Satisfaction survey 2015

SatiSfaction Survey IIIII I

Transparency InTernaTIonal nepalCoalition against corruption

Satisfaction Surveyon Public Service Delivery 2015

Conducted byTransparency International Nepal (TI Nepal)A national chapter of Transparency International (TI), a global civil society organization leading the fight against corruption.

2015

II IIIII SatiSfaction Survey

P.O.Box: 11486, Chhakubaku MargNew Baneshwor, Kathmandu, Nepal

Tel: 977-1-4475062, 4475112, 4475262Fax: 977-1-4475112

Email: [email protected]: www.tinepal.orgHotline : 1660 01 22211

Transparency InTernaTIonal nepalCoalition against corruption

/ tinepal

Satisfaction Surveyon

Public Service Delivery 2015

Satisfaction Survey onPublic Service Delivery 2015

Research Coordination TeamTumburu Gautam, Program Coordinator: Survey Supervision Binod Bhattarai, Program Officer: Field CoordinationMd. Rabiul Islam, Fredskorpset Exchange Fellow: Research design, data analyses & report writing

Supported byBhrastachar Biruddha Abhiyan, Chitwan

Janachetana Tatha Bikas Karyakram, Dhanusha

Mahila Jagaran Sangh, Ilam

Manabiya Bikas Tatha Shrot Byabasthapan Nepal, Dhading

Manav Adhikar Ra Batawaran Bikash Kendra, Udaypur

Nagarik Sarokar Manch, Morang

Nagarik Sarokar Sangh, Surkhet

Paradarsi Nepal Siddharthanagar, Rupandehi

Professional Women Support Group, Kathmandu

Sadacharka Lagi Samajik Pahal, Kailali

Susahan Abhiyan Gulmi, Gulmi

Susahanka Lagi Nagarik Samaj, Kaski

Published onMay 2016

©Transparency International Nepal

ContactTransparency International - Nepal (TI Nepal)Chhakubaku Marga, New BaneshworKathmandu, NepalPhone: 977-1-4475062, 4475112Email: [email protected]: www.tinepal.orgHotline: 1660 01 22211

SatiSfaction Survey IIIII V

Foreword

Transparency International Nepal (TIN) is a leading social movement against corruption in the country. It promotes integrity approach to combat corruption in Nepal for more than two decades. TIN’s functional operation since its inception, has faced many challenges and prospects on the backdrop of unstable government in the country. The level and coverage of corruption has increased in these years as it is supported by the baseline and satisfaction surveys conducted by Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre and Development Pact (ALACDP) under the aegis of TIN.

The objective and subjective assessment of the service recipients when accessing public goods and services were elicited from these surveys. ALACDP project when started in May 2012 focused on four major areas of interventions – raising awareness, set-up of public grievance redressal para-legal tool with the implementation of civic-government integrity pledge, enabling TIN and CBOs and advocate for policy reforms and change on the basis of experience and perception of local citizens.

In this survey report, graphical presentation and data analysis and interpretation show a clarity on the effectiveness, efficiency, economical and equity-based delivery of public goods and services as experienced and perceived by service users. There are some noteworthy changes we find when we compare this satisfaction survey with the baseline survey. It is no exaggeration that after the intervention step undertaken by ALAC DP through local civil society organizations affiliated to TI Nepal, the level of anti-corruption movement has drastically risen. The result is the improved quality of governance and work performance with satisfaction of service

VI IIIII SatiSfaction Survey

takers increasing since the baseline survey.

Finally, we at TI Nepal are pleased to publish a painstaking survey report in this shape. We pay our deep gratitude to our staff team, surveyor and activists who provided us their assistance from the beginning to the end of compiling this survey report. Also we must not fail to acknowledge help extended by our affiliated organizations working in the respective districts. Their invaluable support is praiseworthy. Likewise, we express our heartfelt appreciation to the European Delegation to Nepal for extending technical and financial assistance to execute this project.

Bharat Bahadur ThapaPresidentTransparency International Nepal

SatiSfaction Survey IIIII VII

Executive Summary Corruption has become a global phenomenon and it is a growing and vexing problem in Nepal. Transparency International Nepal (TI Nepal) envisions corruption free Nepal and it is an anti-corruption social movement. Since its inception a benchmark based on a baseline survey is set under the Advocacy and Legal Advice Center Development Pact (ALACDP) of TI Nepal. The current survey is the project end survey to evaluate project achievement in comparison to the baseline survey. It tried to examine local people’s experience and perception of corruption while accessing public goods and services at district level and to suggest to combat and improve this existing situation.

