian Count 4 1 1 6 Percent within city 66.7 16.7 16.7 100.0 Vanadzor Count 1 3 1 5 Percent within city 20.0 60.0 20.0 100.0 Yeghegnadzor Count 3 4 7 Percent within city 42.9 57.1 100.0 Total Count 4 12 16 17 49 Percent within city 8.2 24.5 32.7 34.7 100.0

Armenia 20 Local Governance Program

Table 26a: Central government in Yerevan is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 20 2.0 2.1 2.1 Agree 276 27.3 29.6 31.8 Disagree 360 35.6 38.6 70.4 Strongly disagree 276 27.3 29.6 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 80 7.9 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode= 3 Mean=2.96 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 26b: The Marzpet is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 28 2.8 3.2 3.2 Agree 311 30.7 35.8 39.0 Disagree 309 30.5 35.6 74.6 Strongly disagree 221 21.8 25.4 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 143 14.1 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.83 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 26c: City Hall is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 83 8.2 9.0 9.0 Agree 470 46.4 51.1 60.2 Disagree 227 22.4 24.7 84.9 Strongly disagree 139 13.7 15.1 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 93 9.2 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.46 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 26d: If I had a problem and needed help from City Hall, I would know whom to contact

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 231 22.8 24.1 24.1 Agree 533 52.7 55.6 79.7 Disagree 169 16.7 17.6 97.4 Strongly disagree 25 2.5 2.6 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 54 5.3 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=1.99 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 21

Table 26e: I am pleased with water and sewage services

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 164 16.2 16.3 16.3 Agree 511 50.5 50.6 66.9 Disagree 173 17.1 17.1 84.0 Strongly disagree 161 15.9 16.0 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 3 0.3 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.33 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 26f: City Hall does a good job in solving the city’s problems

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 80 7.9 8.9 8.9 Agree 546 54.0 61.0 69.9 Disagree 218 21.5 24.4 94.3 Strongly disagree 51 5.0 5.7 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 117 11.6 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.27 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 26g: City Hall does better job this year than last year in solving the city’s problems

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 83 8.2 9.5 9.5 Agree 506 50.0 57.7 67.2 Disagree 243 24.0 27.7 94.9 Strongly disagree 45 4.4 5.1 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 135 13.3 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.29 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Armenia 22 Local Governance Program

Table 26h: I have more information about City Hall activities this year than last year

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 28 2.8 3.0 3.0 Agree 384 37.9 40.9 43.9 Disagree 469 46.3 49.9 93.8 Strongly disagree 58 5.7 6.2 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 73 7.2 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.59 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 26i: I would be more active in local politics if I had more information about City Hall activities

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 142 14.0 15.0 15.0 Agree 447 44.2 47.2 62.2 Disagree 309 30.5 32.6 94.8 Strongly disagree 49 4.8 5.2 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 65 6.4 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.28 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 26j: If I had more information about the budget, I would be more active in following City Hall decisions

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 135 13.3 14.4 14.4 Agree 394 38.9 42.0 56.4 Disagree 352 34.8 37.5 93.9 Strongly disagree 57 5.6 6.1 100.0 Don’t know/ can’t say 74 7.3 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mode=2 Mean=2.35 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 23

Table 27: Means for attitude measures in Tables 26a through 26j (Bold indicates highest agreement with statement within city)

y year when roblem water/ Central sewage Marzpet p City Hall City Hall this year than last than last problems More info more info interested interested interested to contact does good job solving does better if more info More active More active re: City Hall re: budget if job this year Government Know whom Pleased with Alaverdi 3.08 2.77 2.38 1.77 2.52 2.25 2.25 2.54 2.30 2.32 Gyumri 3.07 3.11 2.44 2.18 2.17 2.16 2.22 2.50 2.55 2.51 Ijevan 2.72 2.59 2.26 1.88 1.94 2.15 2.15 2.50 2.34 2.39 Jermuk 2.91 2.86 2.29 1.77 1.88 2.01 2.11 2.51 2.31 2.44 Kapan 2.97 2.78 2.43 2.03 2.21 2.34 2.24 2.63 2.10 2.22 Sevan 3.13 3.11 2.48 2.00 3.24 2.48 2.43 2.66 2.25 2.35 Sisian 2.93 2.85 2.65 2.07 2.34 2.40 2.48 2.69 2.21 2.29 Vanadzor 2.94 2.79 2.64 2.18 2.16 2.27 2.29 2.60 2.23 2.78 Yeghegnadzor 2.84 2.61 2.54 2.03 2.47 2.41 2.41 2.72 2.22 2.37

