Local Governance Mapping Is Carried out in the Framework of STAR 2 Project, Implemented by UNDP, with the Support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Local

Governance

Mapping

Methological Note

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Prepared by Institute for Development Research and Alternatives

With the contribution of: Mithulina Chatterjee – International Expert on National Governance Mapping Vladimir Malkaj – Program Specialist, UNDP Edlira Muhedini – Project Manager STAR2, UNDP Anila Shehu - Project Coordinator STAR2, UNDP

Table of Contents

1. Analytical Framework for Local Governance Mapping ...... 5 1.1 Governance Dimensions ...... 5 1.1.1 Effectiveness and Efficiency ...... 5 1.1.2 Transparency and Rule of Law ...... 4 1.1.3 Accountability ...... 4 1.1.4 Participation and Citizen Engagement ...... 5 1.2 Scoring approach ...... 5 2. Research Methods ...... 30 3. Desk Research ...... 31 4. Qualitative research ...... 32 4.1 Municipality Focus Groups ...... 32 4.2 Semi-structured interviews ...... 32 4.3 Community Dialogues ...... 33 5. Quantitative Research...... 37 5.1 Sampling ...... 37 5.1.1 STEP1 - Selection of the Primary Sampling Units ...... 39 5.1.2 STEP 2 – Selection of the Household ...... 40 5.1.3 STEP3 - Selection of the respondent ...... 43 5.2 ELECTRONIC DATA COLLECTION ...... 43 5.3 Lot 1 and Lot 2...... 44 6. Work Calendar ...... 30 ANNEX A. Moderation Guide for Municipality Focus Groups ...... 32 Sample Exercise ...... 44 ANNEX B. Semi-Structured Interview Guide ...... 45 ANNEX C. Community Dialogue Moderation Guide ...... 52 ANNEX D. Citizen Report Card Questionnaire ...... 64 ANNEX E. Sample Calculation and Distribution for each Cluster ...... 76

1. Analytical Framework for Local Governance Mapping

For the purpose of this assignment an Analytical Framework of Local Governance has been developed. This framework is based on the methodology and structure of Local Governance Barometer (LGB) adopted within the context of Albania local government development. The model of Local Governance Barometer (LGB) includes a set of localized governance indicators that are used by the various stakeholders’ groups to score performance on governance measures at the local level. This method emphasizes awareness raising and constructive dialogue around governance and presents an overview of governance strength and weaknesses. The Analytical Framework based on LGB ensures representation of actors from both government (key local government staff) and non-government actors (citizens and CSOs). It concentrates more on the ‘interactive’ dimensions of governance, aiming to offer a mapping for each municipality.

The focus will be given to the following four dimensions:  Effectiveness and Efficiency,  Transparency and Rule of Law,  Accountability  Participation and Citizen Engagement.

Since gender as well as vulnerable social groups perspectives are critical for the quality of the mapping exercise, within the four dimensions an important consideration has been given to Equity in access to resources, opportunities and decision-making processes for all citizens etc.

The instruments used for this approach will collect data from several sources:

a) Desk Research (DR), b) Citizen Report Card (CRC) Survey, c) Municipal Official Focus Groups (MFG) and d) Community Dialogues (CD).

1.1 Governance Dimensions

1.1.1 Effectiveness and Efficiency

Effectiveness implies the development/ financial planning and coordination capacity of local self- government to respond to citizens’ priorities in delivery of services and economic development. Local self- government produces and delivers quality services to people making best use of public resources in meeting its stated development objectives. Efficiency means cost effective use of limited financial and

3 human resources without waste, delays or misuse (corruption). Effectiveness means that limited resources contributes maximum to municipal development objectives and priorities while efficiency means that this limited resources are used the right manner. This dimension will include several criteria such as the:  vision and planning of local administration (if the latter have gone through a participatory and inclusive process),  financial management (planning and management of local financial resources),  informed decision making (based on reliable and updated information),  coordination and cooperation (the municipality interactions with central government, donors, and other municipalities) and the  level of satisfaction toward services (quality and accessibility of public service delivery)

1.1.2 Transparency and Rule of Law

Transparency ensures that local self-government’s action, decisions and decision-making processes are made public and open for examination/questioning by the people who are directly affected by those decisions. It is associated with unfettered access to timely and reliable information on decisions and performance. Rule of Law includes the “terms of reference” of the social contract whereby citizens live together and are governed by the public authority. Rule of law prevails when terms of the social contract are respected by citizens and the government, where such terms are applied either through voluntary cooperation or legal procedures and institutions, and when violations of the terms of the contract are punished. For the needs of this framework this dimension is represented by the following criteria:  transparency (if public service delivery performance and resources planning and utilization are available and accessible for citizens),  rule of law regarding the Institutional Legal Framework at local level (whether or not a relevant legal framework exists and if it’s effective) and  incidence of corruption (existence of anti-corruption policies, corruption perception level, corruption experience level).

1.1.3 Accountability

Accountability is defined as the ability of the municipality to justify and report its actions to citizens, council and address citizens’ complaints. Local self-government is able to show and explain and be held

4 accountable for its decisions based on agreed targets and objectives to the public at large. It is associated with the idea of answerability. The accountability dimension is composed by the following criteria:  checks and balances (whether or not are there institutions, which have control, supervision, and sanction power on the local administration),  recourse (if there are in place various mechanisms for complaints and citizens’ input and if they are effective) and  government responsiveness (level of municipal responsiveness to field inquiries and complaint)

1.1.4 Participation and Citizen Engagement

Active participation of all citizens (inclusion of different groups) and civil society in local development planning for the appropriate allocation of resources in local government interventions. This involves the active, free and meaningful involvement of men, women and other groups from the public in the decision- making process. The Participation and Citizen Engagement dimension is represented by the following criteria:  institutional framework (if there exist an institutional framework which ensures and manages citizen participation),  decision making (involvement of all stakeholders in the decision-making process),  citizen engagement (the level of interaction with local government) and  civic engagement (the level of citizens, CSOs, and media activations on local development issues). For each dimension, have been developed relevant sub-criteria and each of the latter one has been represent by important indicators (questions) that serve to help and analyze the mother criteria.

The instruments used for this approach will include a combination of Desk Research (DR), the Citizen Report Card (CRC), the Municipality Focus Groups (MFG) and the Community Dialogues (CD).

1.2 Scoring approach

Questions/Indicators of the Analytical Framework have been constructed in such a way to capture local governance dynamics. Each criteria is composed of several sub-criteria and the latter by some indicators / questions that require evaluation. The diagram below shows the composition and method of calculating the evaluation.

Figure 1. The Evaluation Diagram

Average of Subcriterias Criteria

Subcriteria 1 Subcriteria 2 Subcriteria 3

Indicator/ Question 1

Indicator/ Average of Indicators Average Question2

Indicator/ Question 2

A scoring scale has been developed for each question/indicator. The scoring approach is based on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents “No governance” and 100 represents the “Full/Perfect Governance”. Normally the dimensions will be measured through different data sources and therefore for each dimension of the analytical framework there is a specification of the data source from which will be obtained the evaluation. Moreover, there are many questions that will be addressed to different stakeholders in order to achieve all the necessary perceptions and to ensure a comprehensive framework. In this case, the final score will be the average value of all the scores obtained by different groups.

In order to have a clear overview and understanding of all the elements of the analytical framework please refer to Table 1.

Table 1. Analytical Framework for Local Governance Mapping

Indicator Scoring Scale Data Source Municipal Community Citizen Desk Focus Criteria Effectiveness and Efficiency Dialogues Report Card Research Groups Sub. 1 Does the public administration have a clear vision and participatory and inclusive plan to achieve development? 0-100 where 0=No Plan, 25 =Partial Plan with little consideration for Community Is there a general local plan which takes in consideration Thoughts, 50= Partial Plan with partial 11 the community vision and thoughts? consideration, 75= Good plan with good ✔ ✔ X consideration 100=Very Good plan with full consideration 0-100 where 0=No Plan, 25 =Partial Plan with little participation, 50= Partial Plan (If 11 = 0) Is there a strategic local plan for the Municipality 12 with partial participation 75= Good plan that has gone through a participatory process? ✔ ✔ X with good participation 100=Very Good Plan with full consideration (If 12 = 0) Is there any other plan (e.g. operational 0=No other plans, 50=some plans 100=All 13 development plan or other medium-term plan) for the necessary Plans ✔ ✔ X Municipality? 0=No sectorial plans, 25= Few Sectorial Are there annual plans for various sectors (education, Plans 50=some plans 75=Most of Sectorial 2 infrastructure, waste management, water, forestry etc.)? plans, 100= All of the necessary sectorial ✔ ✔ X plans 0 to 100 where 0= No Implementation, Are these plans implemented in order to guide the 25=Poor Implementation, 50=Some 3 municipality decision-making process? (Are these plans Implementation, 75=Good Implementation, ✔ ✔ X implemented) 100=Perfect Implementation Sub. 2 Financial Management: Is there an effective and efficient planning and management of local financial resources? 0=No Medium Term Budget, 25=Medium term budget with little/no linkage to Does the municipality have a medium term budget strategic plan/objective, 50= Medium term 1 framework to deliver its strategic plan objectives/or budget with some linkage to strategic ✔ ✔ X projects? plan/objectives 75=Medium term budget with good linkage to strategic

plan/objectives, 100=Medium term budget fully in line with strategic plan/objectives Does your Municipality have the adequacy and capacity 0 to 100 where 0= no capacity, 25= little

2 (administration and department staffing) to manage its capacity, 50=some capacity, 75= good ✔ X X budget efficiently? capacity, 100=full capacity 0=No mechanisms in place, 25=few mechanisms in place, 50=some Is there in place a good and effective financial 3 mechanisms, 75=good number of management and control mechanisms? ✔ X X mechanisms, 100=All necessary mechanisms How efficient is the municipality in collecting local % of the own revenues over total revenues 4 revenues (tax and tariffs) from citizens and businesses? (2016). That will be the score assigned X X X ✔ Sub. 3 Informed Decision-Making: Is the decision-making based on reliable and updated information? 0=No reliable statistics, 25=few reliable Is the municipality decision making based on reliable statistics, 50=some reliable statistics, 1 statistics/data and up to date information? 75=Reliable statistics, 100=Very reliable ✔ ✔ X ✔ statistics 0=No reliability in Land Registry, 25=Little How reliable are the data on the Land Registry that your 2 reliability, 50=some reliability, 75=High Municipality uses? ✔ ✔ X ✔ reliability, 100=Full reliability 0=No usage/system, 25=Little usage, To what extent does the municipality use a GIS 3 50=Average usage, 75=High usage, system/Platform? ✔ ✔ X ✔ 100=Full usage 0=No system, 25=little reporting, Is there a comprehensive reporting system within the 4 50=average reporting, 75=good reporting, municipality? ✔ ✔ X ✔ 100=Very Good Reporting Effective coordination and cooperation: Are the municipality interactions with central government, donors, other municipalities etc. effective Sub. 4 and efficient? 0=No effectiveness, 25=little effectiveness, How effective is the process of consultation between 1 50=average effectiveness, 75=good central and local government? ✔ X X effectiveness 100=very good effectiveness 0=No effectiveness, 25=little effectiveness, How effective is the coordination among the municipal 2 50=average effectiveness, 75=good departments? ✔ X X effectiveness 100=very good effectiveness

0=No cooperation, 25=little cooperation, To what extent is the Municipality productive in its 3 50=Some cooperation, 75=Good cooperation with donors and international community? ✔ X X cooperation, 100=Perfect cooperation 0=No cooperation, 25=little cooperation, To what level does the local government cooperates with 4 50=Some cooperation, 75=Good other municipalities? ✔ X X cooperation, 100=Perfect cooperation 0=No cooperation, 25=little cooperation, Is there a good internal cooperation within the municipal 5 50=Some cooperation, 75=Good council? ✔ X X cooperation, 100=Perfect cooperation Sub. 5 Satisfaction towards services: What is the degree of citizens' satisfaction with the quality of public service delivery and its accessibility? What is the level of municipal service delivery availability % of Citizens that give an opinion for all 21 1 and access? services scored X X ✔ To what extent are the citizens satisfied with the quality of 2 Aggregation of scores for all 21 services service delivery in their municipality? X X ✔ 0=No assessment at all, 25=irregular and Does local government conduct assessments to determine few assessment, 50=Some assessments,

3 the level of satisfaction that citizens have with the delivery 75= regular assessments, 100=full ✔ ✔ X of public services? procedure and regularity for citizen assessments of service satisfaction 0=no, 25=few people, 50=some people, 4 Do people have equal access to local government services? 75=most people, 100=all people ✔ ✔ ✔ Is the process of obtaining municipal administrative 0=very difficult, 25= difficult, 50=average, 5 services (permits, licenses, certifications, different 75=easy, 100=very easy X ✔ ✔ documents etc.) easily accessed? Do women and men have equal access to local 0 to 100 where 0=not at all equal and 100= 6 government services? completely equal X X ✔

Indicator Scoring Scale Data Source Municipal Community Citizen Desk Focus Criteria Transparency and Rule of Law Dialogues Report Card Research Groups Transparency: Is information related to public service delivery performance and resources planning and utilization (including bidding Sub. 1 processes) available and accessible for citizens? 0-Not at all transparent to 100-Completely 1 How Transparent is your local Government? transparent X X ✔

0=No Information, 25=little information, Is there a good information flow from the Municipality 50=some information, 75=good 2 around local projects, activities, municipal budget or information, 100=All necessary ✔ ✔ ✔ service provision available and accessible? information/Very Good Does the municipality have transparent administrative 0=No at transparent procedures, 25=little

3 procedures (e.g. to get a building permit, business license, transparent, 50=Average, 75=Good level of ✔ ✔ X etc.)? transparency, 100=Fully transparent 0=No Information, 25=little information, Do communities have access to information about the 50=some information, 75=good 4 performance of the local services, the resources available information, 100=All necessary ✔ ✔ X to it, and how these resources were used? information/Very Good 0= no website, 25= website with little Does the municipality have a website that is updated with update, 50= website with average update, 5 the all relevant information? 75= website with good updated, 100= ✔ ✔ X website with full updated information Rule of Law: Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework: What is the level of effectiveness of the institutional legal framework - at local Sub. 2 level? Is the institutional legal framework effective and efficient 0=Not at all effective, 25= little,

1 in ensuring equal rights for all municipality citizens 50=Average, 70=Good level, 100=Fully ✔ ✔ X (women, man, youth, and vulnerable groups)? effective 0=No measures, 25=few measures, Are there measures in place (with regard to municipality) 2 50=some measures, 75=Good measures, to educate citizens about their legal rights and obligations? ✔ ✔ X 100=All necessary measures 0=no awareness raising, 25=little Does the local government raise awareness through its awareness raising, 50=some awareness 3 own website or public media (radio, newspapers, and raising, 75=good awareness Raising, ✔ ✔ ✔ social media) about laws and local regulations? 100=full awareness raising Does the Municipality enforce local laws and regulations 4 Scale: 0=Not at all to 100= completely impartially? X X ✔ Sub. 3 Incidence of Corruption: What is the degree of corruption? Is there any anti-corruption policy, strategy or action plan 0=No Policy/strategy/action plan,

1 in place dealing with corruption or bribing cases at local 50=existing but insufficient, 100=Existing ✔ ✔ X level? and sufficient What is Corruption Perception level for the Municipal Scale: 0=Completely corrupt to 100= Not at 2 Government? all corrupt X X ✔

