ToolBOX
Citizen Report Card
| Purpose |
Simple but powerful tool to provide public agencies with systematic feedback from users of public services.” Citizen Report Cards (CRC) are used to pinpoint areas prone to corruption (e.g. in the provisions of health, education, police services) and to devise measures to combat the same. CRC address themes such as access to services, quality and reliability, transparency in service provision such as disclosure of service quality standards and norms, costs incurred in using a service including ‘hidden costs’ such as bribes or private resources spent to compensate for poor service provision. |
|---|---|
| Types of data used |
Both objectivedata (experience-based questions about actual incidence of petty corruption, type of transactions and services involved, amount actually paid, etc.) and subjective data (e.g. perceptions about the extent of petty corruption, on public confidence in various institutions, on satisfaction levels about service provision, etc.) |
| Methodology |
Usually, a prominent local NGO takes the lead in initiating the CRC. An independent consortium consisting of government, civil society, academics and media can also lead the process. It is important to secure the buy-in of the service providers as well. A focus group discussion involving both service providers and users is organized in order to help identify the services (one or more) and aspects of service delivery (availability, access, quality of service, incidence and resolution of problems and complaints, interaction with staff, corruption) that should be included in the CRC.
A useful practice is to break the questionnaire into different modules that are answered by different members of the household (depending on who is the main user of a particular service)
Data is collected through a random, representative sample of respondents. Typically, respondents give information on aspects of government services on a numerical scale (e.g. 1 to 7).
The exercise is expected to be repeated regularly. Results should be widely disseminated thorough the media and a follow-up meeting between the citizens and service providers should be held to engage in an evidence-based dialogue to identify ways to improve service providers’ performance. |
| Area of Governance |
Corruption Local Governance and Decentralization Public Administration
|
| Pro-poor /gender sensitive aspects |
Strong. Results are usually disaggregated into poor and non-poor categories, and by gender, in order to demonstrate inequalities in the level of access and quality of service provided to the poorer and marginalized sections of the community (e.g. general households vs. slum dwellers) This allows for anti-corruption and governance reform policies to be targeted to specific groups.
|
| Example indicators |
CRC on the payment system for drinking water services: Is clear information given in the town hall on where to pay? On how to pay? On who can receive the payment? On where to go for inquiries on the statement of accounts?
Are official receipts issued as proof of payment?
How long does it take to complete your payment transactions?
Are you generally satisfied with the payment system? |
| Where to find this tool | |
| Actionability |
Very actionable. In addition to evaluating the most corrupt institutions and the groups who are most vulnerable to corruption, questions can be asked to assess the effectiveness of anti-corruption mechanisms, such as whether a receipt is issued as proof of payment, whether citizens know how to access a ‘redress mechanism’ if needed, etc. Furthermore, by organizing a focus group discussion with service users in the preparatory phase to inform the design of the survey, the likelihood that the data generated by the CRC will be actionable is increased. |
| Complementarity |
Questions address both anti-corruption “inputs” (e.g. clear guidelines on how to complete payment transactions, existence of an effective redress mechanism accessible to all citizens, etc.) and corruption “outputs” (asking citizens about their perceptions of and experiences with corruption). Questions assess the de facto effectiveness of anti-corruption measures. |