Table 28: Means by city for attitudes toward City Hall solving problems this year better than last year

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Total Agree Agree

Alaverdi Count 9 61 28 3 101 Percent within city 8.9 60.4 27.7 3.0 100.0 Gyumri Count 11 68 20 7 106 Percent within city 10.4 64.2 18.9 6.6 100.0 Ijevan Count 13 68 17 6 104 Percent within city 12.5 65.4 16.3 5.8 100.0 Jermuk Count 19 54 20 5 98 Percent within city 19.4 55.1 20.4 5.1 100.0 Kapan Count 5 58 15 5 83 Percent within city 6.0 69.9 18.1 6.0 100.0 Sevan Count 7 43 36 5 91 Percent within city 7.7 47.3 39.6 5.5 100.0 Sisian Count 4 51 44 5 104 Percent within city 3.8 49.0 42.3 4.8 100.0 Vanadzor Count 12 51 33 4 100 Percent within city 12.0 51.0 33.0 4.0 100.0 Yeghegnadzor Count 3 52 30 5 90 Percent within city 3.3 57.8 33.3 5.6 100.0 Total Count 83 506 243 45 877 Percent within city 9.5 57.7 27.7 5.1 100.0

Armenia 24 Local Governance Program

Table 29: Means by city for attitude toward having more information this year than last year about the activities of City Hall

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Total Agree Alaverdi Count 1 47 56 1 105 Percent within city 1.0 44.8 53.3 1.0 100.0 Gyumri Count 4 52 48 5 109 Percent within city 3.7 47.7 44.0 4.6 100.0 Ijevan Count 4 53 39 9 105 Percent within city 3.8 50.5 37.1 8.6 100.0 Jermuk Count 8 41 50 6 105 Percent within city 7.6 39.0 47.6 5.7 100.0 Kapan Count 2 40 46 8 96 Percent within city 2.1 41.7 47.9 8.3 100.0 Sevan Count 1 41 61 6 109 Percent within city 0.9 37.6 56.0 5.5 100.0 Sisian Count 2 37 59 8 106 Percent within city 1.9 34.9 55.7 7.5 100.0 Vanadzor Count 5 42 56 8 111 Percent within city 4.5 37.8 50.5 7.2 100.0 Yeghegnadzor Count 1 31 54 7 93 Percent within city 1.1 33.3 58.1 7.5 100.0 Total Count 28 384 469 58 939 Percent within city 3.0 40.9 49.9 6.2 100.0

Table 30a: Name of the Mayor

Frequency Percent Correct answer 957 94.6 Incorrect answer 21 2.1 Don't know 34 3.4 Total 1,012 100.0

Table 30b: Mayor elected or appointed

Frequency Percent Elected (correct answer) 923 91.2 Appointed 57 5.6 Don’t know 32 3.2 Total 1,012 100.0

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 25

Table 30c: Marzpet elected or appointed

Frequency Percent Appointed (correct answer) 616 60.9 Elected 270 26.7 Don't know 126 12.5 Total 1,012 100.0

Table 30d: When City Council meetings take place

Frequency Percent Correct answer 14 1.4 Incorrect answer 78 7.7 Don’t know 920 90.9 Total 1,012 100.0

Table 30e: Name a member of the City Council

Frequency Percent Correct answer 479 47.3 Incorrect answer 122 12.1 Don't know 411 40.6 Total 1,012 100.0

Table 30f: When city budget is approved

Frequency Percent Correct answer 26 2.6 Incorrect answer 97 9.6 Don’t know 889 87.8 Total 1,012 100.0

Table 30g: Who decides land/property tax

Frequency Percent Correct answer (tax inspectorate) 103 10.2 Incorrect answer 293 29.0 Don't know 616 60.9 Total 1,012 100.0

Armenia 26 Local Governance Program

Table 30h: If problem with income tax, where would go

Frequency Percent Correct answer (tax inspectorate) 171 16.9 Incorrect answer 452 44.7 Nowhere/no one 51 5.0 Don’t know/can’t say 338 33.4 Total 1,012 100.0