% of citizens how had at least one contact What is the Corruption Experience level with the Municipal 3 with Municipality during the last 12 months Structures? X X ✔ and said that no bribe was paid or implied. 0=no mechanisms, 25=poor mechanisms, Are there local government systems/mechanisms to 4 50=average, 75=good mechanisms, prevent corruption in your Municipality? ✔ ✔ X 100=Perfect mechanisms

Indicator Scoring Scale Data Source Municipal Community Citizen Desk Focus Criteria Accountability Dialogues Report Card Research Groups Sub. 1 Checks and Balances: Are there institutions, which have control, supervision, and sanction power on the local administration? 0=no, there aren't any, 25= few forums with Are there open forums for CSOs to engage with local little access, 50=some forums with some

1 authorities on the Municipal budgeting and planning access, 75=Yes there are forums mostly ✔ ✔ X process? accessible, 100=Enough Forums fully accessible (0 = Not capable at all; 25=Mostly not Are local non-governmental organizations well equipped 2 capable; 50=Average, 75= Mostly Capable, and skilled to hold local government accountable? ✔ ✔ X 100 = Very capable Does the Municipal Council have oversight of the municipal 0=no, 25=poor, 50=fair, 75, very good, 3 government functions? 100=excellent, ✔ ✔ X Does the municipality management follow adequately the 0=not at all, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 4 recommendations of the audits (State Audit)? 75=a lot of the time, 100=all the time ✔ X X 0=No/No community councils exist, Are community councils involved in the monitoring and 25=little involvement, 50=average, 5 evaluation of the public sector performance? 75=good involvement, 100=Very high ✔ ✔ X (departments, projects, budgeting) involvement Sub.2 Recourse: Are there any recourse mechanisms for different groups in place, and are they effective? 0=no mechanisms, 25=there is a mechanism but with little or no feedback Does the municipality have the mechanisms for lodging 50=there is a mechanism with average 1 complaints and giving a feedback (e.g. Complaint Office)? feedback, 75=there is a mechanism with ✔ ✔ X good feedback, 100=there is a mechanism with full feedback 11

0=no mechanisms, 25=few mechanisms, Is there any feedback mechanisms established for citizens 50=some mechanisms, 75=good number of 2 to share inputs with local government concerning services mechanisms, 100=all the necessary ✔ ✔ X delivery? mechanisms 0=No effectiveness 25= Mostly ineffective,

3 How effective is the municipality in treating citizens' or 50=Average, 75= Mostly effective, ✔ ✔ X businesses' complaints? 100=Very effective Sub. 3 Government's Responsiveness: What is the level of Municipality local government's responsiveness? 0=no responsiveness, 25=little Is the local government responsive to requests (i.e. letters responsiveness, 50=some responsiveness, 1 and phones calls) from the community regarding projects, 75= good responsiveness, 100= full ✔ ✔ X developmental issues etc.? responsiveness 0=no responsiveness, 25=little Is the local government responsive to filed complaints of responsiveness, 50=some responsiveness, 2 citizens? 75= good responsiveness, 100= full X ✔ ✔ responsiveness What is the average of resolved complaints by the 0=No data or & of cases resolved over the 3 municipality? total cases X X X ✔

Indicator Scoring Scale Data Source Municipal Citizen Community Desk Focus Report Criteria Participation and Citizen Engagement Dialogues Research Groups Card Sub. 1 Institutional Framework: Is there an effective institutional framework for managing citizen participation? Are there opportunities/platforms for citizen participation 0=No opportunities, 25=few opportunities, in development planning (annual plans, budgets, and 50=some opportunities, 75=Good 1 legislations) and decision-making process (LGUs public opportunities, 100=All necessary ✔ ✔ X consultation process, municipal council meetings etc.)? opportunities/Very Good 0=No structure, 25=few structures 50= Are there community structures as councils, arising from some structures, 75=a good number of 2 civic initiative, which tackle different issues and propose structures, 100=all necessary/needed ✔ ✔ X changes and suggestions to the local government? structures How effective is the function of the Coordinator of public 0=Not at all effective, 25=little, 50=average, 3 consultation and notification at your municipality? 75=good, 100=very good ✔ ✔ X

How effective is the function of the Coordinator of the 0=Not at all effective, 25=little, 50=average, 4 Right on Information at your Municipality? 75=good, 100=very good ✔ ✔ X 0=no system 25=limited participation with no or little impact, 50=average Does the Municipality have a participatory budget system, participation with average/good impact, 5 where citizens have the opportunity to participate and 75=good participation with good impact, ✔ X X affect allocations? 100= very good participation with full impact Decision making: Is there an effective dialogue platform which ensures the involvement of all stakeholders in the process of Sub. 2 decision making? Are the CSO able to lobby and advocate effectively to 0=No ability, 25=little, 50=average, 1 influence local government planning and decision-making? 75=Good, 100=Great/Very good ability ✔ ✔ X Does Local Government engage youth in government 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 2 decision making? 75=often, 100=always ✔ ✔ X Does Local government engage vulnerable groups 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 3 (disabled, extreme poor, marginalized communities, 75=often, 100=always ✔ ✔ X elderly) in decision making? Does the local government engage women in decision 4 Average of three indices below making? X X X ✔

4.1 Percentage of Women at the Municipal Council >=50% equals 100 points X X X ✔

4.2 Percentage of Women in Management Positions >=50% equals 100 points X X X ✔ Percentage of Women over total number of Municipal 4.3 >=50% equals 100 points Employees X X X ✔ How effective is the function of gender and domestic 0=Not at all effective, 25=little, 50=average, 5 violence officer/professional in your municipality? 75=good, 100=very good ✔ ✔ X Sub. 3 Citizen Engagement: What is the level of citizen engagement? Do citizens participate in local government strategic 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 1 planning meetings? 75=often, 100=always ✔ ✔ X % of households that has done at least one Are citizens active in engaging with local government or of the following: Participated in public 2 CSOs to improve local situation? meetings, hearings, Council sessions, NGO X X ✔ activities, Communal activities, etc.

Are the local government projects implemented with the 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 3 participation of local actors/citizens in the Municipality? 75=often, 100=always ✔ ✔ X Are citizens involved in the monitoring and evaluation of 0= no involvement, 25= little involvement,

4 the public sector performance? (departments, projects, 50= some involvement, 75= a lot of ✔ ✔ X budgeting) involvement, 100= very high involvement Sub. 4 Civic engagement: What is the level of civic engagement? % of citizens that declare membership at Are citizens affiliated or have membership in political least on the following – political part, 1 parties, trade unions and NGOs? religious group, charity organization, X X ✔ NGO/association, community group, etc. 0=no awareness, 25=little awareness, Are citizens aware of their civil rights and responsibilities 2 50=some awareness, 75=a lot of as members of the community? ✔ ✔ X awareness, 100=full awareness % of people who declare that have had at Are citizens active in interacting with local government or least one interaction which local 3 publicly expressing their opinions about government or have public expressed their X X ✔ local/political/social issues? opinion on a local issue Are the CSOs active and effective in civic education 0=Not at all, 25=little effective, 50=average 4 regarding citizen's right and responsibilities? 75=Effective, 100=Highly effective X ✔ X 0=no capability, 25= little capability, Does the media have the capability to raise awareness on 5 50=some capability, 75= Good capability rights, responsibilities and key local developmental issues? X ✔ ✔ ✔ 100= Very High capability

2. Research Methods

For the overall purpose of this assignment, aiming to collect all the necessary information will be used different methods, including desk research, quantitative research and qualitative research.

Desk research This method involves gathering data that already exists either from internal sources of the UNDP (project documents, development objectives, indicators), or through publications of governmental and non- governmental institutions (reports, statistics). This initial desk research method is very important to gain background and specific knowledge of Local Governance issues. In addition to the first phase where preliminary desk research will help to get a useful lead for the research process, the method will be used also for the analytical framework, furnishing it with information for scoring purposes. For further information on the questions for which will be obtained a scoring from the desk research data refer to Table 1.

Qualitative research The qualitative research will be completed through various techniques, including the Municipality Focus Groups, In-Depth Interviews with Municipality Key Professionals and Community Dialogues. This component will be crucial in supplying the assessment score for many indicators of the Analytical Framework.

Quantitative research The quantitative research component for the purposes of this project involves the Citizen Report Card (CRC) survey. Please for the CRC questionnaire refer to Annex D.

The survey is representative of municipality population. A total of 12 000 interviews are envisaged all over Albania with an average of about N=200 interviews per Municipality.

A specific questionnaire has been developed for this component.

3. Desk Research

The desk research will serve different purposes

 Help understand the situation of the Municipality in terms of development  Create e profile of the Municipality which will be used for reporting purposes  Assess some of the criteria of Analytical Framework from data obtained at Municipal Level

The typology of data and documentation required by the Municipalities is the following:

1. Macro data – which includes the number of villages, households, population per each administrative unit, and the number of municipal employs in total, professionals in managerial positions and total members of municipal council aggregated by gender (organigram of the company) 2. Social data – containing the number of the persons and families that receive social assistance and the number of facilities such as schools, health centers etc. 3. Economic Data – including data about the latest budget of each municipality with respective revenues and expenses, and information on the number of business and farms at administrative unit level. 4. Data on Public service provided – like the surface of the asphalted roads, sidewalks, surface of green areas etc. 5. Relevant institutional plans – General Local Plan, Strategic plans and any Sectorial Plan

4. Qualitative research

The qualitative component of Local Governance Mapping is composed of the following:  Municipality Staff Focus Groups  Semi-Structured Interviews with Municipal Officials  Community Dialogues – Focus Groups 4.1 Municipality Focus Groups The methodology envisions in each Municipality a Focus Group Discussion with Municipality Managerial Staff. In total there will be:  20 FGs in Cluster 1,  21 FGs in Cluster 2  20 FGs in cluster 3.

These group discussions in the municipality level will ensure the collection of qualitative information regarding specific local governance services and in the same time will provide scoring for relevant issues included in the Analytical Framework (issues to be asked in the Municipal Staff FG are specified in the Analytical Framework) The composition of this group is the following

 Representatives/Managers/Directors from the main Departments of the Municipality (Economic Development/Finance, Public Works, Urban Planning, etc.)  Administrators of Administrative Units

It is expected that each Group will be composed by 10-14 people. During the Focus Groups the participants must fulfill a participation list, which should include the (name, gender, position, telephone and email contact).

A specific moderation guide which reflects the dimensions of the Analytical Framework is designed for these FGs and it is found in Annex A 4.2 Semi-structured interviews In obtaining the qualitative data concerning local government services, semi-structured interviews with municipality officials will be used, offering more detailed information. It is expected that at least 6 semi- structured interviews will be conducted in each municipality with specific key local government staff as shown below: 1. Mayor 2. Head of Municipal Council 3. Financial and Budgeting Department – Head/Director 4. Social and Economic Development Department or similar dept.– Head/Director 5. Department of Public Works and Services – Head/Director 6. Department/Sector responsible for mechanisms for transparency and accountability – coordinator for information

Please find the Semi Structured Interview Guide in Annex B. 32

4.3 Community Dialogues

Community Dialogues are crucial in obtaining qualitative data from citizens and other stakeholders.

The project envisions 30 community dialogues in each cluster. The distribution of these CDs should be the following:

 In 10 population-wise largest municipalities within each cluster, there will be conducted 2 community dialogues  1 (one) in the Municipal Center – Urban and  1 (one) in Administrative Units – Rural  In the other 10 smaller municipalities, only 1 (one) Community Dialogue at the center of Municipality will be conducted.

Each community dialogue is expected to be composed by 15-20 participants, representing the following groups:

 Citizens  Civil Society Organization (formal or non-formal) of the area  Local Media Representatives  Business Representatives

A specific Moderation Guide for the Community Dialogues, which reflect that dimensions that need to be assessed and scored, is presented in Annex C. Please note that the Moderation Guide is accompanied by specific scoring exercise which will be used during the group discussions. Please note that for each community dialogue the participants must fulfill the participation list, which should include their name, gender, group (citizen, NGO), urbanity and telephone contacts.

The following tables present the locations of Community Dialogues per each Cluster.

Table 2. Municipality Focus Groups in Cluster 1

Group Nr. Municipality Admin Unit Size Urbanity

1 Durrës DURRËS 113249 Urban

2 Durrës RRASHBULL 24081 Rural

3 Shkodër SHKODËR 77075 Urban

4 Shkodër RRETHINAT 21199 Rural

5 Kamëz KAMËZ 66841 Urban 6 Kamëz PASKUQAN 37349 Rural 7 Lezhë LEZHË 15510 Urban 8 Lezhë SHENKOLL 13102 Rural 9 Dibër PESHKOPI 13251 Urban 10 Dibër MAQELLARË 10662 Rural 11 Krujë KRUJË 11721 Urban 12 Krujë FUSHË KRUJË 18477 Rural 13 Kukës KUKËS 16719 Urban 14 Kukës BICAJ 5631 Rural 15 Kurbin LAÇ 17086 Urban 16 Kurbin MAMURRAS 15284 Rural 17 Bulqizë BULQIZË 8177 Urban 18 Bulqizë SHUPENZË 5503 Rural 19 Malësi e Madhe MALËSI E MADHE 3734 Urban 20 Malësi e Madhe GRUEMIRË 8890 Rural 21 Vau I Dejës VAU I DEJËS 8117 Mixed 22 Shijak SHIJAK 7568 Mixed 23 Mat BURREL 10862 Mixed 24 Vorë VORË 10901 Mixed 25 Mirditë RRËSHEN 8803 Mixed 26 Tropojë BAJRAM CURRI 5340 Mixed 27 Krumë KRUMË 6006 Mixed 28 Klos KLOS 7873 Mixed 29 Pukë PUKË 3607 Mixed 30 Fushë Arrës FUSHË ARRËS 2513 Mixed

Table 3. Municipality Focus Groups in Cluster 2

Group Nr. Municipality Admin Unit Size Urbanity

1 Tiranë TIRANË 418495 Urban

2 Tiranë KASHAR 43353 Rural

3 Elbasan ELBASAN 78703 Urban

4 Elbasan BRADASHESH 10700 Rural

5 Korçë KORÇË 51152 Urban 6 Korçë QENDËR BULGAREC 9022 Rural 7 Pogradec POGRADEC 20848 Urban 8 Pogradec BUÇIMAS 15687 Rural 9 Berat BERAT 36496 Urban 10 Berat OTLLAK 9218 Rural 11 Maliq MALIQ 4290 Urban 12 Maliq POJAN 10864 Rural 13 Librazhd LIBRAZHD 6937 Urban 14 Librazhd QENDËR 8551 Rural 15 Kuçovë KUÇOVË 12654 Urban 16 Kuçovë PERONDI 9005 Rural 17 Cërrik CËRRIK 6695 Urban 18 Cërrik GOSTIMË 8116 Rural 19 Ura Vajgurore URA VAJGURORE 7232 Urban 20 Ura Vajgurore KUTALLI 9643 Rural 21 Devoll DEVOLL 5440 Mixed 22 Peqin PEQIN 6353 Mixed 23 Prrenjas PRRENJAS 5847 Mixed 24 Gramsh GRAMSH 8440 Mixed 25 Rrogozhinë RROGOZHINË 7049 Mixed 26 Roskovec ROSKOVEC 4975 Mixed 27 Belsh BELSH 8781 Mixed 28 Skrapar SKRAPAR 4051 Mixed 29 Kolonjë KOLONJË 3746 Mixed 30 Poliçan POLIÇAN 4318 Mixed 31 Pustec PUSTEC 3290 Mixed