In this survey thirteen public service delivery offices were covered to elicit information. They are Offices of Land Reform and Revenue, Land Survey, District Administration, Health, Police, Communications, Transport, Municipality, Electricity, Water, Agriculture, Forest and Tax/Customs. It applied a systematic random sampling method where the sample size was 2330.

In this survey male and female respondents were 63.9% and 36.1% reespectively. The findings during the last one year show that 66% of the total respondents which is comprising majority of the households in the survey received services from the Electricity Authority Office. Likewise 64% of the respondents have taken services from the Municipal Office. Though 61% of respondents had faced different types of corrupt practice while taking service from different service sectors. According to 54% of the respondents the quality of service delivery had improved somewhat.

We found in sectoral analysis that the level of corruption was the highest in Land Reform and Revenue Offices. 51% of the households

VIII IIIII SatiSfaction Survey

who received services from this sector were victims of one or the other forms of corruption. Among different districts, the level of corruption was the highest in Rupandehi. Among the service recipient households of Rupandehi, about 82% were victim of one or the other forms of corruption. The service recipient households faced different types of corrupt practices like bribery, harassment by brokers, negligence or delay, etc. Among various forms of corruption, 56.6 % of total households had faced corruption or irregularities. paid bribe and unregulated money. The rate of paying bribe was the highest in Surkhet district where 90% of the household had paid or were forced to pay bribe or unauthorized money.

According to the findings, 48% of the respondents perceived that the corruption level has increased in their districts, and nearly half of the respondents (48%) viewed politics or political party as the main activity/actor in promoting corruption. About 41% of the respondents suggested to increase public awareness to fight corruption. While 34% had considered legal action as the most effective measure to fight it. According to 52% of respondents, public awareness is the most appropriate action that civic society has to undertake to fight corruption. Above all, the political will is necessary among political parties to curb it. In doing so, it should act beyond any bias or fear.

Table of Contents

Foreword VExecutive Summary VII

List of Tables XIList of Figures XIIAbbreviations and Acronyms XIV

CHAPTER Page No.Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology 01-07

1.1 Background and Context 011.2 Rationale of the Study 021.3 Objectives of the Study 031.4 Scope of the Study 031.5 Sampling and Data collection Method 041.6 Field Data Collection and Quality Control 061.7 Survey Duration 071.8 Data Processing and Analysis 07

Chapter 2: Background Information of the Respondents 08-122.1Sex Distribution of the Respondents 082.2 Age Distribution of the Respondents 092.3 Educational Background of the Respondents 092.4 Occupation of the Respondents 102.5 Types of the Respondents 11

Chapter 3: Quality of Service Delivery: Experience of Respondents

13-31

3.1 Service Recipients Household from Different Service Sectors

13

3.2 Change in Service Delivery 14

3.3 Corruption Experienced by Households 163.4 Types of Problem/Corruption 213.5 Unauthorized Money 223.6 Satisfaction Level of Service Recipient 243.7 Complaint against Corruption 25

Chapter 4: Public Perception about Governance Situation 32-404.1 Perception about Corruption Level Changed in

District 32

4.2 Prevalence of Corruption in the Districts 354.3 Government’s Actions to Combat Corruption 364.4 Efforts of NGOs to Combat Corruption 384.5 Service Delivery as per Public Expectations 39

Chapter 5: Public Suggestions to Improve Governance Situation

41-44

5.1 Factors to Promote Corruption 415.2 Necessary Measures to Fight against Corruption 425.3 Role of Civil Society to Combat Corruption 435.4 Initiatives to Improve Public Service Delivery 43

Chapter 6: Recommendations and Conclusion 45-486.1 Recommendations 456.2 Conclusion 47

Annex I 49-57

Annex II58-62

SatiSfaction Survey IIIII XI

List of Tables

Tables Page

Table 1.5.1: District-wise Distribution of Adjusted Samples 05

Table 2.5.1: Types of the Respondent: Sex-based Analysis 12

XII IIIII SatiSfaction Survey

List of Figures FIGURES Page No.