Table 30hh: Incorrect answers given

Frequency Percent City Hall/Mayor 370 81.9 Marzpetaran/Marzpet 13 2.9 Offices of the Village leader 15 3.3 Offices of the Neighborhood leader 2 0.4 Offices of the Community leader 6 1.3 Workplace 6 1.3 Court 5 1.1 Cadastre 4 0.9 BShD 18 4.0 Other (National Assembly, Ministry, etc.) 13 2.9 Total 452 100.0

Table 30i: If problem with water/sewage, where would go

Frequency Percent Correct answer (water/sewage supply enterprise or zheck) 745 73.6 Incorrect answer 161 15.9 Nowhere/no one 74 7.3 Don’t know/can’t say 32 3.2 Total 1,012 100.0

Table 30ii: Incorrect answers given

Frequency Percent City Hall/Mayor 132 82.0 Marzpetaran/Marzpet 2 1.2 Offices of the Village leader 13 8.1 Offices of the Neighborhood leader 1 .6 Offices of the Community leader 7 4.3 Other (National Assembly, Ministry, etc.) 6 3.7 Total 161 100.0

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 27

Table 31: Correct answers to knowledge questions in Tables 28a through 28i by city (Bold indicates highest correct answer percentage within city)

t for tax city Who your Name meets Mayor budget elected Council decides Marzpet problems approved When city e problem appointed When City for income member of Total within Where to go Where to go City Council land/propert Name Mayor water/sewag Alaverdi 94.7 88.6 43.0 2.6 65.8 0.9 7.9 14.9 80.7 Percent within city 100.0 Percent within question 11.3 10.9 8.0 21.4 15.7 3.8 8.7 9.9 12.3 Gyumr 98.3 91.4 68.1 32.8 1.7 13.8 22.4 81.0 Percent within city 100.0 11.9 11.5 12.8 7.9 7.7 15.5 15.2 12.6 Percent within question Ijevan 94.6 96.4 70.3 34.2 3.6 4.5 Percent within city 13.58.8 64.09.5 100.0 11.0 11.6 12.7 7.9 15.4 4.9 Percent within question Jermuk 95.7 92.2 56.5 1.7 62.6 2.6 8.7 12.2 65.2 Percent within city 100.0 11.5 11.5 10.6 14.3 15.0 11.5 9.7 8.2 10.1 Percent within question Kapan 88.0 85.2 72.2 0.9 38.0 0.9 12.0 22.2 75.0 Percent within city 100.0 9.9 10.0 12.7 7.1 8.6 3.8 12.6 14.0 10.9 Percent within question Sevan 98.3 95.7 57.3 5.1 60.7 2.6 11.1 11.1 61.5 Percent within city 100.0 Percent within question 12.0 12.1 10.9 42.9 14.8 11.5 12.6 7.6 9.7 Sisian 97.3 87.4 57.7 1.8 50.5 6.3 18.9 30.6 80.2 Percent within city 100.0 11.3 10.5 10.4 14.3 11.7 26.9 20.4 19.9 11.9 Percent within question Vanadzor 89.6 88.7 56.5 35.7 2.6 7.0 16.5 91.3 Percent within city 100.0 10.8 11.1 10.6 8.6 11.5 7.8 11.1 14.1 Percent within question Yeghegnadzor 94.3 95.2 67.6 44.8 1.9 7.6 8.6 62.9 Percent within city 100.0 10.3 10.8 11.5 9.8 7.7 7.8 5.3 8.9 Percent within question Total within Question 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 32a: Willingness to pay for waste collection

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Very willing 518 51.2 51.3 51.3 Somewhat willing 374 37.0 37.0 88.3 Not at all willing 118 11.7 11.7 100.0 Don't know/can't say 2 0.2 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=1.60 Mode=1 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Armenia 28 Local Governance Program