Table 4. Municipality Focus Groups in Cluster 3

Group Nr. Municipality Admin Unit Size Urbanity

1 Vlore VLORE 79513 Urban

2 Vlore NOVOSELE 8209 Rural 3 Fier FIER 55845 Urban 4 Fier CAKRAN 11722 Rural 5 Lushnje LUSHNJE 31105 Urban 6 Lushnje DUSHK 7872 Rural 7 Kavaje KAVAJE 20192 Urban 8 Kavaje GOLEM 6994 Rural 9 Gjirokaster GJIROKASTER 19836 Urban 10 Gjirokaster LAZARAT 2801 Rural 11 Sarande SARANDE 17233 Urban

12 Sarande KSAMIL 2994 Rural

13 Patos PATOS 15397 Urban

14 Patos ZHARREZ 5236 Rural

15 Divjake TERBUF 10201 Urban

16 Divjake DIVJAKE 8445 Rural

17 Mallakaster BALLSH 7657 Urban

18 Mallakaster QENDER 6253 Rural

19 Permet PERMET 5945 Urban

20 Permet QENDER PISKOVE 1742 Rural

21 Delvine DELVINE 5754 Mixed 22 Tepelene TEPELENE 4342 Mixed

23 Konispol XARRE 4263 Mixed 24 Livadhja ALIKO 3849 Mixed 25 Selenice KOTE 3516 Mixed 26 Himare LUKOVE 2916 Mixed 27 Kelcyre KELCYRE 2651 Mixed 28 Memaljaj MEMALIAJ 2647 Mixed 29 Dropull DROPULL I POSHTEM 2100 Mixed 30 Libohove LIBOHOVE 1992 Mixed

5. Quantitative Research

5.1 Sampling

The sampling implemented is a multi-stage stratified cluster sampling. According to the TOR it is expected the mapping in each selected cluster of municipalities: Lot 1 (Cluster 1) Lot 2 (Cluster 2) Lot 3 (Cluster 3) 1. Shkoder 1. Tirane 1. Kavaje 2. Vau i Dejes 2. Elbasan 2. Divjake 3. Puke 3. Gramsh 3. Lushnje 4. Malesi e Madhe/Koplik 4. Belsh 4. Fier 5. Fushe Arres 5. Cerrik 5. Patos 6. Kukes 6. Peqin 6. Mallakaster/Ballsh 7. Tropoje/Bajram Curri 7. Prrenjas 7. Memaliaj 8. Krume 8. Librazhd 8. Tepelene 9. Lezhe 9. Maliq 9. Gjirokaster 10. Mirdite/Rreshen 10. Pogradec 10. Permet 11. Kurbin/Lac 11. Korce 11. Kelcyre 12. Diber/Peshkopi 12. Devoll/Bilisht 12. Libohove 13. Bulqize 13. Kolonje/Erseke 13. Dropull 14. Mat/Burrel 14. Pustec 14. Sarande 15. Klos 15. Berat 15. Finiq/Livadhja 16. Kruje 16. Skrapar/Corovode 16. Konispol 17. Vore 17. Polican 17. Delvine 18. Durres 18. Ura Vajgurore 18. Himare 19. Shijak 19. Kucove 19. Selenice 20. Kamez 20. Rrogozhine 20. Vlore 21. Roskovec

Number of citizens to be interviewed in each Primary Sampling Unit considers the criteria as follows:

 In all municipalities, which has a population up to 25 000 citizens, the number of interviews to be conducted is 150 each;  In those municipalities with a total population from 25 001 to 60 000 citizens, the number of interviews to be conducted is 200 each.  In municipalities with a total population from 60 001 to 110 000 citizens, the number of interviews to be conducted is 250 each,  In those municipalities with more than 110 000 citizens in its population, the number of interviews to be conducted is 300 each.  In Tirana municipality, the number of interviews to be conducted is 600 in total. 37

Table 5. Sampling criteria and total number of interviews to be conducted Criteria Sample Size Municipalities Total Up to 25000 150 28 4200 25001-60000 200 20 4000 60001 -110000 250 8 2000 over 110 000 300 4 1200 Tirana 600 1 600 Overall Total 61 12000

Based on the criteria above, each municipality will be “its own universe” in terms of sampling, therefore, there is a sample designed for each of the 61 units in each of the 3 clusters (lots). The Sample Calculation and Distribution for each Cluster can be found at Annex C.

Within each administrative unit is conducted an exercise to define the Primary Sampling Units. As proposed, we conducted this exercise based on the areas defined by Voting Centers. This is a good solution since voting centers are already defined, there is information on the density of population (proxy of 18+ voters per each center, which is also the target of our survey), we know the geographical borders for each Voting Center, and there is clear distinction between Urban and Rural voting centers.

Below we present the scheme for sampling design within each of all administrative units.

•Selection of Primary Sampling units (PSU) •Stratification by region and urbanity Stage 1

•Selection of Household Units/HUs (SSUs) •Adjusted Random Route Method Stage 2

•Selection of Respondent (Ultimate Sampling Unit) •Last Birthday Method Stage 3

5.1.1 STEP1 - Selection of the Primary Sampling Units 5.1.1.1 Sampling Frame

Geographic areas of each polling area serve as our sampling frame for Primary Sampling Units (PSUs). Each polling area has a Voting Center (VC) where voters registered in that area cast their vote. Voting Centers are located usually in easily recognized buildings such as schools, kindergartens, etc. It is important to note that VCs are not the clusters of the sampling. The polling area (covered by the VC) serves as geographical cluster of the sampling. Since a VC identifies a polling area, for ease of expression, throughout this material, VCs is used to denote polling areas.

List of VCs fulfills all the requirements of a sampling frame:

a) Coverage: The territory of each administrative unit is divided in polling areas. Thus, polling areas are exhaustive of the territory of unit. b) Exclusivity: Polling areas are non-overlapping or mutually exclusive. c) Representativeness: Polling areas do not overlap with the administrative division of Albania. This means that each polling area lies within the administrative boundaries of a region and no polling area is divided among regions. d) Accuracy: Also, due to political pressure lists of voters are updated every election, be it local or central; and Albania last local elections were held in 2013. Voters in Albania are of age 18 years old and over. The number or registered voters is highly correlated with the number of households units in polling areas. As per the target group, we will interview 18+ citizens for this survey. e) Size & interviews per VCs/cluster: IDRA possesses and uses the database of voting centers of the last elections out of which it can make a random selection of these points. We have all the maps (in digital form) where all the voting stations are identified. In each PSU will be conducted 10 interviews, which represents a reasonable balance of economy and precision (i.e., the impact of cluster size on the confidence interval). There are cases where the proportion of the population of an administrative unit predicts a lower number of interviews. In these few cases, we accepted a lower number of interviews but not under 7. Number of interviews calculated to be conducted in an administrative unit is distributed into several PSUs. However, there are cases where number of interviews to be conducted in an administrative unit is low (under 15 interviews). In this circumstances we picked up only one PSU. Cluster size is neither too big nor too small. Clusters too big are not recommended since the interviews conducted for the cluster may be too few compared to the number of respondent located in the cluster and thus not represent it. Also, clusters too small are not recommended since the interviews conducted per cluster may over-represent the cluster in the sample.

So, for each administrative unit we selected the Primary Sampling Units per each cluster (as shown at List of PSU).

5.1.1.2 Stratification

IDRA possesses and uses the VC list made public by Central Election Commission (CEC) of Albania. The database of the VCs has the following information:

1. VCs ID 2. The number of registered voters 3. Address of VC 4. Region where the VC is located 5. Urban- Rural information

We stratified the selection units by the following order:

a) Stratification by Administrative Unit – each region is considered as a separate stratum. The designed number of VCs is randomly selected for each stratum. b) Stratification by urban-rural division – selected VCs for each region is divided proportionally to the number of voters located in urban and rural polling areas for that specific region. Percentages on urbanity is cross-checked with available data on population for each region.

5.1.1.3 Defining the sampling frame

IDRA calculated the number of interviews in each of the administrative units of the municipalities. The distribution of interviews within each municipality is calculated to be proportional to the population of the administrative units. The sample size simulation tables for each municipality and administrative unit are presented in Annex 5.

5.1.2 STEP 2 – Selection of the Household

Each selected PSU (Primary Sampling Unit) will be divided into four areas (quadrants). In each of these areas (quadrants) will be conducted four interviews, so in total there will be the total number of interviews per PSU. Four starting points will be randomly selected. As starting points may serve: houses/buildings on the selected streets/block, crossroads (for orientation), public buildings, local administration buildings, schools, bus stations. See the illustration on the map below.

Figure 2. Illustration of a Map of Primary Sampling Unit (PSU)

All interviewers will be given starting points and instructions on how to select households by using the ‘random route’ method and selecting every third household by moving on the right side and the right direction.

Once at the given starting point, the interviewer will place his or her back to the (main) entrance of the structure and move to the right (rule: always go to the right). Counting three households (excluding the starting point), the interviewer will attempt contact at the third household. This household is considered the main sample household.

Here’s an illustration of the second stage sampling. The Primary Sampling Unit defined by polling area 1786, is further divided in 4 quadrants and within each quadrant a starting point for Random Route Method is selected.

The interviewer is required to conduct up to three visits at the main sample household at different times of the day, days of the week, and the weekend to conduct an interview. If the interviewer cannot obtain an interview at the main sample household, the interviewer selects another main household for the specific questionnaire number by continuing with the interval or random route procedure from the last of the four established main households.

HOUSEHOLD SELECTION (ILLUSTRATION)

Movement from the Starting Point: Figure 3 to the left is a R5 SP X1 X2 simplistic description of a city block. SP denotes the starting point that has been selected. Once at the given starting point, the interviewer will have to place his or her back to the (main) entrance of the structure and move to the right X3 (Rule: Always go to the right). R4

Counting three households (excluding the starting point), the interviewer will attempt a contact at the third household, marked here as X1. The third household could X4 be a structure like an apartment building, in which case, R3 the interviewer will enter the building and using rules R2 R1 outlined, determine the household to be selected. Figure 3. Household Selection Structures that are not occupied or where no one lives or institutions such as schools and hospitals will not be counted as part of the interval. The definition of interval includes only households that are occupied. Interviewer will have to make every effort to find out whether a unit is occupied or not before counting it to skip households.

This household, X1 is the first main household where the interviewer will make three attempts, on separate occasions, to secure an interview with an eligible household member. Every effort should be made so that those attempts are distributed over more than one day to provide an opportunity for hard- to-reach individuals to be included in the sample. There may be times when it is not possible to return to an area on another day and attempts will have to be made on the same day. In this case, it is important to leave a gap of at least 2 hours between each attempt, unless it is by appointment.

The enumerator tries to approach the respondent only in the selected HU (household unit). a) If the enumerator contacts the legible member of the HU the enumerator presents her/ himself and the purpose of the study and asks the respondent to participate. b) If the enumerator contacts a member of the HU other than the one that is eligible for the interview, the enumerator does a listing of household members to be interviewed and leaves an appointment. The enumerator tries to contact the legible respondent two other times. If no contact is made after the third attempt the household is considered as unsuccessful. This method is called the Random Route Method. c) If there is no response from the HU on the first attempt the enumerator writes down the address of the HU and tries to contact a member of the HU two other times by scheduling a meeting at a convenient time. If the enumerator fails to contact a member of the HU in three attempts the selected HH is considered as unsuccessful and the reason is recorded.

5.1.3 STEP3 - Selection of the respondent

When the household unit (HU) is selected, the enumerator lists all the members of the household aged 15 years and over on their birthday and gender. The enumerator selects the member of the household who had celebrated the last birthday from the day of the interview. Enumerator cannot interview more than one respondent per household.

Successful and unsuccessful interviews

An interview is considered successful when the selected respondent is contacted and agrees to participate in the study.

An interview is considered unsuccessful when:

1. the selected respondent refuses to participate, 2. the enumerator fails to contact the selected respondent after the third approach or 3. there are no permanent residents in the HU.

Both successful and unsuccessful interviews records (address of the household, name of a member of the household/name of the respondent, a phone number, successful or unsuccessful, reason of being unsuccessful) are recorded by the enumerators in the Random Route Report. This report is not part of the questionnaire and data serve for quality check-only. They are recorded in a separate database than that of the study, abiding to international research standards. 5.2 ELECTRONIC DATA COLLECTION

Interviews to be conducted in Lot 2 will be conducted by IDRA. IDRA will employ the Electronic Data Capturing technology for the data-gathering process: all interviews will be conducted via CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing). IDRA possesses all necessary means, equipment and capacity to conduct interviews via EDC.

The scripts defining the entry form will automatically perform logical controls and consistency checks and immediately notify interviewers of potential issues.

During and post the data entry phase, questionnaire data is subject to five kinds of checks: a) Range checks, b) Checks against reference data, c) Skip checks, d) Consistency checks and, e) Typographic checks

a) Range checks are intended to ensure that every variable in the survey contains only data within a limited domain of valid values. Categorical variables can have only one of the values predefined for them on the questionnaire (for example, gender can be coded only as 1 for males or 2 for females); chronological variables should contain valid dates, and numerical variables should lie within prescribed minimum and maximum values (such as 0 to 95 years for age.) b) A special case of range checking occurs when the data from two or more closely related fields can be checked against external reference tables such as the case of Consistency of geographical regions, for example. c) Skip checks. These verify whether the skip patterns have been followed appropriately. Depending on his or her age and gender, each respondent is supposed to answer (or skip) specific sections of the questionnaire. d) Consistency checks. These checks verify that values from one question are consistent with values from another question. A simple check occurs when both values are from the same statistical unit, for example, the date of birth and age of a given individual. e) Typographical checks. Control totals and check digits’ procedures are followed when possible. The use of tablets has also other data quality assurance. It allows an increase in the quality and speed of the work process with conveniences, among others, such as:  Automatic recording in the system of the time and date of the interview.  Geo-location function allows the recording and tracking of the location of the interview and by bringing a graphical representation of each questionnaire in the fieldwork (checking also whether the interviews are conducting in the specified primary sampling unit).  Managing the duration of the interview (no questions can be skipped without being answered to).

5.3 Assistance for Lot 1 and Lot 2 In case of cluster 1 and 2 in which the interviews will be conducted not by IDRA, we will assist the responsible company for the interviews. Our assistance will consist of:  If the responsible company will conduct the interviews paper based format, then IDRA will provide the data entry platform link to the company so that the interviews collected in paper can be entered in the online data platform. IDRA will then provide the specific organization with the database in a specific format (required by the organizations Excel, SPSS, STATA etc) so that the organization can clean and validate and also process the data.  If the responsible company will conduct the interviews using Tablet, IDRA will assist the company providing our data entry platform files so that the interviews will be entered in the same format in the database.