Figure 2.1.1: Sex Distribution of the Respondents 08Figure 2.2.1: Age Distribution of the Respondents 09Figure 2.3.1: Educational Background of the Respondents 10Figure 2.4.1: Occupations of the Respondents 11Figure 2.5.1: Types of the Respondents 12Figure 3.1.1: The rate (%) of Households Took Service from

Different Service Sector14

Figure 3.2.1: Institution-based Analysis of Changing in Service Delivery

15

Figure 3.2.2: District-based Analysis of Changing in Service Delivery

15

Figure 3.3.1: Overall Corruption Experienced by Household 16Figure 3.3.2: Corruption Experienced by Household: Comparison

with Baseline Findings17

Figure 3.3.3: Sex-based Analysis of Corruption Experienced 17Figure 3.3.4: Sex-based Comparison of Corruption Experienced

with Baseline 18

Figure 3.3.5: Corruption Experienced by Household in Different Service Sector

19

Figure 3.3.6: Corruption Experienced by Household in Different District

20

Figure 3.3.7: Comparison on Corruption Experienced by Household in Different District

21

Figure 3.4.1: Types of Corruption/Irregularities Faced by Households

22

Figure 3.5.1: Sector-based Analysis of Paying Unauthorized Money

23

Figure 3.5.2: District-based Analysis of Paying Unauthorized Money

23

Figure 3.5.3: Reason for Paying Unauthorized Money 24Figure 3.6.1: Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with Service

Delivery25

Figure 3.6.2: Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with the Behaviour of Service Delivery Officials

25

SatiSfaction Survey IIIII XIII

Figure 3.7.1: The Rate (%) of Complaint against Corruption 26Figure 3.7.2: Comparison with Baseline Findings of Complaint

against Corruption26

Figure 3.7.3: District-based Analysis of Complaint Rate 27Figure 3.7.4: Comparison of Complained Rate between Baseline

and Satisfaction Survey27

Figure 3.7.5: Reason for not Complained against Corrupt Practice

28

Figure 3.7.6: Authority where Corruption Related Complaints Registered

29

Figure 3.7.7: Comparison with Baseline on the Authority where Corruption related Complaints Registered

29

Figure 3.7.8: Impact of Redress against Corruption 30Figure 3.7.9: Willingness of Lodging Complaint against

Corruption in Future31

Figure 4.1.1: Overall Perception on Change in Corruption Level 32Figure 4.1.2: Comparison of Perception on Change in Corruption

Level with Baseline33

Figure 4.1.3: District-based Analysis of Perception on Change in Corruption Level

34

Figure 4.1.4: Gender-based Analysis of Perception on Change in Corruption Level

34

Figure 4.2.1: Score for Districts on Prevalence of Corruption 35Figure 4.2.2: Score for Districts on Prevalence of Corruption: A

Comparison with Baseline36

Figure 4.3.1: Effectiveness of Government’s Actions 37Figure 4.3.2: Effectiveness of Government’s Actions: A

Comparison with Baseline 38

Figure 4.4.1: Effectiveness of CSO’s Efforts 38Figure 4.4.2: Effectiveness of CSO’s Efforts: A Comparison with

Baseline39

Figure 4.5.1: People Getting Service as per Their Expectation Level or Not

40

Figure 5.1.1: Factors Play Role to Promote Corruption 41Figure 5.2.1: Measures Need to Take to Fight against Corruption 42Figure 5.3.1: Role of Civil Society to Combat Corruption 43Figure 5.4.1: Initiatives Need to Take to Improve Public Service

Delivery44

XIV IIIII SatiSfaction Survey

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ALACDP Advocacy & Legal Advice Center and Development Pact

AOs Affiliated Organizations

CDO Chief District Officer

CIAA Commission for the Investigation of Abuse and Authority

CPI Corruption Perceptions Index

CSOs Civil Society Organizations

DAO District Administration Office

GoN Government of Nepal

HH Households

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NVC National Vigilance Center

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

TI Transparency International

TIN Transparency International Nepal

SatiSfaction Survey IIIII 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Methodology

1.1 Background and ContextCorruption is making headlines globally and it has become common and widespread in Nepal too. Over the last few years, incidents of corruption have received greater public attention. The media has exposed scams and corruption committed by higher authorities. Corruption can occur at various levels. It does not spare national socio-economic activities. Corruption occurs in the form of illegal transactions of large sums of money. An abuse of power takes place through the influential network at the level of policy formulation in politics, administration and private sector. This nexus of corruption negatively affects country’s socio-economic aspects both at micro and macro levels. This type of corruption is usually called grand corruption.