Table 32b: Willingness to pay for streetlights Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 319 31.5 32.1 32.1 Somewhat willing 401 39.6 40.3 72.4 Not at all willing 275 27.2 27.6 100.0 Don't know/can't say 17 1.7 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=1.96 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 32c: Willingness to pay for landscaping streets Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 234 23.1 23.6 23.6 Somewhat willing 415 41.0 41.8 65.4 Not at all willing 343 33.9 34.6 100.0 Don't know/can't say 20 2.0 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=2.11 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 32d: Willingness to pay for control of street dogs and cats Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 381 37.6 38.7 38.7 Somewhat willing 289 28.6 29.4 68.1 Not at all willing 314 31.0 31.9 100.0 Don't know/can't say 28 2.8 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=1.93 Mode=1 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 32e: Willingness to pay for centralized heating Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 561 55.4 56.1 56.1 Somewhat willing 226 22.3 22.6 78.7 Not at all willing 213 21.0 21.3 100.0 Don't know/can't say 12 1.2 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=1.65 Mode=1 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 29

Table 32f: Willingness to pay for public transportation Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 361 35.7 36.4 36.4 Somewhat willing 407 40.2 41.0 77.4 Not at all willing 224 22.1 22.6 100.0 Don't know/can't say 20 2.0 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=1.86 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 32g: Willingness to pay for maintenance of roads Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 279 27.6 28.2 28.2 Somewhat willing 374 37.0 37.9 66.1 Not at all willing 335 33.1 33.9 100.0 Don't know/can't say 24 2.4 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=2.06 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 32h: Willingness to pay for nursery schools Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 308 30.4 31.4 31.4 Somewhat willing 374 37.0 38.2 69.6 Not at all willing 298 29.4 30.4 100.0 Don't know/can't say 32 3.2 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=1.99 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 32i: Willingness to pay for music and arts schools Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 304 30.0 31.0 31.0 Somewhat willing 362 35.8 36.9 68.0 Not at all willing 314 31.0 32.0 100.0 Don't know/can't say 32 3.2 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean= 2.01 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Armenia 30 Local Governance Program

Table 32j: Willingness to pay for sports schools Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 284 28.1 29.0 29.0 Somewhat willing 369 36.5 37.6 66.6 Not at all willing 328 32.4 33.4 100.0 Don't know/can't say 31 3.1 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=2.04 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 32k: Willingness to pay for libraries Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 276 27.3 28.1 28.1 Somewhat willing 368 36.4 37.5 65.6 Not at all willing 338 33.4 34.4 100.0 Don't know/can't say 30 3.0 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=2.06 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 32l: Willingness to pay for maintenance of city monuments Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 247 24.4 24.7 24.7 Somewhat willing 431 42.6 43.2 67.9 Not at all willing 320 31.6 32.1 100.0 Don't know/can't say 14 1.4 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=2.07 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 32m: Willingness to pay for maintenance of apartment buildings Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 268 26.5 26.9 26.9 Somewhat willing 409 40.4 41.0 67.8 Not at all willing 321 31.7 32.2 100.0 Don't know/can't say 14 1.4 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=2.05 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 31

Table 32n: Willingness to pay for maintenance of cemeteries

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very willing 375 37.1 37.7 37.7 Somewhat willing 411 40.6 41.3 79.1 Not at all willing 208 20.6 20.9 100.0 Don't know/can't say 18 1.8 100.0 Total 1,012 100.0 Mean=1.83 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 33: Table of means for willingness to pay measures in Table 32a through 32n by city (Bold indicates service with highest percentage of willingness to pay within city)

s/cats on 32l: 32e: 32k: 32c: 32g: 32n: g 32m: lights street streets heatin schools schools schools and arts libraries of roads cemetery do collection apartment 32f: public 32j: sports 32a: waste 32b: street monument 32i: music centralized transportati 32d: control landscaping 32h: nursery maintenance maintenance maintenance maintenance Alaverdi 1.55 1.81 2.07 1.84 1.39 1.65 2.00 1.96 1.99 2.02 2.03 2.02 1.98 1.84 Gyumri 1.66 2.00 2.19 1.88 1.85 1.95 2.29 2.21 2.25 2.28 2.30 2.29 2.19 1.83 Ijevan 1.65 2.05 2.13 2.04 1.71 1.91 1.99 1.98 1.97 2.06 2.12 2.03 2.10 1.75 Jermuk 1.71 2.08 2.10 2.12 1.60 1.83 2.11 1.92 1.93 1.97 2.01 2.07 1.93 1.95 Kapan 1.49 1.91 2.07 1.87 1.62 1.84 2.00 1.97 2.11 2.06 2.05 1.98 2.00 1.79 Sevan 1.71 2.02 2.11 2.07 1.69 1.91 2.07 2.03 2.09 2.10 2.12 2.12 2.17 1.88 Sisian 1.55 1.97 2.22 1.93 1.91 2.05 2.03 2.04 1.96 2.06 2.06 2.00 2.08 1.84 Vanadzor 1.59 1.97 2.15 1.92 1.40 1.72 2.10 1.91 1.85 1.89 1.90 2.17 1.98 1.80 Yeghegnadzor 1.50 1.78 1.93 1.69 1.71 1.90 1.90 1.87 1.93 1.95 1.97 1.96 2.03 1.81 Total 1.60 1.96 2.11 1.93 1.65 1.86 2.06 1.99 2.01 2.04 2.06 2.07 2.05 1.83 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)