6. Work Calendar

For the purpose of this assignment, it has been developed the work calendar as presented below. Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 Month/ Week 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ID Project Item Responsibility A Preparatory Phase A.1 Methodological framework - Principles UNDP Matrix of Dimensions and Subcriteria - A.2 Finalized IDRA & UNDP A.3 CRC Questionnaire Draft IDRA & UNDP Moderation Guides for CD/Focus Groups along with instructions for A.4 composition/Scoring Exercises IDRA & UNDP Sampling for CRC survey - Finalization for A.5 all lots IDRA & URI & GADC Final Methodology agregated (along with report structure and final quantitative and qualitative questionnaires) Pilto of the A.6 instruments is part of this phase IDRA & UNDP Training of all Lots with the methodology A.7 (1st of Dec. 2016) IDRA B Fieldwork Phase Notification of the Municipalities about the B.1 upcoming project STAR 2 Informative meetings with the STAR 2 & IDRA & B.2 Municipalities URI & GADC B.2 Qualitative Fieldwork Logistical Arrangements for field trips to B.3.1 municipalities/ Contacts with municipalities, calendars, agenda etc IDRA & URI & GADC

B3.2 Fieldtrips - Municipal Meetings/FGs/CD IDRA & URI & GADC B.3.3 Analysis of the Qualitative Component IDRA & URI & GADC B.4 Quantitative Fieldwork B.4.1 Training of enumerators IDRA & URI & GADC B.4.2 Fieldwork - Data Collection IDRA & URI & GADC B.4.3 Data Entry IDRA & URI & GADC B.4.4 Data Cleaning and Validation IDRA & URI & GADC C Analysis Phase Data Processing and Visualization C.1 Instructions IDRA C.2 Data Processing and Visualization IDRA & URI & GADC C.3 Municipal Reports - First Drafts IDRA & URI & GADC Review and Comments by UNDP and UNDP& Ministry- C.4 Ministry - STAR 2 STAR 2 D Reports and Workshops D.1 Results Sharing Workshops IDRA & URI & GADC D.2 Translation of Reports IDRA & URI & GADC D.3 Final Reports IDRA & URI & GADC D.4 Agregated Report - National Summary TBC

ANNEX A. Moderation Guide for Municipality Focus Groups

Field Guide for Data Collection Local Governance Mapping – STAR 2

Generic Moderation Guide – Municipality Focus Groups

Area of Discussion Time Introduction to the Discussion 5 min Part I: Effectiveness & Efficiency - Strategic and Operational Plans - Financial Management 40 min - Informed Decision Making - Satisfaction Towards Services Part II: Transparency & Rule of Law - Rule of law 30 min - Transparency - Incidence of Corruption Part III: Accountability - Checks and Balances 30 min - Recourse - Government’s Responsiveness Part IV: Participation & Citizen’s Engagement - Institutional Framework - Decision Making 30 min - Citizen’s Engagement - Civic Engagement Total: 135 min

Methodology:

Introduction of Moderator and explanation of research background and objective. This document contains proposed questions to be used in the Focus Group. It is very important that these be focus group discussions among participants - and not a set of questions or dialogue between the moderator and individual participants. Participants should be encouraged to join the discussion, intervene and respond to each other's comments, not only to answer the questions of the moderator. Ideally, we are looking forward to participants' comments to be short, and to stimulate other participants agree, disagree, or comment in a way, as in normal conversations and discussions.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 32 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

The moderator should:

1. Ensure confidentiality and anonymity for participants. Nothing you say will not identify with them personally, nor disclosed to any third party. Their comments will be used only in the report, anonymously. They will appear as such "Focus group participant 3", etc.

Note: all participants in research and focus groups are guaranteed anonymity and that all data be anonymous. 2. Make sure that the participants will discuss all the topics in this document, and in the order in which they are located. The same sequence of questions will be used for different groups. Even if some questions do not seem relevant to a particular group, please ask these questions to this group and let participants to criticize the questions if this is their opinion. The facilitator should ask questions. 3. Ensure that the time spent on various topics to be approximately the same as the time indicated in this instruction. 4. To encourage / welcome all ideas with the same interest and not disobey / discourage any - participants should feel that the moderator is interested in their views, but not to feel that some views are less acceptable than others. 5. Encourage equal participation, ensuring that all participants contribute to the discussion, and that any participant does not dominate the discussion while leaving others aside. 6. Keep comments short and interactive - if a participant has many ideas to express, the moderator can intervene and encourage other participants to react to some of these ideas before you allow the first participant continue to introduce more ideas. If FG goes well, we expect that the transcripts show that the typical contribution given by a participant will not be longer than five lines of text - before the other participants react or respond to input his / her. Sometimes contribution can be short, for example, "Agree", "No", "Not so", etc.

Transcripts should: 1. Include all discussions - including questions of the moderator, incentives, etc.-exactly as recorded on video / tape. DO NOT automatically copy words from the instruction for moderator - transcripts must provide the exact words as stated by the facilitator. 2. Identify the speaker clearly - no matter if participant or moderator. The facilitator should begin the discussion by asking everyone to introduce themselves (not to be their full name, but the name that they want to use the FG. In the transcript, the name must be attached to all contributions made by him participants, regardless of whether they are long or short, and this name must also be attached to the mini-questionnaire (like M5), in order to have an idea of who that person is given the comments. 3. None of these things do not break the anonymity of participants: we do not want the full names, addresses or specific professions - only a short name that identifies the speaker.

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME  Goals (DO NOT READ OUT): To provide a general presentation of non-technical discussion, so everyone is relaxed and participate.  Welcome to our discussion. This is part of a UNDP study implemented by (name of agency, i.e. IDRA Research and Consulting Company), in support of good local governance practices. Main objectives of this project include: Strengthening institutional and administrative capacities of LGUs; Improving service delivery at LGU level; and Increasing good governance through citizen oriented and meaningful participatory decision-making.  There are no correct or wrong answers, and no right or wrong opinions! So please relax and let us know your opinions.  We are currently discussing with the camera recording but none of your opinions will not be identified with you personally. Your names will not appear or be used in any report.  After analysis and reporting, all recordings will be destroyed.  So, please feel free to say whatever they want.

Introduction of participants Moderator name: ______Discussion group: ______(Municipal FG)

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 33 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

PART I: EFFECTIVENESS & EFFICIENCY [40 min] The development/ financial planning and coordination capacity of local self-government to respond to citizens’ priorities in delivery of services and economic development. Local self-government produces and delivers quality services to people making best use of public resources in meeting its stated development objectives. Efficiency means cost effective use of limited financial and human resources without waste, delays or misuse (corruption). Effectiveness means that limited resources contributes maximum to municipal development objectives and priorities.

Strategic and Operational Plans: Does the public administration have a common vision and participatory and inclusive plan that translates into strategic and operational plans to achieve development?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 1 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]1

11. Is there a general local plan which takes in consideration the community vision and thoughts? - [IF NOT] Continue with next question. - [If YES] Can you explain how it functions? - Are citizens’ competing needs and expectations being analyzed and prioritized by the municipal government? - How so?

12. Is there a strategic local plan for the Municipality that has gone through a participatory process? - [IF NOT] Continue with next question. - How inclusive is the process of development planning? How so? - Are needs of women and men, minority groups and disabled groups and other vulnerable groups incorporated into the plans/projects? How so?

13. Is there any other plan (e.g. operational development plan or other medium-term plan) for the Municipality? - Can you explain (try to attain information on plans specific to the municipality’s situation)?

2. Are there annual plans for various sectors (education, infrastructure, waste management, water, forestry etc.)? - Can you mention some (focus on major ones)? - Which sectors would you consider with the highest priority?

1 For each sub-criteria has been developed a specific exercise. For further information refer to the Sample 1

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 34 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

- Are these sector needs met accordingly by these annual municipal plans? How so?

3. Are these plans implemented in order to guide the municipality decision-making process? - How so? - What can you tell me regarding the implementation of these plans? - Any obstacles in that regard? - What are the coordination mechanisms between strategic development plan or projects of the municipality and the sectorial strategies and plans for local development and service delivery?

Financial Management: Is there effective and efficient planning and management of local financial resources?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 2 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

1. Does the municipality have a medium term budget framework to deliver its strategic plan objectives/or projects? - Are you aware of such a budget framework? - What does it contain? - How did you come to know about it? - Based on what you know, does it contain the main priorities / is in line with the strategies of the municipality? - What does this budget framework contain? - Has the predictability and adequacy of budget improved at the municipal level to deliver services? How so?

2. Does your Municipality have the adequacy and capacity (administration and department staffing) to manage its budget efficiently? - How so? - Can you mention any challenges regarding efficient budget management? - Is there any way to overcome these challenges?

3. Are there any good and effective financial management and control mechanisms in place? - Which ones? - How do they function?

4. How successful is the municipality in attracting central government and foreign project funds - EU IPA/donors? - How so? - Can you mention some of these projects that have been successfully implemented? - What about some that are already running?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 35 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

- How can the municipality attract more funds? - Can you mention any areas with potential for local development that would benefit from such funds?

Informed Decision-Making: Is the decision-making based on reliable and updated information/data?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 3 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

1. Is the municipality decision making based on reliable statistics and up to date information? - [If YES] How so? Is this information accurate (Ask on the means of acquiring information)? Does it accurately represent the needs of the municipality? - [If NOT] Why not? Can you explain? What are the challenges in acquiring such information?

2. How reliable are the data on the lands/Land Registry? - How so? Please explain.

3. To what extent does the municipality use a GIS system/Platform? - How so? Please explain.

4. Is there a comprehensive reporting system within the municipality? - How so? Please explain.

Effective coordination and cooperation: Are the municipality interactions with central government, donors, other municipalities etc. effective and efficient?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 4 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

1. How effective is the process of consultation between central and local government? - How so? Please explain. - Any obstacles in this regard?

2. How effective is the coordination among the municipal departments? - How so? - Is there any specific scheme you are using? Please explain.

3. To what extent is the Municipality productive in its cooperation with donors and international community/institutions? - How so? Please explain. - Can you mention any specific cases of such a cooperation?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 36 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

- What about future potential for cooperation with such entities?

4. To what level does the local government cooperate with other municipalities? - How so? Please explain.

5. Is there a good internal cooperation within the municipal council? - How so? Please explain.

Satisfaction Towards Services: What is the degree of citizens' satisfaction with the quality of public service delivery and its accessibility?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 5 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

1. Is the local government conducting assessments to determine the level of satisfaction citizens have with the delivery of public services? [If YES] - Can you mention any examples in this regard? - How does the municipality conduct these assessments? - Do you consider them effective, while thinking of the overall situation regarding public service delivery? - Are there any published performance or minimum standards for various services for citizens to know expected standards? (If YES inquire in regards to means of measuring performance / means of publishing / access of public to data) - How so? [If NOT] – Should these assessments be conducted? Would they be effective in terms of improving the overall service delivery situation? - How so?

2. Do people have equal access to local government services? - How so? Please explain, while thinking about ALL Local Government Services. - Do women and men have equal access to municipal services? - Do minorities and other vulnerable groups have equal access to municipal services? - Is there in general impartiality of local government employees in providing services to the public? - Any incidents in this regard (ask on solutions to overcome incidents)?

PART II: TRANSPARENCY & RULE OF LAW [30 min] Local self-government’s action, decisions and decision-making processes are made public and open for examination/questioning by the people who are directly affected by those decisions. It is associated with unfettered access to timely and reliable information on decisions and performance.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 37 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Transparency: Is information related to public service delivery performance or non-performance, and resources planning and utilization (including bidding processes) available and accessible?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 6 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

1. Is there a good information flow from the Municipality around local projects, activities, municipal budget or service provision available and accessible? - How so? Can you explain? - How do citizens learn about municipal projects, municipal budget and expenditures? - How do people normally access information – print, electronic, internet and public notice boards? - Does the municipality account for its performance and expenditures to the public?

2. Does the municipality have transparent administrative procedures (e.g. to get a building permit, business license, etc.)? - How so? Can you please explain? - Are all administrative procedures transparent? (try to attain information on problematic ones) Why (if) NOT? Can you explain? - Does the municipality publicize all tenders? - What could be done in order to improve transparency in the administrate procedures of the municipality?

3. Do communities have access to information about the performance of the local services, the resources available to it, and how these resources were used? - Is this information available? To what extent? - How do communities access this information? Preferred / Convenient means of access? - Biggest challenges / How can they be overcome? - Does the municipality account for its performance and expenditures to the public?

4. Does the municipality have a website that is updated with the all relevant information? - How so? - Is information in this website frequently updated? - Do you consider the website as adequate and convenient source for this information?

Rule of Law: Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework: What is the level of effectiveness of the institutional legal framework - at local level?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 7 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 38 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

1. Is the institutional legal framework effective and efficient in ensuring equal rights for all municipality citizens (women, men, vulnerable groups)? - How so? - Are there any weak points / biggest challenges in this regard?

2. Are there measures in place (with regard to municipality) to educate citizens about their legal rights and obligations? - Can you mention some? How do they function? Do you consider them effective? - How do citizens learn about new laws and regulations? - Can you mention some examples?

3. Does the local government raise awareness through its own website or public media (radio, newspapers, social media) about laws and local regulations? - [If YES] Which is the main source the LG uses in this regard? Is it effective? - [If NOT] What would be the most effective form for the municipality to raise awareness about laws and local regulations?

Incidence of Corruption: What is the degree of corruption?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 8 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

1. Is there any anti-corruption policy, strategy or action plan in place dealing with corruption or bribing cases at local level? - Can you mention which? - Is it implemented appropriately? - Can you mention any successful cases in this regard?

2. Are there local government systems/mechanisms to prevent corruption in your Municipality? - Which ones? - Can you mention any specific cases these mechanisms have produced results in preventing corruption (compare with past)? - Is it there anything that can be done in order to improve the situation in this regard?

PART III: ACCOUNTABILITY [30 min] Ability of the municipality to justify and report their actions to citizens, council and address citizens’ complaints. Local self-government is able to show and explain and be held accountable for its decisions based on agreed targets and objectives to the public at large. It is associated with the idea of answerability.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 39 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Checks and Balances: Are there institutions, which have control, supervision, and sanction power on the public authority?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 9 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

1. Are there open forums for CSOs to engage with local authorities on the Municipal budgeting and planning process? - Can you mention any active CSOs engaging in these activities? - Do active NGOs in the municipalities ask the government for information on decisions, plans, budgets, expenditure, etc.? - Can you mention any specific initiatives in this regard?

2. Are local non-governmental organizations well equipped and skilled to hold local government accountable? - (Focusing on main local CSOs) What are the (if) strengths / weaknesses? How so? - How could the capacities of the organizations improve? Is there any way the LG can contribute in this regard?

3. Does the Municipal Council have oversight of the municipal government functions? - How so? Please explain.

4. Does the municipality management follow adequately the recommendations of the audits (State Audit)? - How so? Please explain.

5. Are community councils involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the public sector performance? (departments, projects, budgeting)? - To what extent? - Where do community councils get involved the most? How comes? - Do municipal councils monitor the performance of local service delivery departments? Please explain.

Recourse: Are there any recourse mechanisms for different groups in place, and are they effective?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 10 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 40 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

- What are the main challenges with the functionality of these mechanisms? How can these mechanisms improve?

2. Are there any feedback mechanisms established for citizens to share inputs with local government concerning services delivery? - If there are, can you mention some? / How do they function? - Are these mechanisms effective? - Is there any way to improve these mechanisms?

3. How effective is the municipality in treating citizens' or businesses'/farmer' complaints? - How so? Please explain. - What capacities does the municipality have in this regard? - Any challenges / ways to improve effectivity?

Government’s Responsiveness: What is the level of Municipality local government's responsiveness?

1. Is the local government responsive to requests (i.e. letters and phones calls) from the community regarding projects, developmental issues etc. - To what extent? How so? - Which means do the LG use to respond to community requests? - Are there enough capacities in this regard? - What about the timing of response?

PART IV: PARTICIPANTS & CITIZEN’S ENGAGEMENT [30 min] Active participation of all citizens (inclusion of different groups) and civil society in local development planning for the appropriate allocation of resources in local government interventions. This involves the active, free and meaningful involvement of men, women and other groups from the public in the decision making process.