Over the years, the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) reflected the worsening condition due to grand corruption in Nepal. In 2015, the CPI published by Transparency International (TI), ranked Nepal 130 among 168 countries, with a score of 27 out of 100. However, a slight improvement in CPI was observed in 2013, where Nepal scored 31 out of 100 and ranked as 116 out of 177 countries. In CPI 2014, Nepal recorded a score of 29 out of 100, which was comparatively better among SAARC countries.1 On the other hand, the service recipients in various sectors become victims of different types of corruption and irregularities in receiving their rightful 1 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2015, Transparency International, Berlin,

Germany. For more visit http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table

2 IIIII SatiSfaction Survey

services from service providers. For example, payment of small amount of money in addition to official charges to get services done is a common form of corruption at this level. This type of corruption is known as petty corruption impacting everyday life of millions of common citizens. Since 1996, Transparency International Nepal (TI Nepal) is working for a corruption-free Nepal through an anti-corruption social movement. Apart from its other activities, TI Nepal had engaged some district level NGOs chosen from its Affiliated Organizations (AOs). The coalition against corruption with lcoal NGOs is to improve and monitor governance situation in public service delivery at district level under its ALACDP Project. In the year 2013, a baseline survey was conducted on six districts, and again in 2014, a baseline survey was conducted on another six districts to prepare a benchmark to explore governance in public service delivery and to compare project achievement through a project end survey.

1.2 Rationale of the StudyA formal agreement was signed between the European Union and TIN to implement ALAC DP on May 2012. It aims to improve the quality of basic public services delivered by the GoN to its citizens. This project focuses on efficiency, resourcefulness, transparency and accountability in public services. ALACDP is conducting its activities in 15 different districts of Nepal through AOs. The ALACDP project has certain goal to achieve like all other development project. To measure the level of achievement, a benchmark was prepared through baseline survey at the starting of the project, now it’s time to compare the benchmark result with the project end situation. The present survey is the project end survey to explore project achievement by comparing with its baseline survey. On the other hand, there is no natioanally or internationally recognized study like CPI to measures a prevalence of petty corruption in Nepal. So this survey is required to evaluate the project achievement and provide a clear status of the governance situation in the public


service delivery in Nepal. The current survey is the project end survey to evaluate project achievement in comparison to the baseline survey. It tried to examine local people’s experience and perception of corruption while accessing public goods and services at district level and to suggest to combat and improve this existing situation.

1.3 Objectives of the StudyThe main objective of the survey was to evaluate a project end achievement comparing its earlier baseline survey on governance situation of the public service delivery agencies in project implementation areas. Some specific objectives of the survey are given below:

tTo know the corruption experience of service recipient households of different public service delivery institutions

tTo measure public’s perception of corruption in different public service delivery institutions

tTo explore the nature, areas and irregularities in different public service delivery agencies

tTo identify institutions and services performing poorly at the local level

1.4 Scope of the StudyThe definition of corruption used in this survey is an abuse of entrusted power for personal gains. Apart from accepting bribe or compelled to pay bribe, negligence of duty, nepotism, embezzlement of money or assets, deception and different types of harassment have been included as defining elements of corruption.

In the survey information was collected on 13 service sectors which are meant to play special role in human development, social justice and economic security. They were selected based on issues reported to TIN and in different Media. These public offices are Land Reform & Revenue, Land Survey, District Administration, Health,


Police, Communication, Transport, Municipality, Electricity, Water, Agriculture, Forest and Tax /Customs. The survey was conducted in the ALACDP project areas in 12 different districts of Nepal.

1.5 Sampling and Data Collection MethodIn this survey the sample size was determined for a known population (547,332 households) using the following equation:

n= NZ2pqE2(N-1)+Z2pq

Where,

tn is the required sample size

tN is the population size

tp and q are the population proportions. Assume answer for each question.

tZ is the value of confidence (Standard normal distribution), which value is 1.96 for 95% confidence level

tE is the accuracy of sample proportions (margin of error), with an accuracy of plus or minus 3%.

The sample distribution was determined based on household density of the survey area and to maintain a standard sample size, at least 160 households were surveyed from each surveyed area and finally a sample size of 2330 households was determined, where non-response was not considered.2

2 If any householder above the age of 18 deny to be respondent or nobody was present at home during survey time, or they did not take any service from any of those service sector from the last year, this household was not considered as a respondent household, and data was collected from next adjacent household. Thus unanswering respondents was not considered in this survey.


