Citizen reportcards

A citizen report card is "a sample survey of the users of ... services (both rich and poor) and a rating of the public agencies in terms of public satisfaction with different dimensions of their services". (1998:1) They have been used to raise public awareness about poor service delivery and to challenge service providers to improve. 

The approach was pioneered in 1993 by the Public Affairs Centre (PAC), an NGO based in Bangalore. Focus group discussions and mini case studies from different parts of the city were used to develop survey questions, which covered: 

  • Overall satisfaction
  • Satisfaction with: staff behaviour, quality of service & information provided
  • 'Speed money' actually paid (i.e. bribes)
  • The cost of alternative services paid by citizens

Two stratified random sample surveys were carried out, using related questionnaires for middle and upper income households and for poor households. The sample sizes were 807 and 327 households respectively. The surveys were implemented with support from a local market research organisation. Enumerators were trained and used 'show cards' to help respondents rate their satisfaction. (1998:4)

The agencies involved were ranked in terms of their performance, as reported by citizens.

Surveys were repeated in 1999 and 2003.

The survey for each Bangalore report card cost $10-12,000 and took about 7 months to complete. In addition, the PAC disseminated findings through workshops and the media, and engaged with government departments to improve services. (2004:i)

Results

Findings from the 1993 survey

On average across 8 public agencies, 7% of users were satisfied and 38% dissatisfied. 25% of users were satisfied with staff behaviour. 14% of users paid bribes, with 33% paying bribes in 2 agencies. The average bribe paid was US$29. (1998:6-9)


In response to the 1993 survey, the Bangalore Development Authority worked with the PAC to run more report cards, to motivate its officials to be more responsive to service users (1998:15). Some other agencies also responded positively, for instance to tackle the corruption which was described by the reports and could be compared between agencies with hard data for the first time.

An independent assessment by the World Bank in 2004 interviewed agency heads, senior officials, citizen action groups and the media in Bangalore. It found that "on the whole, the impact of the [report cards] has been positive. They helped to increase public awareness of the quality of services and stimulated citizen groups to demand better services." (2004:ii)

Following the report cards, "many of the agencies initiated reform measures" and "Bangalore has witnessed a number of improvements". However some senior agency officials perceived "that the [report cards] did not reflect their achievements and the constraints on their performance". (2004:ii)

Results depend on several external factors including the use of information by the media and civil society,  the responsiveness of agencies and their leaders, the institutional context and the resources available. These limited responses in some cases. The 1999 report card found only 'partial improvement' in user satisfaction and that corruption had increased. (2004:13, 17)

Weaknesses identified by some interviewees include: responses may be influenced by their subjective experiences and expectations, the sample size may be too small and could include non-residential users and the agency officials should also be surveyed to identify factors outside their control. (2004:13-14)

Since the PAC's first experience, citizen report cards have spread. The 2007 manual reports they have been used from Ukraine to China, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Peru, Argentina and others. (2007: 4)

More information