Institutional Framework: Is there an effective institutional framework for managing citizen participation (with equity considerations)?

1. Are there opportunities/platforms for citizen participation in development planning and decision-making process (LGUs public consultation process, municipal council meetings etc.)? - Which ones? - Can you explain how they function / include citizens in these processes? - Are citizens willing to partake? To what extent? - Is citizen participation effective in this regard? How so?

2. Are there community structures as councils, arising from civic initiative, which tackle different issues and propose changes and suggestions to the local government?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 41 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

- Which ones? How do they function? - Are these initiatives / propositions taken into consideration? - Can you mention any successful case in this regard?

3. How effective is the function of the Coordinator of public consultation and notification at your municipality? - How so? Can you explain the procedures? - Is there any way for the effectivity of this function to increase?

4. How effective is the function of the Coordinator of the Right on Information at your Municipality? - How so? Can you explain the procedures? - Is there any way for the effectivity of this function to increase?

5. Does the Municipality have a participatory budget system, where citizens have the opportunity to participate and affect allocations? - [If YES] How can citizens participate? Please explain how this system functions. - [If NOT] Why not? Please explain. - What are the challenges in this regard?

Decision Making: Is there an effective dialogue platform which ensures the involvement of all stakeholders in the process of decision making?

1. Are the CSO able to lobby and advocate effectively to influence local government planning and decision-making? - [If YES] Can you mention some example / successful case? - [If NOT] Why not? What are the challenges in this regard?

2. Does the Local Government engage youth in government decision making? - To what extent? - What is level of interest from youth to engage? How comes?

3. Does the Local government engage vulnerable groups (disabled, extreme poor, marginalized communities, elderly) in government decision making? - To what extent? How so?

4. How effective is the function of gender and domestic violence officer/professional in your municipality? - How so? Can you explain the procedures? - Is there any way for the effectivity of this function to increase?

Citizen’s Engagement: What is the level of citizen engagement?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 42 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

1. Do citizens participate in local government planning or strategic planning meetings? - How so? - Are there measures in place to educate citizens about their legal rights to enable improved participation? - Can you mention some? - How effective are the consultative processes? - How are citizens’ priorities reflected in the local plans and projects and budget allocations? How so?

2. Are there local community projects implemented with the participation of local actors/citizens in the Municipality? - [If YES] Can you mention some specific cases? Successfully implemented projects? Already running ones? - [If NOT] Why not? Are local actors / citizens interested to participate? - Which are the challenges hindering this form of participation?

3. Are citizens involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the public sector performance? (departments, projects, budgeting) - [If YES] How are citizens involved? - Through which mechanisms? - What exactly do they monitor? - [If NOT] Why not? - Would citizens be interested in partaking in such an active? - Do you believe citizen engagement in performance monitoring would have a positive effect? - Can you mention any form this could be implemented?

Civic Engagement: What is the level of civic engagement?

1. Are citizens aware of their civil rights and responsibilities as members of the community? - How so? What can be done to increase awareness in this regard? - Do citizens participate/support in any manner in municipal management? - How so? Can you mention any examples?

2. Does the media have the capability to raise awareness on rights, responsibilities and key developmental issues? - Can you mention any specific cases / mechanisms used of doing so? - What are the challenges in this regard? - What does the Media lack in order to become more efficient in this regard?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 43 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Sample Exercise

FG Nr.______Municipality______Participant Nr.______

Exercise nr. 5 – Satisfaction with Public Services Evaluation Issue Evaluation Scale (Write down score) Does local government conduct  0=No assessments at all

assessments to determine the level  25= irregular and few assessments  50= some assessments 1 of satisfaction that citizens have  75= regular assessments with the delivery of public  100= full procedure and regularity for services? citizen assessments of service satisfaction  0= No  25= Few People Do people have equal access to 2  50= Some People local government services?  75= Most People  100= All People. Is the process of obtaining  0= Very Difficult municipal administrative services  25= Difficult 3 (permits, licenses, certifications,  50= Average different documents etc.) easily  75= Easy accessed?  100= Very Easy

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 44 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

ANNEX B. Semi-Structured Interview Guide The Mayor

1. Does your Municipality have a Strategic Plans? Are they in line with the strategies of the central government? Has the City Council approved them? Has the community agreed upon them? 2. Are you currently implementing any operational plans (divided by sectors e.g. social service, housing, urbanism etc.)? 3. How much you actually apply these plans? Do you refer to them in the decision-making process? What other sources do you use during this process and how trustful they are? 4. Have you drafted a mid-term budget for your municipality? How strongly is that connected to the Municipality Plans? 5. Do you have an adequate structure that can help you with the implementation of these plans? How efficient is the communication between different sectors within your municipality? Do you have well prepared human resources? What about financial ones? 6. How is the situation of the taxes and local fees collection from your citizens and businesses? (Ask Separately) 7. How much do you collaborate with the central government in terms of the financial part and projects? (Relationship with the Regional Funds, different ministries, other donors etc.? 8. Do you have a system of reporting daily the work done in the municipality? Do you make reports publicly available? If so, what is their frequency? 9. Do you have a good collaboration with the City Council? 10. Are the public services offered on time and with quality? Are your citizens satisfied from the public service they get? How do you measure it? Do the citizens who live far from the city center, have accessibility to these public services? 11. Are the citizens informed about the projects, policies and other works of the municipalities? What tools do you use to reach them? 12. Do you have in your team a coordinator for information and public consultancies? 13. Is there a strategy about information and awareness of the citizens? What about the integrity of officials and anti-corruption practices? Are the citizen active and do they contribute in the work of the municipality? What about the local businesses? 14. How much does the civil society help in your work? Do you have a mechanism to dialogue with them? Any other form of collaboration? 15. Was the budgeting done in a participatory way in your municipality? Have any of the civil society organizations participated in the budgeting of your municipality? What about citizens or other groups? 16. Is there any mechanism to address on time the complaints from the citizens, businesses, civil society and marginalized groups? (ask separately)

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 45 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

17. Do citizens have the possibility to participate and be listened for different topics e.g. local development plans, budgeting, monitoring the municipal works? Do the community structures operate in your municipality? 18. How do you engage the youth, women or marginalized groups? Do you have any data showing their participation? 19. How much is the Media helpful in your work? Do you think that could have a role in increasing awareness and information? 20. Would you like to add anything else?

Materials to be asked: 1. A copy of the local plans (strategic and operational) 2. A configuration of the structure of the institution 3. A list of the employees that will be needed for the gender report 4. The regulation of the institution 5. Reports that the municipality have made. 6. Other materials that could be mentioned during the interview.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 46 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Head of Finance

1. Does your Municipality have a Strategic Plans? Are they in line with the strategies of the central government? Has the City Council approved them? Has the community agreed upon them? 2. Have you drafted a mid-term budget for your municipality? How strongly is that connected to the Municipality Plans? 3. Does the municipality have annual plans according to its sectors? Have they been considered during the drafting for the 2016-17 budget? 4. Was the budgeting drafted with the participation of different groups in your municipality? 5. How is the situation of the taxes and local fees collection? Was the plan achieved for this year? How successful is your municipality in getting projects/grants from the central government? What about foreign donors? 6. Do you have the right human resources to manage effectively your budget? 7. Do you have a system to make available to the public the financial reports about the works of the municipality? 8. Does the City Council supervise the work of the municipality? 9. Have you implemented the recommendation of the State Supreme Audit Institution? 10. Would you like to add anything else?

Materials to be asked: 1. A copy of the 2015-16 Budget and the Budget Plan for 2017. 2. Different reports from the sector. 3. Other materials that could be mentioned during the interview.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 47 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Coordinator of the Right of Information

Coordinator of Public Consultation

1. How transparent is your work at the municipality? 2. Is there an adequate information for the public about the strategies, budget, decisions about the city council and projects from the central and local government? 3. Do you apply transparent procedures in your work? Is it easy collecting information about public services from the citizens, businesses and marginalized groups? (ask separately) 4. Are citizens regularly informed about the performance of the municipality? 5. Is there any strategy or work plan about the right of information? Is it published? What about the anti- corruption? Is there any practice to prevent the corruption of the administration of your municipality? 6. Do you have a regular access with the civil society? Is it engaged in the decision-making process as budgeting, strategies etc.? What about the citizens? How about other groups? 7. Is there any mechanism about complains citizens have? Are they addressed on time and with quality? Please give us more details about complains you treated? 8. What about the visioning sessions? Is there any strategy, work plan, or activity calendar about it? 9. How effective do you think is the consultation with the public in your municipality? Are the citizens interested to participate in the decision-making process? What about the city council? 10. Would you like to add anything else?

Materials to be asked: 1. The plan/program of Transparency 2. Program for the public consultation 3. Register of complaints/requests4. Reports about your work 4. Other materials that could be mentioned during the interview.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 48 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Director of the Public Works

1. What services does your directory provide? 2. Do you have any strategic, operational or activity plans for any of your services? 3. Are you currently using a trustful Land Registry? 4. Do you currently use a GIS platform in your sector? 5. Do you have the right human and financial resources to offer your services? 6. Do the citizens have information about the services you provide? What about different projects you implement from the central and local government? Do you think the information is accessible from all the citizens, including those living far from the city center? 7. How do you manage the street maintenance? How is their lighting? Are the public services extended equally in the territory of the municipality? 8. Do use any other form to offer other services like agreement with companies and PPP (Public Private Partnership) etc.? How do you monitor their implementation? 9. Is there a reporting system about your work? Do you publish these reports? 10. Is it simple for citizens to complain for the offered services? Marginalized groups? 11. Are the citizens satisfied with your services? Do you have a system to measure their satisfaction? What about a system to measure the performance of your employees? 12. What are the major issues you face in your work? Do you have the liabilities to treat them on time and with quality? 13. Would you like to add anything else?

Materials to be asked 1. A list of services that the directory offers. 2. Reports of their work 3. Other materials that could be mentioned during the interview.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 49 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Head of City Council

1. How many members does your city council have? What is the male/females ration in the council? 2. How are the relationships of the city council with the administration of the municipality? Do you have the right resources to exercise your activity? 3. Do you have a good collaboration/specific mechanism to communicate with the citizens? And about marginalized groups and the civil society? 4. Do the members of the city council have a regular meeting calendar with the citizens? Do you hear their complaints? If so is there any mechanism to address them? 5. Do you distribute on time a public notice about your meetings? How do you make it? (media, website etc.? 6. Are your meetings followed by the citizens? Are they active in the discussions? Do you have any successful example of their participation? 7. Do you publish regularly all the decisions taken by the city council? How? Do you make sure to inform all the citizens including the marginalized groups and citizens of farther instances? 8. Would you like to add anything else?

Materials to be asked 1. Reports of the work of the City Council 2. The regulation of the City Council 3. Other materials that could be mentioned during the interview.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 50 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Directory of urban planning

1. What services does your directory provide? 2. Do you have strategic or plans for activities that your directory offers? 3. Are you currently using a trustful Land Registry? 4. Do you use a GIS platform in you directory? 5. Do you have the right human and financial resources to offer your services? 6. Are the citizens informed about the services you offer? What about different projects that the central and local government implement? Do you think is appropriate the information for all the citizens, including those from the farther distances? 7. Do you use any other form to offer services like agreements with companies and PPP (Public Private Partnership)? 8. Do you have any reporting system for your work? Do you make them available for the public? 9. Is it simple for citizens to complain for the offered services? Is there any mechanism for this purpose? Do you examine regularly the complaints from the citizens? How many of them are solved? 10. Do the citizens get involved somehow in the activities of your directory? What about marginalized groups? 11. Are the citizens satisfied with your services? Do you have a system to measure their satisfaction? What about a system to measure the performance of your employees? 12. What are the major issues you face in your work? Do you have the liabilities to treat them on time and with quality? 13. Would you like to add anything else?

Materials to be asked 1. General Local Plan 2. Strategic Development Plan 3. Reports of the directory 4. Other materials that could be mentioned during the interview.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 51 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

ANNEX C. Community Dialogue Moderation Guide

Field Guide for Data Collection Local Governance Mapping – STAR 2

Generic Moderation Guide – Community Dialogues

Methodology:

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 52 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Participants should be encouraged to join the discussion, intervene and respond to each other's comments, not only to answer the questions of the moderator. Ideally, we are looking forward to participants' comments to be short, and to stimulate other participants agree, disagree, or comment in a way, as in normal conversations and discussions.

The moderator should:

Transcripts should: 4. Include all discussions - including questions of the moderator, incentives, etc.-exactly as recorded on video / tape. DO NOT automatically copy words from the instruction for moderator - transcripts must provide the exact words as stated by the facilitator. 5. Identify the speaker clearly - no matter if participant or moderator. The facilitator should begin the discussion by asking everyone to introduce themselves (not to be their full name, but the name that they want to use the FG. In the transcript, the name must be attached to all contributions made by him participants, regardless of whether they are long or short, and this name must also be attached to the mini-questionnaire (like M5), in order to have an idea of who that person is given the comments. 6. None of these things do not break the anonymity of participants: we do not want the full names, addresses or specific professions - only a short name that identifies the speaker.

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME

 Goals (DO NOT READ OUT): To provide a general presentation of non-technical discussion, so everyone is relaxed and participate.  Welcome to our discussion. This is part of a UNDP study implemented by (name of agency, i.e. IDRA Research and Consulting Company), in support of good local governance practices. Main objectives of this project include: Strengthening institutional and administrative capacities of LGUs; Improving service delivery at LGU level; and Increasing good governance through citizen oriented and meaningful participatory decision-making.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 53 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

 There are no correct or wrong answers, and no right or wrong opinions! So please relax and let us know your opinions.  We are currently discussing with the camera recording but none of your opinions will not be identified with you personally. Your names will not appear or be used in any report.  After analysis and reporting, all recordings will be destroyed.  So, please feel free to say whatever they want.

Introduction of participants Moderator name: ______Discussion group: ______(Community Dialogue)

Strategic and Operational Plans: Does the public administration have a common vision and participatory and inclusive plan that translates into strategic and operational plans to achieve development?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 1 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 54 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

13. Is there any other plan (e.g. operational development plan or other medium-term plan) for the Municipality? - Which are them? Can you explain (try to attain information on plans specific to the municipality’s situation)?

4. Are there annual plans for various sectors (education, infrastructure, waste management, water, forestry etc.)? - Can you mention some (focus on major ones)? - Which sectors would you consider with the highest priority? - Are these sector needs met accordingly by these annual municipal plans? How so?

5. Are these plans implemented in order to guide the municipality decision-making process? - How so? - What can you tell me regarding the implementation of these plans? - Any obstacles in that regard? - What are the coordination mechanisms between strategic development plan or projects of the municipality and the sectoral strategies and plans for local development and service delivery?

Financial Management: Is there effective and efficient planning and management of local financial resources?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 2 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

2. How successful is the municipality in attracting central government and foreign project funds - EU IPA/donors? - How so? - Can you mention some of these projects that have been successfully implemented? - What about some that are already running? - How can the municipality attract more funds?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 55 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

- Can you mention any areas with potential for local development that would benefit from such funds?

Informed Decision-Making: Is the decision-making based on reliable and updated information?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 3 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

1. Is the municipality decision making based on reliable statistics and up to date information? - [If YES] How so? Is this information accurate? Does it accurately represent the needs of the community? - [If NOT] Why not? Can you explain? What are the challenges in acquiring such information?