The sampling distribution for each district is given below:

Table 1.5.1: District wise Distribution of Adjusted Samples

Districts Sample per District

Kathmandu 300

Morang 270

Rupandehi 240

Kaski 240

Kailali 160

Dhanusha 160

Ilam 160

Chitwan 160Gulmi 160

Dhading 160

Surkhet 160

Udaypur 160

Final Sample Size 2330

The following steps were followed for selecting households in the survey;

tIn the first stage, based on household density of the survey area, specific numbers of wards for each municipality were randomly selected using an online system.3

tTwo enumerators started data collection from the middle/ nearly middle of the ward and went to opposite direction using their right hand method to select their first interviewing household.

tAfter conducting the first interview, they selected 2nd interviewing household with a gap of five household. If any household where householder is above the age of 18, deny to become respondent or nobody was present at home during the

3 Wards were selected randomly using online system of following website https://www.random.org/


survey, or did not take any service from any of the service sectors last year, this household was not considered as respondent household, and data was collected from the next adjacent household, and with again five household gaps for the next interview. If the area and road/path ends, then they will take a U turn, and again visit household with the right hand method.

The person, who is the household head or any member of the household above 18 years of age, who handle family matters the most and has knowledge about different services taken by the family, was only considered as a respondent. In case of experience section (Section B), the respondent was free to talk with other informed person in the family on related services taken in order to collect the facts. But this rule was not applicable in other sections.

1.6 Field Data Collection and Quality ControlInformation was collected by 24 enumerators divided into 12 teams comprising two enumerators in each team. Each team collected information from each of 12 districts. The enumerators were provided with a brief training which included a detailed discussion on the questionnaire and how to fill-up the questionnaire for different service sectors correctly. A structured questionnaire was developed and finalized through a field test.

A researcher from TIN during the survey was engaged in overall monitoring and supervision of all team and of procesesses of their collected information. Additionally each team was constantly monitored by the officials of AOs of TIN in surveyed area. TIN researchers and officials of AOs to maintain the quality of data collection carried out certain monitoring checks (accompany check, back check, spot check and telephone check) for a proportion of filled-in questionnaires with random selection of 20% of it. Any information gaps identified through these checks were corrected accordingly.


1.7 Survey DurationThe field level data of this household survey was collected between December 15, 2015 and January 15, 2016 in 12 districts. Respondents were asked to answer the questions based on their experience of the last one year (from December 15, 2014 to December 14, 2015) when seeking government services from selected public service delivery offices.

1.8 Data Processing and AnalysisThe main task in data processing was eliminating errors in information of filled-in questionnaires. After completing of data collection, questionnaire editing and re-coding was done thoroughly. Errors from all 2330 questionnaires were identified and eliminated. After this, two data entry operator did the data entry job in a pre-developed database. After data entry, the database was checked thoroughly and cleansed where necessary. Then the data was analyzed using different statistical software like SPSS, Excel, etc. Then the draft report was prepared, which was then finalized through several review processes.


CHAPTER 2

Background Information of the Respondents

All persons living under one roof or occupying a separate housing unit or having a single cooking facility was considered as a household in this survey. In this chapter, some background information of the respondents, like sex, age, occupation, education, etc, has been discussed.

2.1 Sex Distribution of the RespondentsSex is an important factor to determine individual’s socio-economic status in the third world country like Nepal.

Figure 2.1.1: Sex Distribution of the Respondents


All the respondents of this survey can only be categorized as male and female. The above figure (Figure 2.1.1) shows that among the total respondents, 63.9% was male and 36.1% was female.

2.2 Age Distribution of the RespondentsThe following figure (Figure 2.2.1) is showing the age distribution of the respondents. Among the total respondents, 41.2% belong to the age group of 31-45 years which is the highest.

Figure 2.2.1: Age Distribution of the Respondents

Whereas 25.8% of the respondents falls between the age group of 16-30 years and 24.4% between 46-60 years.

2.3 Educational Background of the RespondentsThe educational status of households can be considered as indicative of the level of awareness in public service delivery and good governance as well as corruption. The respondents’ education level was collected during the interview.


Figure 2.3.1: Educational Background of the Respondents

The above figure shows that the percentage of the respondents who were illiterate (cannot read or write) was 15.71%, whereas those who can only read and write was 6.91%. Most of the respondents (25.54%) have completed their secondary level of study, followed by 18.76% at higher secondary level. And rest of them had attended/completed higher education.