Table 34: Name of the Chairman of the National Assembly

Frequency Percent Correct answer 642 63.4 Incorrect answer 94 9.3 Don't know 276 27.3 Total 1,012 100.0

Armenia 32 Local Governance Program

Table 35: Breakdowns by cities name of the Chairman of the National Assembly Correct Incorrect Don’t know/ Total Answer Answer Can’t say Alaverdi Count 84 8 22 114 Percent within city 73.7 7.0 19.3 100.0 Gyumri Count 72 12 32 116 Percent within city 62.1 10.3 27.6 100.0 Ijevan Count 60 10 41 111 Percent within city 54.1 9.0 36.9 100.0 Jermuk Count 70 11 34 115 Percent within city 60.9 9.6 29.6 100.0 Kapan Count 67 12 29 108 Percent within city 62.0 11.1 26.9 100.0 Sevan Count 82 11 24 117 Percent within city 70.1 9.4 20.5 100.0 Sisian Count 65 11 35 111 Percent within city 58.6 9.9 31.5 100.0 Vanadzor Count 69 8 38 115 Percent within city 60.0 7.0 33.0 100.0 Yeghegnadzor Count 73 11 21 105 Percent within city 69.5 10.5 20.0 100.0 Count 642 94 276 1,012 Total Percent all cities 63.4 9.3 27.3 100.0

Table 36: Name of the Deputy from this district in the National Assembly

Frequency Percent Correct answer 290 37.1 Incorrect answer 115 14.7 Don't know 376 48.1 Total 781 100.0 Gyumri and Vanadzor are excluded because they have more than one deputy

Table 37: Breakdowns by cities the name of the Deputy from this district in the National Assembly Correct Incorrect Don’t know/ Total Answer Answer Can’t say Alaverdi Count 71 4 39 114 Percent within city 62.3 3.5 34.2 100.0 Ijevan Count 21 9 81 111 Percent within city 18.9 8.1 73.0 100.0 Jermuk Count 14 18 83 115 Percent within city 12.2 15.7 72.2 100.0 Kapan Count 52 56 108 Percent within city 48.1 51.9 100.0

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 33

Correct Incorrect Don’t know/ Total Answer Answer Can’t say Sevan Count 64 14 39 117 Percent within city 54.7 12.0 33.3 100.0 Sisian Count 57 8 46 111 Percent within city 51.4 7.2 41.4 100.0 Yeghegnadzor Count 63 10 32 105 Percent within city 60.0 9.5 30.5 100.0 Total Count 290 115 376 781 Percent all cities 37.1 14.7 48.1 100.0

Table 38: Age Demographic Measures Mean Median 44.61 44.00 Min Max 18 70

Table 39: Gender by city

Male Female Total Alaverdi Count 21 93 114 Percent within city 18.4 81.6 100.0 Gyumri Count 25 91 116 Percent within city 21.6 78.4 100.0 Ijevan Count 33 78 111 Percent within city 29.7 70.3 100.0 Jermuk Count 38 77 115 Percent within city 33.0 67.0 100.0 Kapan Count 25 83 108 Percent within city 23.1 76.9 100.0 Sevan Count 36 81 117 Percent within city 30.8 69.2 100.0 Sisian Count 38 73 111 Percent within city 34.2 65.8 100.0 Vanadzor Count 30 85 115 Percent within city 26.1 73.9 100.0 Yeghegnadzor Count 29 76 105 Percent within city 27.6 72.4 100.0 Total Count 275 737 1,012 Percent in all cities 27.2 72.8 100.0