Satisfaction Towards Services: What is the degree of citizens' satisfaction with the quality of public service delivery and its accessibility?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 5 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 56 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

3. Is the process of obtaining municipal administrative services (permits, licenses, certifications, different documents etc.) easily accessed? - Can you mention any specific initiatives undertaken by the municipality in order to ease these processes? - Which municipal administrative services are easier to obtain and which ones are harder? How so? - What are the biggest obstacles in attaining such services? - What can be done to improve the situation in this regard?

Transparency: Is information related to public service delivery performance or non-performance, and resources planning and utilization (including bidding processes) available and accessible?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 6 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 57 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

- Biggest challenges / How can they be overcome? - Does the municipality account for its performance and expenditures to the public?

Rule of Law: Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework: What is the level of effectiveness of the institutional legal framework - at local level?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 7 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

Incidence of Corruption: What is the degree of corruption?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 8 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 58 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Checks and Balances: Are there institutions, which have control, supervision, and sanction power on the public authority?

[NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 9 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

3. Does the Municipal Council have oversight of the municipal government functions? - How so? Please explain.

4. Are community councils involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the public sector performance? (departments, projects, budgeting)? - To what extent? - Where do community councils get involved the most? How comes? - Do municipal councils monitor the performance of local service delivery departments? Please explain.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 59 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Recourse: Are there any recourse mechanisms for different groups in place, and are they effective? [NOTE: Please hand a copy of Exercise 10 to all participants and explain how to rank the dimensions included]

1. Does the municipality have the mechanisms for lodging complaints and giving a feedback (e.g. Complaint Office)? - What are these mechanism? How do they function? - Do citizens use these mechanisms? To what extent? - What are the main challenges with the functionality of these mechanisms? How can these mechanisms improve?

Government’s Responsiveness: What is the level of Municipality local government's responsiveness?

2. Is the local government responsive to filed complaints of citizens? - How so? Can you explain how the LG responds to filed complaints? (Both Municipal and Community Perspectives) - What can be done in order to improve LG responsiveness to citizen complaints? - Whom do citizens call upon for dispute resolution in the municipality? - How so? What about effectivity in this regard?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 60 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

active, free and meaningful involvement of men, women and other groups from the public in the decision making process.

Institutional Framework: Is there an effective institutional framework for managing citizen participation (with equity considerations)?

2. Are there community structures as councils, arising from civic initiative, which tackle different issues and propose changes and suggestions to the local government? - Which ones? - How do they function? - Are these initiatives / propositions taken into consideration? - Can you mention any successful case in this regard?

Decision Making: Is there an effective dialogue platform which ensures the involvement of all stakeholders in the process of decision making?

2. Does the Local Government engage youth in government decision making? - To what extent? - What is level of interest from youth to engage?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 61 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

- How comes?

3. Does the Local government engage vulnerable groups (disabled, extreme poor, marginalized communities, elderly) in government decision making? - To what extent? How so?

Citizen’s Engagement: What is the level of citizen engagement?

Civic Engagement: What is the level of civic engagement?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 62 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

3. Are citizens aware of their civil rights and responsibilities as members of the community? - How so? What can be done to increase awareness in this regard? - Do citizens participate/support in any manner in municipal management? - How so? Can you mention any examples?

4. Are the CSOs active and effective in civic education regarding citizen's right and responsibilities? - [If YES] How so? Can you mention any specific cases / examples? - Is there anything more that can be done to empower local CSOs? - [If NOT] How so? What are the challenges? What can be done to combat them / empower local CSOs in this regard?

5. Does the media have the capability to raise awareness on rights, responsibilities and key developmental issues? - Can you mention any specific cases / mechanisms used of doing so? - What are the challenges in this regard? - What does the Media lack in order to become more efficient in this regard?

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 63 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

ANNEX D. Citizen Report Card Questionnaire QUESTIONNAIRE

Serial Nr: ______

ID_CITY. City / Municipality :

ID_SUB_UNIT. Administrative Unit:

ID_PSU. Starting Nr. /PSU: (Note: PSU = Primary Sampling Unit) ...... 1. Berat 5. Fier 9. Lezha 2. Dibra 6. Gjirokastra 10. Shkodra COUNTY. County: 3. Durrës 7. Korça 11. Tirana 4. Elbasan 8. Kukës 12. Vlora ID_UR. Urban / Rural : 1 – Urban 2 – Rural

ID_ADDRESS. Address (Road/Neighborhood in TEXT): ......

DT. Date: ____ / ____ / 2016 Starting Time ____:____ Ending Time ___:___ Duration: ____ minuta

INT_NAME. Name of Interviewer: ...... INT_CODE. Interviewer Code: ......

Interviewer! This survey is done through face to face interviews. During the interview please read the questions as they are formulated in the questionnaire. If the respondent does not understand the question, repeat/reread it once more. Circle the respective codes for every answer. Open ended questions should be written exactly as given by the respondent. Instructions for interviewers are in italic letters. Hello. I am ______from (name of organization), a market research and opinion institute. We are conducting a survey on the citizens’ perception concerning issues related to the quality of life in ______, the level of satisfaction with public services and perception on different performance related issues of local governance in your municipality. This survey is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the support of European Union (EU), Italian, Swedish and Swiss Government and USAID.

You have been chosen in a random way as a part of this survey. We ensure you that the information that you will share with us is completely confidential. Your name will not appear in any document associated with this survey. Your answers will be processed and used only for statistical purposes. (Name of organization) implements all the provisions of Law no. 9887 dated on 10.03.2008 "On protection of personal data". Do you have any questions? Can we begin? Thank you!

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 64 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

MODULE A – Community Problems and Public Services A1. Quality of Life in General As a beginning could you please rate the overall quality of life in your City/Village? (Interviewer: Read the alternatives! Don’t read “Don’t know/No response”) A1 1= Excellent, 2= Good 3= Average, 4= Bad 5= Very Bad (99= Don’t know/No Response) Overall Quality of Life in your city/village 1 2 3 4 5 99

In your opinion, which are the three most serious problems that your community is facing nowadays? A_P. (Interviewer: Write the text below then code. Do not read the answers. Select the category that most closely matches the answer of the respondent. Write in “Other” those answers that do not fit with any category listed. Rank according to priority, from 1- 3. )

Write in text here S_P_ 1. ______TXT_. 2. ______3. ______S3a. S3b. S3c. First Second Third Unemployment / Lack of employment opportunities 1 1 1

Low Income/Wages 2 2 2 High Prices 3 3 3 Taxation 4 4 4

Economic Low Productivity 5 5 5 Roads, Bridges etc. 6 6 6 Water Supply 7 7 7

Sewerage e 8 8 8 Transportation/Traffic 9 9 9 S3. Electricity Infrastructur 10 10 10 Health Service 11 11 11

Education 12 12 12 Caregiving – Elderly, Children, Handicapped 13 13 13 Housing problems Social 14 14 14 Crime / Violence 15 15 15 Garbage Collection/Disposal 16 16 16

Pollution nt 17 17 17

Envir Cleanliness onme 18 18 18 Local Political Problems 19 19 19 Corruption 20 20 20 Other, Specify: ______77 77 77 (Don’t know /No Answer) 99 99 99

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 65 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

A2. I am now going to ask you now about a range of public services in your community/area. Could you please tell me whether such a services exists in your community/area and if yes how satisfied are you with the quality of each of them on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1=Completely Unsatisfied and 10=Completely Satisfied?

(Important - Instructions about the “nonexistence of services” – a service that is being given rarely should not be coded “non-existent.”) (Interviewer: Read the servixes one by one! – Show the A2 Card with the scale 1-10 for satisfaction level!)

Non- Satisfaction Level Do Not existent Scale from 1 to 10 know/No (Interviewer: Only one response for each row) (If “0” Go to 1=Completely Unsatisfied Response next service) 10=Completely Satisfied A2.1 Road Maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.2 Cleaning of City/Village 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.3 Street Lighting 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.4 Public Transport Service 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.5 Solid Waste Collection/Disposal 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.6 Drinking Water Supply 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.6 Sewerage 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.7 Health Centers Maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.8 School Buildings Maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.9 Administration of Kindergartens / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 99 Daycare Centers A2.10 Parks and Public Space Maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.11 Urban Development/Planning (Control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 99 of territory, Building permits) A2.12 Cemeteries’ Maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.13 Social Housing 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.14 Social Assistance and Economic Aid 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.15 Irrigation and Drainage System 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 99 (Agricultural Purposes) A2.16 Forest Protection/Administration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.17 Sport spaces/objects and activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 99 (managed from the municipality) A2.18 Cultural/Historical/Natural Objects and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Activities 0 99 (managed from the municipality) A2.19 Firefighting Service 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 A2.20 Civil Emergency Service 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 66 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

A3. There are many areas of service improvement the municipality would like to make, but not enough funding to support all of them. Can you list the services mentioned above, as a first, second and third priority, in order that the Municipality can concentrate resources on services which have more priority?

(Interviewer: Show CARD A3!)

A3a. A3b. A3c. Services First Second Third Priority Priority Priority Road Maintenance 1 1 1 Cleaning of City/Village 2 2 2 Street Lighting 3 3 3 Public Transport Service 4 4 4 Solid Waste Collection/Disposal 5 5 5 Drinking Water Supply 6 6 6 Sewerage 7 7 7 Health Centers Maintenance 8 8 8 School Buildings Maintenance 9 9 9 Administration of Kindergartens / Daycare 10 10 10 Centers Parks and Public Space Maintenance 11 11 11 Urban Development/Planning (Control of 12 12 12 territory, Building permits) Cemeteries’ Maintenance 13 13 13 Social Housing 14 14 14 Social Assistance and Economic Aid 15 15 15 Irrigation and Drainage System (Agricultural 16 16 16 Purposes) Forest Protection/Administration 17 17 17 Sport spaces/objects and activities (managed 18 18 18 from the municipality) Cultural/Historical/Natural Objects and Activities 19 19 19 (managed from the municipality) Firefighting Service 20 20 20 Civil Emergency Service 21 21 21 (Don’t know/No response) 99 99 99

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 67 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

MODULE B - Performance and transparency of local government Now we are going to talk about the transparency of several government institutions. With transparency, we understand the amount and availability of information offered to citizens and the media for the purpose of monitoring the responsibilities of these institutions.

Not at all Completely ( Interviewer: Show the CARD B1! ) Transparent Transparent DK Can you tell me your opinion about the transparency of your Municipality, on the B1. scale of 1 through 10, where 1 = Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 Transparent and 10 = Completely Transparent?

Not at all/No information...... 1 In general, to what extent does the Little information...... 2 municipality inform you about its Average...... 3 B2. activities and services? Good Information...... 4

(Interviewer: Read the alternatives!) Very good/All necessary information……. 5 (Don’t Know/No response) 99

What are the main sources of information you use to get informed on city matters and different activities of your Municipality? Please mention which of the sources below you use and rank the first three by B3. importance. (Interviewer: Show CARD B3! )

(Notes for the Interviewer: a- Circle each service used, b- Rank from 1-3 according to importance, c- Write down the three main choices of the respondent) Main sources of information B3_M B3_1 B3_2 B3_3 (INT: There are allowed more than one answer on B3_M) Circle! Rank! Rank! Rank! Sources First Second Third National Televisions 1 1 1 1 Local Televisions 2 2 2 2 Municipality Web Page 3 3 3 3 National Newspaper 4 4 4 4 Local Newspaper 5 5 5 5 Social Media 6 6 6 6 Municipality Dispensers 7 7 7 7 Municipality Announcement Wall 8 8 8 8 Other, specify:______9 9 9 9 I’m not interested in these kind of news 10 (Don’t know/No response) 99

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 68 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Are you aware of the Municipality website? Yes ...... 1

B4. No ...... 2 (If answer is “2=No” or “3=DK/NR” (Dont know/ No response) ...... 99 GO TO question B6) If Yes (B4=1), Have you used in it (the Yes ...... 1 B5. municipality website) the past 12 months? No ...... 2 (Dont know/ No response) ...... 99

Let me ask about another thing now. What is your opinion, does your municipality enforce laws and local regulation impartially? Please give your response on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1=Not at all impartial and 10=Completely impartial B6. (Interviewer: Show the CARD B6!) 10-Completely 1-Not at all DK Level of impartiality in enforcing laws and impartial local regulations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 No awareness Talking about the laws and local regulations - raising...... 1 Does the Municipality raise awareness Little awareness raising...... 2 Some awareness 3 B7. through its own website or public media (radio, newspapers, social media) about laws raising...... 4 and local regulations? Good awareness raising……………………… 5 Full awareness raising………….……………… 99 (Interviewer: Read the alternatives 1-5) Don’t Know/No response......

Can you tell me your opinion about the level of corruption that exist in your local government/Municipality? Please give your opinion on a scale from 1 through 10, where 1 = No corruption at all and 10 = Completely corrupt (INT: For Don’t Know/No response use the code ‘99’) (Interviewer: show the CARD B8!) B8. Not at all Completely DK How widespread is corruption in the Widespread municipality of ______1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 1 Personal Experience 2 Discussions with Friends/Family Where do you base your evaluation on 3 Information from the Media B9. corruption level? 4 Information from Politics/Political Discussions 5 Other, specify: ______77 (Only one response) (Don’t know/No response) 99

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 69 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

During the past 12 months, did you have a reason to complain about a service that is provided by the Municipality? (Any kind of Yes 1 B10. service?) No 2 (Don’t know/No response) 99 (If the answer is 2=’NO’ or 3=’DK/NR’ GO TO B14b) Did you actually make the complaint? Yes 1 B11. (If the answer is 2=’NO’ GOTO B14.) No 2 (If the answer is 3 = ‘DK/NR, GO TO B14b.’) (Don’t know/No response) 99

1 How did you make the complaint? Directly/Personally contacted the responsible

office 2 (there are allowed multiple responses) Filed a written complaint B12. 3 Called a specific/office number and complained

Other, specify:______77 (No response) 99

Yes 1 Was your complaint answered by the B13. No 2 Municipality? (Don’t know/No response) 99

I do not know how to make a complaint/do 1 not know who to contact Why did you not complain? I do not have trust that my complaint will be 2 treated by the Municipality B14. (Interviewer: Read this question only if I could not find the time to make the 3 B11=2, thus B11 = “NO”) complaint Other, specify:______7 (No response) 99

In general, based on your experience or on No at all effective 1 what you might have heard or read, how Mostly not effective 2 effective would you say your Municipality is Average 3 B14b. to field complaints from citizens and Mostly Effective 4 businesses? Very Effective 5 (Interviewer: ASK ALL!) (Don’t know/No response) 99

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 70 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

B16. Can you tell me, if you’ve had any contacts with the Municipality of ...... or any other related office/sector of it, over the last 12 months? B16a. Which municipal office did you contact? (Instructions for the interviewer: a- Circle YES for each office/sector the respondent contacted, , b- Circle the level of satisfaction, c- Circle the evidence of corruption, as described by the respondent) B16c. (If has contacted it, B16a =YES) B16a. During your contact with the Contacted? B16b. (If has contacted it, B16a =YES) Were you satisfied by the institution/sector, was it implied at any (If hasn’t contacted service you received? point that you had to bribe (in the form go to the other row (office/sector) .. of money, gifts of favors), to get the and don’t ask ( Interviewer: Show CARD B16b! ) service/solve the case you were B16b, B16c.) interested in? Very Somewhat DN Yes No Satisfied Unsatisfied Yes No Satisfied Satisfied /NR B16_1. Information Desk 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_2. Bureau of City Planning 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_3. Bureau of Public Services 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_4. Bureau of Local Taxation 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_5. Procurement Office 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_6. Planning Inspectorate 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_7. Social Welfare Office 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_8. Municipal Police 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_9. Water Supply & Sewerage 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 Office/Utility B16_10. Municipal Council 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_11. Local Administration Offices 1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0 B16_12. Other: (Specify) ______1 0 1 2 3 4 99 1 0

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 71 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

If there has been at least one contact in B16a, thus B16a=’Po’, in general, how satisfied were you B17. from the sevices (services) you recived from the municipality of …………………………….? Interviewer: Refer to the guideliness that you received during the training – Read the alternatives! INT: Show the CARD B16b!) Very Mostly Mostly Very DN/NP satisfied satisfied unsatisfied Unsatisfied OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH 1 2 3 4 99 THE MUNICIPALITY OF......

B18. Based on your experience, or on what you’ve heard, how easy or difficult is the process of obtaining administrative services (receiving of: License, documents, certificates etc.) in your Municipality? (Interviewer: Read the alternatives!)

Very Somehow Somehow Very Average DN/NP (Int: ASK ALL! ) easy easy difficult difficult Ease / Difficulty of receiving 1 2 3 4 5 99 administrative services

Mostly, where do you base your opinion Personal experience 1 B19. as stated above (on the ease / difficulty Discussions with friends/ family 2 3 of receiving administrative services)? Information from media 4 Information from politics / politics discussions (Interviewer: Only one response ) 5 Other, Specify: ...... 77 (Don’t know/No response) 99

Please evaluate each of the following items with regard to administrative activities in the B20. Municipality of ……………………………………….: (Interviewer: Read the alternatives!) Very Very DN/NP Good Good Bad Bad N/A B20a. Behavior of municipal employees 1 2 3 4 77 99 B20b. Timely service 1 2 3 4 77 99 B20c. Convenient Working Hours 1 2 3 4 77 99 Ability to solve problems / Give B20d. 1 2 3 4 77 99 answers B20e. Easy to contact the right person 1 2 3 4 77 99 Clear and exact rules and B20f. 1 2 3 4 77 99 procedures in wording Performance in general B20g. 1 2 3 4 77 99 responding to citizens

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 72 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

MODULE C - Civic Engagement C1. In the recent twelve months have you or someone from your household participated in the following? (Interviewer: in case of non-participation, write “0”, for “No response” write “99”) Number of times C1a Public meetings on municipal budget C1b Public hearings other than on municipal budget C1c Local council sessions C1d NGO activities other than meetings C1e Any unpaid communal activities

C2. Now I will read to you a list of different activities, for each one, please tell me if you have done any of these activities to express your views. [If yes, ask if have done this activity within the last 12 months; if no, ask if might do or would never do this activity in the future] Have done Have not done (If so, prompt for when) (Interviewer: Only one response for each row! ) DN/NP Over past 12 Longer Might Would months ago do never do Contacted or visited a local public official – at C2a any level of local government – to express your 1 2 3 4 99 opinion Contacted or visited a public official of central C2b 1 2 3 4 99 level of to express your opinion Expressed your opinion (on local/political/social C2c 1 2 3 4 99 issues) on social media like Facebook or Twitter Called in to a radio or television talk show or C2d written to a newspaper or magazine to express 1 2 3 4 99 your opinion on a political or social issue Sent in an SMS vote to express your opinion on a C2e 1 2 3 4 99 political or social issue C2f Signed a written or email petition 1 2 3 4 99 Taken part in a protest, march, or C2g 1 2 3 4 99 demonstration Contributed to a blog or internet site to express C2h 1 2 3 4 99 your opinion on a political or social issue

C3. Please tell, are you a member (or have you ever been a member) of one of the different organizations listed below? Actually a Used to be a Never been a Don’t know/No member member member response C3a. Political Party 1 2 3 99 C3b. Religious Group 1 2 3 99 C3c. Charity Organization 1 2 3 99 C3d. NGO/Association 1 2 3 99 C3e. Community Group 1 2 3 99 C3f. Other:______1 2 3 99

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 73 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

MODULE D - General Data Male 1 D1 Gender Female 2 D2 Respondent’s Age: …………………………. Illiterate/ No education/ Up to 3 years 1 Elementary Education (4-5 years) 2 Education Elementary Education (8-9 years) 3 D3 Secondary school, Technical Professional 4 (Completed level / highest degree) Secondary Education 5 University (or higher) 6 (Don’t know/No response) 99 Employed full time 1 Employed part time 2 Farmer 3 Self-employed / Businessman 4 Student 5 Employment (status) Pensioner 6 D4 Unemployed 7 Housewife 8 Disability / incapacity for work (chronic diseases) 9 Other, Specify ______(Don’t know/No response) 77 99 Public, (Administration) 1 (If employed) Employment sector Public, (Enterprises in Public sector) 2 D4b Public, (Other, specify ...... ) 3 (INT: do this question, if D4=’1’ or D4 = ‘2’) Privat sector 4 (Don’t know/No response) 99 Up to 10 thousand lek 1

10 thous. – 20 thous. lek 2 In which segment fall the monthly 20 thous. – 30 thous. lek 3 combined revenues of your family? 30 thous. – 50 thous. lek 4 It’s about your family monthly income D5 50 thous. – 70 thous. lek 5 in total 70 thous. – 100 thous. lek 6

Over 100 thousand lek 7 (Interviewer: Read the income (Don’t know) 88 segment. Only one response) (No response/Refuses) 99

DE Date of interview ______End (date) (month) (year)

Thank the respondent and close the interview.

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 74 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

ANNEX E. Sample Calculation and Distribution for each Cluster

Below is the list of administrative units and number of interviews to be conducted per each Lot. Lot 1

Municipalities of Lot 1: 1. Shkoder 2. Kurbin/Lac 3. Vau I Dejes 4. Diber/Peshkopi 5. Puke 6. Bulqize 7. Malesi e Madhe/Koplik 8. Mat/Burrel 9. Fushe Arres 10. Klos 11. Kukes 12. Kruje 13. Tropoje/Bajram Curri 14. Vore 15. Krume 16. Durres 17. Lezhe 18. Shijak 19. Mirdite/Rreshen 20. Kamez

SHKODER No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 45 Total 135612 100% 300 300 3201 ANA E MALIT 3858 2.8% 9 12 3202 BERDICE 5773 4.3% 13 12 3204 DAJC 3885 2.9% 9 12 3205 GURI I ZI 8085 6.0% 18 18 3208 POSTRIBE 7069 5.2% 16 16 3209 PULT 1529 1.1% 3 0 3210 RRETHINAT 21199 15.6% 47 47 3211 SHALE 1804 1.3% 4 0 3212 SHKODER 77075 56.8% 171 171 3214 SHOSH 304 0.2% 1 0 3215 VELIPOJE 5031 3.7% 11 12

VAU I DEJES No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 46 Total 30438 100% 200 200 3203 BUSHAT 14149 46.5% 93 93 3206 HAJMEL 4430 14.6% 29 30

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 75 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

3213 SHLLAK 671 2.2% 4 0 3218 TEMAL 1562 5.1% 10 12 3207 VAU I DEJES 8117 26.7% 53 53 3216 VIG-MNELE 1509 5.0% 10 12

PUKE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 48 Total 11069 100% 150 150 2904 GJEGJAN 2846 25.7% 39 39 2906 PUKE 3607 32.6% 49 49 2907 QELEZ 1761 15.9% 24 24 2908 QERRET 1498 13.5% 20 20 2910 RRAPE 1357 12.3% 18 18

MALESI E MADHE / KOPLIK No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 47 Total 30823 100% 200 200 2201 GRUEMIRE 8890 28.8% 58 58 2202 KASTRAT 6883 22.3% 45 45 2203 KELMEND 3056 9.9% 20 20 2204 KOPLIK 3734 12.1% 24 24 2205 QENDER KOPLIK 4740 15.4% 31 30 2206 SHKREL 3520 11.4% 23 23

FUSHE ARRES No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 49 Total 7405 100% 150 150 2901 BLERIM 913 12.3% 18 18 2902 FIERZE 1302 17.6% 26 26 2903 FUSHE-ARREZ 2513 33.9% 51 51 2905 IBALLE 1129 15.2% 23 24 2909 QAFE-MAL 1548 20.9% 31 31

KUKES

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 76 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 39 Total 47985 100% 200 200 1701 ARREN 462 1.0% 2 0 1702 BICAJ 5631 11.7% 23 23 1703 BUSHTRICE 1486 3.1% 6 8 1714 GRYKE CAJE 1440 3.0% 6 8 1715 KALIS 827 1.7% 3 0 1704 KOLSH 1250 2.6% 5 8 1705 KUKES 16719 34.8% 70 70 1706 MALZI 3072 6.4% 13 13 1708 SHISHTAVEC 3835 8.0% 16 16 1709 SHTIQEN 3438 7.2% 14 14 1710 SURROJ 1099 2.3% 5 0 1711 TERTHORE 2959 6.2% 12 12 1712 TOPOJAN 1753 3.7% 7 9 1713 UJMISHT 1797 3.7% 7 10 1707 ZAPOD 2217 4.6% 9 9

TROPOJE / BAJRAM CURRI No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 40 Total 20517 100% 150 150 3501 BAJRAM CURRI 5340 26.0% 39 39 3502 BUJAN 2550 12.4% 19 19 3503 BYTYC 1563 7.6% 11 11 3504 FIERZE 1607 7.8% 12 12 3505 LEKBIBAJ 1207 5.9% 9 9 3506 LLUGAJ 1787 8.7% 13 13 3507 MARGEGAJ 2346 11.4% 17 17 3508 TROPOJE 4117 20.1% 30 30

KRUME No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 41 Total 16790 100% 150 150 1101 FAJZE 3491 20.8% 31 31 1103 GJINAJ 1106 6.6% 10 10 1102 GOLAJ 6187 36.8% 55 55 1104 KRUME 6006 35.8% 54 54

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 77 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

LEZHE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 42 Total 65633 100% 250 250 1901 BALLDRE 6142 9.4% 23 23 1902 BLINISHT 3361 5.1% 13 13 1903 DAJC 3834 5.8% 15 15 1904 KALLMET 4118 6.3% 16 16 1905 KOLSH 4228 6.4% 16 16 1906 LEZHE 15510 23.6% 59 59 1907 SHENGJIN 8091 12.3% 31 31 1908 SHENKOLL 13102 20.0% 50 50 1909 UNGREJ 1587 2.4% 6 8 1910 ZEJMEN 5660 8.6% 22 20

MIRDITE / RRESHEN No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 43 Total 22103 100% 200 200 2501 FAN 2977 13.5% 27 27 2502 KACINAR 1016 4.6% 9 9 2503 KTHJELLE 2209 10.0% 20 20 2504 OROSH 1899 8.6% 17 17 2505 RRESHEN 8803 39.8% 80 80 2506 RUBIK 4454 20.2% 40 40 2507 SELITE 745 3.4% 7 7

KURBIN / LAC No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 44 Total 46291 100% 200 200 1801 FUSHE KUQE 5460 11.8% 24 24 1802 LAC 17086 36.9% 74 74 1803 MAMURRAS 15284 33.0% 66 66 1804 MILOT 8461 18.3% 37 37

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 78 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

DIBER / PESHKOPI No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 6 Total 61619 100% 250 250 501 ARRAS 3055 5.0% 12 12 502 FUSHE-CIDHEN 2909 4.7% 12 12 503 KALA E DODES 2252 3.7% 9 9 504 KASTRIOT 6200 10.1% 25 25 505 LURE 1096 1.8% 4 0 515 LUZNI 2433 3.9% 10 10 506 MAQELLARE 10662 17.3% 43 43 507 MELAN 3649 5.9% 15 15 508 MUHURR 2780 4.5% 11 11 509 PESHKOPI 13251 21.5% 54 54 511 SELISHTE 1605 2.6% 7 7 512 SLLOVE 2405 3.9% 10 10 510 TOMIN 7590 12.3% 31 31 513 ZALL-DARDHE 1051 1.7% 4 11 514 ZALL-REC 681 1.1% 3 0

BULQIZE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 7 Total 31210 100% 200 200 201 BULQIZE 8177 26.2% 52 52 202 FUSHE BULQIZE 3342 10.7% 21 21 203 GJORICE 4214 13.5% 27 27 208 MARTANESH 1836 5.9% 12 12 205 OSTREN 3034 9.7% 19 17 206 SHUPENZE 5503 17.6% 35 35 204 TREBISHT 993 3.2% 6 8 207 ZERQAN 4111 13.2% 26 26

MAT / BURREL No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 8 Total 27600 100% 200 200 2401 BAZ 2228 8.1% 16 16 2409 BURREL 10862 39.4% 79 79 2403 DERJAN 1102 4.0% 8 8 2406 KOMSI 4283 15.5% 31 31

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 79 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

2407 LIS 3824 13.9% 28 28 2408 MACUKULL 1565 5.7% 11 11 2410 RUKAJ 2507 9.1% 18 18 2412 ULEZ 1229 4.5% 9 9

KLOS No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 9 Total 16618 100% 150 150 2404 GURRE 3369 20.3% 30 30 2405 KLOS 7873 47.4% 71 71 2411 SUC 2716 16.3% 25 25 2413 XIBER 2660 16.0% 24 24

KRUJE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 12 Total 59814 100% 200 200 1501 BUBQ 5951 9.9% 20 20 1502 CUDHI 1812 3.0% 6 8 1503 FUSHE KRUJE 18477 30.9% 62 60 1505 KRUJE 11721 19.6% 39 39 1506 NIKEL 9518 15.9% 32 32 1504 THUMANE 12335 20.6% 41 41

VORE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 52 Total 25511 100% 200 200 3402 BERXULLE 9883 38.7% 77 77 3411 PREZE 4727 18.5% 37 38 3416 VORE 10901 42.7% 85 85

DURRES No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 10 Total 175110 100% 300 300

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 80 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

601 DURRES 113249 64.7% 194 194 603 ISHEM 5001 2.9% 9 9 604 KATUND I RI 10161 5.8% 17 17 606 MANEZ 6652 3.8% 11 12 607 RRASHBULL 24081 13.8% 41 41 609 SUKTH 15966 9.1% 27 27

SHIJAK No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 11 Total 27861 100% 200 200 602 GJEPALAJ 3449 12.4% 25 25 605 MAMINAS 4463 16.0% 32 32 608 SHIJAK 7568 27.2% 54 54 610 XHAFZOTAJ 12381 44.4% 89 89

KAMEZ No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 51 Total 104190 100% 200 200 3405 KAMEZ 66841 64.2% 128 128 3408 PASKUQAN 37349 35.8% 72 72

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 81 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Lot 2

Municipalities of Lot 2: 1. Tirane 2. Korce 3. Elbasan 4. Devoll/Bilisht 5. Gramsh 6. Kolonje/Erseke 7. Belsh 8. Pustec 9. Cerrik 10. Berat 11. Peqin 12. Skrapar/Corovode 13. Prrenjas 14. Polican 15. Librazhd 16. Ura Vajgurore 17. Maliq 18. Kucove 19. Pogradec 20. Rrogozhine 21. Roskovec