Armenia 34 Local Governance Program

Table 40: Highest level of education obtained

Frequency Percent Primary school (4 years) 12 1.2 Incomplete secondary school 24 2.4 Secondary school 8 years 56 5.5 Secondary school 10 years 299 29.5 University, college, technical school 434 42.9 Completed university degree (4 or 5 years) 186 18.4 Advanced graduate university degree 1 0.1 Total 1,012 100.0

Table 41: Anyone in household with full or part time job and/or self-employment

2002 2001 2000

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Yes 589 58.2 525 56.1 502 51.6 No 423 41.8 410 43.9 471 48.4 Total 1,012 100.0 935 100.0 937 100.0

Table 42: If apartment, membership in condominium association

Don't know/ Yes No Total Can't say Alaverdi Count 2 76 10 88 Percent within city 2.3 86.4 11.4 100.0 Gyumri Count 2 36 7 45 Percent within city 4.4 80.0 15.6 100.0 Ijevan Count 17 22 6 45 Percent within city 37.8 48.9 13.3 100.0 Jermuk Count 14 90 11 115 Percent within city 12.2 78.3 9.6 100.0 Kapan Count 49 28 11 88 Percent within city 55.7 31.8 12.5 100.0 Sevan Count 7 46 5 58 Percent within city 12.1 79.3 8.6 100.0 Sisian Count 3 44 10 57 Percent within city 5.3 77.2 17.5 100.0 Vanadzor Count 28 48 14 90 Percent within city 31.1 53.3 15.6 100.0 Yeghegnadzor Count 6 36 4 46 Percent within city 13.0 78.3 8.7 100.0 Total Count 128 426 78 632 Percent all cities 20.3 67.4 12.3 100.0

Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings 35

Table 43: Income sources (multiple responses permitted) 2002 2001 2000 Percent of Percent of Percent of Frequency Frequency Frequency total (1,012) total (935) total (973)

Pensions 474 46.8 464 49.6 500 51.4 Paros or other government social 185 18.3 243 26.0 275 28.3 welfare payments Disability payments 167 16.5 186 19.9 176 18.1 Sale of personal 102 10.1 124 13.3 193 19.8 valuables Money from relatives/friends 140 13.8 115 12.3 93 9.6 outside Armenia Loans 50 4.9 93 9.9 106 10.9 Child or single mother 85 8.4 56 6.0 79 8.1 support payments Unemployment 59 5.8 41 4.4 90 9.2 payments Money from relatives/friends in 45 4.4 34 3.6 28 2.9 Armenia Income from rental of 20 2.0 15 1.6 12 1.2 property Money from charity 14 1.4 9 1.0 6 0.6 Income from interest 8 0.8 6 0.6 3 0.3 and dividends Other 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

APPENDIX A

Responses to open-ended question asking for the one most important function of the National Assembly besides writing and passing laws

Don’t know/can’t say 394 Nothing else 48 Take care of citizens 90 Implementation of laws 87 Have interest in citizens problems 84 Improve well being of the citizens 75 Represent the interests of the citizens 67 Control over the implementation of laws 46 To create workplaces 22 Think only about their own needs and fill their pockets 22 To solve the problems of the country 16 Fight with each other and do nothing 12 To discuss and approve budget 11 To fulfill their promises 6 To answer citizens' letters 4 To protect the law 2 Develop the constitution 2 To protect the constitution 1 Approval of the constitution 1 Provide live radio broadcast of the N/A sessions so that the people hear them 1 Reestablishment of people’s trust to the government 1 To implement stable prices because of privatization 1 Develop a law giving privatized factories to the workers 1 To restore the earthquake zone 1 Karabagh problem, political problems 1 To make arbitrations 1 Abolishment of illegality 1 To maintain discipline 1 To be accurate 1 Have normal behavior during the sessions 1 To raise questions about president's impeachment, questions about the constitution 1 Collaborate with and assist in the work of the government 1 Develop a code of conduct 1 Establish democracy 1 To come together and talk 1 Give back the money saved in banks during the soviet times 1 Make concrete decisions on how to solve problems of Armenia 1 Open factories, construct apartments buildings 1 To solve educational problems 1 To establish foreign relations 1 To make jokes 1