TIRANE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 50 Total 557422 100% 600 600 3401 BALDUSHK 4576 0.8% 5 10 3403 BERZHITE 4973 0.9% 5 0 3404 DAJT 20139 3.6% 22 22 3412 FARKE 22633 4.1% 24 24 3406 KASHAR 43353 7.8% 47 46 3419 KRRABE 2343 0.4% 3 0 3407 NDROQ 5035 0.9% 5 8 3409 PETRELE 5542 1.0% 6 8 3410 PEZE 6272 1.1% 7 12 3413 SHENGJERGJ 2186 0.4% 2 0 3414 TIRANE 418495 75.1% 450 450 3415 VAQARR 9106 1.6% 10 10 3418 ZALL HERR 9389 1.7% 10 10 3417 ZALL-BASTAR 3380 0.6% 4 0

ELBASAN No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 13 Total 141714 100% 300 300

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 82 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

702 BRADASHESH 10700 7.6% 23 23 704 ELBASAN 78703 55.5% 167 167 706 FUNAR 2122 1.5% 4 0 707 GJERGJAN 5126 3.6% 11 12 708 GJINAR 3478 2.5% 7 12 710 GRACEN 2192 1.5% 5 0 714 LABINOT FUSHE 7058 5.0% 15 15 715 LABINOT MAL 5291 3.7% 11 11 717 PAPER 6348 4.5% 13 13 720 SHIRGJAN 7307 5.2% 15 15 721 SHUSHICE 8731 6.2% 18 18 722 TREGAN 3036 2.1% 6 14 723 ZAVALINE 1622 1.1% 3 0

GRAMSH No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 17 Total 24231 100% 150 150 901 GRAMSH 8440 34.8% 52 50 902 KODOVJAT 2355 9.7% 15 15 908 KUKUR 2560 10.6% 16 16 903 KUSHOVE 659 2.7% 4 0 904 LENIE 779 3.2% 5 10 905 PISHAJ 4906 20.2% 30 30 906 POROCAN 1269 5.2% 8 10 907 SKENDERBEGAS 1239 5.1% 8 10 909 SULT 631 2.6% 4 0 910 TUNJE 1393 5.7% 9 9

BELSH No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 15 Total 19503 100% 150 150 701 BELSH 8781 45.0% 68 68 705 FIERZE 2065 10.6% 16 16 711 GREKAN 3138 16.1% 24 24 712 KAJAN 3925 20.1% 30 30 718 RRASE 1594 8.2% 12 12

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 83 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

CERRIK No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 14 Total 27445 100% 200 200 703 CERRIK 6695 24.4% 49 49 709 GOSTIME 8116 29.6% 59 59 713 KLOS 3262 11.9% 24 24 716 MOLLAS 5530 20.1% 40 40 719 SHALES 3842 14.0% 28 28

PEQIN No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 16 Total 26136 100% 200 200 2601 GJOCAJ 5207 19.9% 40 40 2602 KARINE 1350 5.2% 10 10 2603 PAJOVE 6626 25.4% 51 51 2604 PEQIN 6353 24.3% 49 49 2605 PERPARIM 3423 13.1% 26 26 2606 SHEZE 3177 12.2% 24 24

PRRENJAS No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 19 Total 24906 100% 150 150 2005 PRRENJAS 5847 23.5% 35 35 2008 QUKES 8211 33.0% 49 49 2011 RRAJCE 8421 33.8% 51 51 2010 STRAVAJ 2427 9.7% 15 15

LIBRAZHD No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 18 LIBRAZHD 31892 100% 200 200 2001 HOTOLISHT 5706 17.9% 36 36 2002 LIBRAZHD 6937 21.8% 44 44 2003 LUNIK 2621 8.2% 16 16 2004 ORENJE 3883 12.2% 24 24 2006 POLIS 3385 10.6% 21 20 2007 QENDER 8551 26.8% 54 52 2009 STEBLEVE 809 2.5% 5 8

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 84 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

MALIQ No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 35 Total 41757 100% 200 200 1402 GORE 1565 3.7% 7 9 1405 LIBONIK 8922 21.4% 43 43 1407 MALIQ 4290 10.3% 21 23 1408 MOGLICE 951 2.3% 5 0 1410 PIRG 7652 18.3% 37 37 1411 POJAN 10864 26.0% 52 52 1416 VRESHTAS 7513 18.0% 36 36

POGRADEC No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 34 Total 61530 100% 250 250 2801 BUCIMAS 15687 25.5% 64 64 2802 CERRAVE 7009 11.4% 28 28 2803 DARDHAS 2182 3.5% 9 10 2804 POGRADEC 20848 33.9% 85 85 2805 PROPTISHT 4785 7.8% 19 19 2806 TREBINJE 2481 4.0% 10 10 2807 UDENISHT 5990 9.7% 24 24 2808 VELCAN 2548 4.1% 10 10

KORCE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 33 Total 75994 100% 250 250 1401 DRENOVE 5581 7.3% 18 18 1403 KORCE 51152 67.3% 168 168 1404 LEKAS 392 0.5% 1 0 1409 MOLLAJ 3438 4.5% 11 11 1412 QENDER BULGAREC 9022 11.9% 30 30 1413 VITHKUQ 1519 2.0% 5 10 1414 VOSKOP 3832 5.0% 13 13 1415 VOSKOPOJE 1058 1.4% 3 0

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 85 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

DEVOLL / BILISHT No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 38 Total 26716 100% 200 200 401 BILISHT 6250 23.4% 47 47 402 BILISHT QENDER 5440 20.4% 41 41 404 HOCISHT 4461 16.7% 33 33 403 MIRAS 6577 24.6% 49 49 405 PROGER 3988 14.9% 30 30

KOLONJE / ERSEKE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 37 Total 11070 100% 150 150 1301 BARMASH 480 4.3% 7 11 1302 CLIRIM 355 3.2% 5 0 1303 ERSEKE 3746 33.8% 51 51 1304 LESKOVIK 1525 13.8% 21 21 1306 MOLLAS 1520 13.7% 21 21 1307 NOVOSELE 355 3.2% 5 0 1308 QENDER ERSEKE 2673 24.1% 36 36 1305 QENDER LESKOVIK 416 3.8% 6 10

PUSETC No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 36 Total 3290 100% 150 150 1406 PUSTEC 3290 100.0% 150 150

BERAT No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 1 Total 60031 100% 250 250 101 BERAT 36496 60.8% 152 152 105 OTLLAK 9218 15.4% 38 38 107 ROSHNIK 2513 4.2% 10 10 108 SINJE 3351 5.6% 14 14 104 VELABISHT 8453 14.1% 35 35

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 86 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

SKRAPAR / COROVODE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 4 Total 12403 100% 150 150 3101 BOGOVE 1098 8.9% 13 13 3102 CEPAN 740 6.0% 9 12 3103 COROVODE 4051 32.7% 49 49 3104 GJERBES 813 6.6% 10 10 3105 LESHNJE 496 4.0% 6 0 3107 POTOM 897 7.2% 11 11 3108 QENDER 2545 20.5% 31 31 3109 VENDRESHE 984 7.9% 12 12 3110 ZHEPE 779 6.3% 9 12

POLICAN No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 5 Total 10953 100% 150 150 3106 POLICAN 4318 39.4% 59 59 109 TERPAN 1716 15.7% 24 24 111 VERTOP 4919 44.9% 67 67

URA VAJGURORE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 2 Total 27295 100% 200 200 112 CUKALAT 3045 11.2% 22 22 102 KUTALLI 9643 35.3% 71 71 106 POSHNJE 7375 27.0% 54 54 110 URA VAJGURORE 7232 26.5% 53 53

KUCOVE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 3 Total 31262 100% 200 200 1601 KOZARE 5622 18.0% 36 36 1602 KUCOVE 12654 40.5% 81 81 103 LUMAS 3981 12.7% 25 25

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 87 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

1603 PERONDI 9005 28.8% 58 58

RROGOZHINE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 54 Total 22148 100% 150 150 1202 GOSE 4120 18.6% 28 28 1205 KRYEVIDH 4662 21.0% 32 32 1206 LEKAJ 5126 23.1% 35 34 1208 RROGOZHINE 7049 31.8% 48 48 1209 SINABALLAJ 1191 5.4% 8 8

ROSKOVEC No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 23 Total 21742 100% 150 150 806 KUMAN 5611 25.8% 39 39 807 KURJAN 3618 16.6% 25 25 814 ROSKOVEC 4975 22.9% 34 34 815 STRUM 7538 34.7% 52 52

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 88 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

Lot 3

Municipalities of Lot 3: 1. KAVAJE 2. KELCYRE 3. DIVJAKE 4. LIBOHOVE 5. LUSHNJE 6. DROPULL 7. FIER 8. SARANDE 9. PATOS 10. FINIQ/LIVADHJA 11. MALLAKASTER/BALLSH 12. KONISPOL 13. MEMALIAJ 14. DELVINE 15. TEPELENE 16. HIMARE 17. GJIROKASTER 18. SELENICE 19. PERMET 20. VLORE

KAVAJE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 53 Total 40094 100% 200 200 1201 GOLEM 6994 17.4% 35 35 1203 HELMES 3139 7.8% 16 16 1204 KAVAJE 20192 50.4% 101 100 1207 LUZ I VOGEL 4735 11.8% 24 24 1210 SYNEJ 5034 12.6% 25 25

DIVJAKE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 24 Total 34254 100% 200 200 2104 DIVJAKE 8445 24.7% 49 49 2108 GRABJAN 3638 10.6% 21 21 2109 GRADISHTE 7521 22.0% 44 44 2115 REMAS 4449 13.0% 26 26 2116 TERBUF 10201 29.8% 60 60

LUSHNJE

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 89 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 21 Total 83659 100% 250 250 2101 ALLKAJ 4319 5.2% 13 13 2102 BALLAGAT 2461 2.9% 7 7 2103 BUBULLIME 5548 6.6% 17 17 2105 DUSHK 7872 9.4% 24 24 2106 FIER SHEGAN 7023 8.4% 21 20 2107 GOLEM 5243 6.3% 16 16 2110 HYSGJOKAJ 2603 3.1% 8 8 2111 KARBUNARE 4193 5.0% 13 12 2112 KOLONJE 5728 6.8% 17 17 2113 KRUTJE 7564 9.0% 23 23 2114 LUSHNJE 31105 37.2% 93 93

FIER No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 20 Total 120655 100% 300 300 801 CAKRAN 11722 9.7% 29 29 802 DERMENAS 7788 6.5% 19 19 803 FIER 55845 46.3% 139 139 804 FRAKULL 6820 5.7% 17 17 808 LEVAN 8159 6.8% 20 20 809 LIBOFSHE 6149 5.1% 15 15 810 MBROSTAR URA 7460 6.2% 19 19 812 PORTEZ 8259 6.8% 21 21 813 QENDER 4207 3.5% 10 10 816 TOPOJE 4246 3.5% 11 11

PATOS No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 22 Total 22959 100% 150 150 811 PATOS 15397 67.1% 101 101 805 RUZHDIE 2326 10.1% 15 15 817 ZHARREZ 5236 22.8% 34 34

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 90 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

MALLAKASTER / BALLSH No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 25 Total 27062 100% 200 200 2301 ARANITAS 2714 10.0% 20 20 2302 BALLSH 7657 28.3% 57 57 2303 FRATAR 3221 11.9% 24 24 2304 GRESHICE 1152 4.3% 9 9 2305 HEKAL 2623 9.7% 19 19 2306 KUTE 1977 7.3% 15 15 2307 NGRACAN 588 2.2% 4 0 2308 QENDER 6253 23.1% 46 46 2309 SELITE 877 3.2% 6 10

MEMALIAJ No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 31 Total 10657 100% 150 150 3301 BUZ 737 6.9% 10 10 3303 KRAHES 2554 24.0% 36 36 3306 LUFTINJE 1734 16.3% 24 24 3307 MEMALIAJ 2647 24.8% 37 37 3302 MEMALIAJ FSHAT 1606 15.1% 23 23 3309 QESARAT 1379 12.9% 19 20

TEPELENE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 30 Total 8949 100% 150 150 3304 KURVELESH 705 7.9% 12 12 3305 LOPES 723 8.1% 12 12 3308 QENDER TEPELENE 3179 35.5% 53 53 3310 TEPELENE 4342 48.5% 73 73

GJIROKASTER

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 91 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 26 Total 28673 100% 200 200 1001 ANTIGONE 998 3.5% 7 8 1002 CEPO 1727 6.0% 12 12 1005 GJIROKASTER 19836 69.2% 138 138 1006 LAZARAT 2801 9.8% 20 20 1008 LUNXHERI 1941 6.8% 14 14 1009 ODRIE 433 1.5% 3 0 1010 PICAR 937 3.3% 7 8

PERMET No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 28 Total 10614 100% 150 150 2702 CARCOVE 918 8.6% 13 15 2703 FRASHER 387 3.6% 5 0 2705 PERMET 5945 56.0% 84 84 2709 PETRAN 1622 15.3% 23 26 2706 QENDER PISKOVE 1742 16.4% 25 25

KELCYRE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 29 Total 6113 100% 150 150 2701 BALLABAN 1047 17.1% 26 26 2708 DISHNICE 1159 19.0% 28 28 2704 KELCYRE 2651 43.4% 65 65 2707 SUKE 1256 20.5% 31 31

LIBOHOVE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 27 Total 3667 100% 150 150 1007 LIBOHOVE 1992 54.3% 81 81 1012 QENDER LIBOHOVE 1264 34.5% 52 52 1013 ZAGORIE 411 11.2% 17 17

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 92 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

DROPULL No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 32 Total 3503 100% 150 150 1003 DROPULL I POSHTEM 2100 59.9% 90 90 1004 DROPULL I SIPERM 971 27.7% 42 42 1011 POGON 432 12.3% 18 18

SARANDE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 57 Total 20227 100% 150 150 3009 KSAMIL 2994 14.8% 22 22 3005 SARANDE 17233 85.2% 128 128

FINIQ / LIVADHJA No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 60 Total 10529 100% 150 150 3007 ALIKO 3849 36.6% 55 55 3001 DHIVER 1396 13.3% 20 20 303 FINIQ 1333 12.7% 19 19 3003 LIVADHJA 1165 11.1% 17 16 304 MESOPOTAM 2786 26.5% 40 40

KONISPOL No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 58 Total 8245 100% 150 150 3002 KONISPOL 2123 25.7% 39 38 3008 MARKAT 1859 22.5% 34 34 3006 XARRE 4263 51.7% 78 78

DELVINE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 93 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID

59 Total 7598 100% 150 150 302 DELVINE 5754 75.7% 114 114 305 VERGO 1844 24.3% 36 36

HIMARE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 56 Total 7818 100% 150 150 3602 HIMARE 2822 36.1% 54 54 3612 HORE-VRANISHT 2080 26.6% 40 40 3004 LUKOVE 2916 37.3% 56 56

SELENICE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 61 Total 16396 100% 150 150 3613 ARMEN 2965 18.1% 27 28 3601 BRATAJ 2849 17.4% 26 26 3603 KOTE 3516 21.4% 32 32 3607 SELENICE 2235 13.6% 20 20 3608 SEVASTER 1720 10.5% 16 16 3610 VLLAHINE 3111 19.0% 28 28

VLORE No. of Adjusted no. of Unit Population Percentage interviews interviews 55 Total 104827 100% 250 250 3604 NOVOSELE 8209 7.8% 20 20 3605 ORIKUM 5503 5.2% 13 13 3606 QENDER 7621 7.3% 18 18 3609 SHUSHICE 3981 3.8% 9 9 3611 VLORE 79513 75.9% 190 190

Local Governance Mapping is carried out in the framework of STAR 2 project, implemented by UNDP, with the 94 support of Italian, Sweedish and Swiss Government and USAID