2.4 Occupations of the RespondentsThe occupation of the respondents represents their income and economic status. It plays influential role to get access to public service sometimes. The occupation of the respondents is shown in below figure.


Figure 2.4.1: Occupations of the Respondents

Data presented in the figure shows that most of the respondents were farmer by their occupation, which is 26.14% of the total respondents. Business (all types of business) was the second most aspired occupation of the respondents at 25.79% which was followed by governmental service at 17.51%.

2.5 Types of the Respondents In this Satisfaction Survey, a person who is the household head or any member of the household above 18 years of age, mostly handle family matter and has knowledge about different services taken by the family was only considered as a respondent.


Figure 2.5.1: Types of the Respondents

Household head was the primary target. But in his/her absence, other informed member was taken as respondents for this survey. Since in the day time most of the household head engaged in financial activities, and in their absence other member of household responded. Most of the respondents (50.64%) was other member of the household.

In the sex-based analysis of household head, the study found that (shows in Table 2.5.1) only 18% household head were female respondents.

Table 2.5.1: Types of the Respondent: Sex based Analysis

SexType

TotalHousehold Head Other

Male 82.0% (943) 46.2% (545) 63.9% (1488)

Female 18.0% (207) 53.8% (635) 36.1% (842)

On the other hand, 82% of the male respondents were household head which is common findings in patriarchal society.


CHAPTER 3

Quality of Service Delivery: Experience of Respondents

The Survey investigated the experience of corruption among the public in 12 districts to explore the quality of service delivery. Householders were asked whether they faced any type of corruption during their engagement with different public institutions during the last one year. Those who did not take any services from at least one public institution during thelast one year are not interviewed in this survey. Most of the respondents have taken services from more than one service sector during that period.

3.1 Service Recipient Households from Different Service SectorsThe findings show that most of the households surveyed received services from Electricity Authority Office during the last one year comprising 66% of the total respondents. Similarly 64% of respondents have taken service from Municipal Offices which is followed by 57% respondents from health sector.


Figure 3.1.1: The rate (%) of Households Took Service from Different Service Sector

Among the respondents only 19% have taken service from Police and Agriculture offices. And only 9% have received service from forest office which is the lowest rate among all service sectors.

3.2 Change in Service Delivery In order to promote good governance in public service providing offices, continuous interventions were made in line with the public’s expectations in the project area. Even though the officials confessed to the limitation of the resources and the difficulties faced due to the absence of elected local representatives, they cooperated with the program initiatives to improve governance, transparency, accountability and integrity from their part. As a result the quality of service delivery has slightly improved than the previous year. It was compared showing in the following two figures (Figure 3.2.1 and 3.2.2). Most of the respondents (54%) said that, the quality of service delivery has been improved. But still a large portion of the service recipients, 38% respondents, said that the quality of service delivery stayed same during last one year.


Figure 3.2.1: Institution-based Analysis of Changing in Service Delivery

The sector-based analysis regarding change in quality in public service delivery was shown in the Figure 3.2.1. The data in this figure shows the quality of service delivery which is mostly improved in Communication Sector and Police. In these two service agencies 64% and 63% respondents experienced the most improvement respectively.

Figure 3.2.2: District-based Analysis of Changing in Service Delivery

The district-based analysis is shown in Figure 3.2.2. Among the


surveyed districts, Gulmi has improved in the quality in service delivery according to 84% respondents. Likewise 78% of the respondents in Ilam also had experienced improvement in the quality of service delivery.

In other remaining districts most of the respondents (64%) in Kaski felt there is no change in the quality of public service delivery. However the overall scenario of service delivery has improved significantly. In the last one year there has been improvement in quality of service but it is not satisfactory.

3.3 Corruption Experienced by Households

The survey data shows that among the service recipient 61% has faced different kinds of corrupt practice while taking service from different service sectors. Though the percentage of household experiencing corruption is still high, it shows positive improvements since the last baseline survey.

Figure 3.3.1: Overall Corruption Experienced by Household

According to baseline findings of the service recipients, 73% has faced different types of corruption which has decreased by 12% in the satisfaction survey (shown in figure below).


Figure 3.3.2: Corruption Experienced by Household: Comparison with Baseline Findings

The sex-based analysis of corruption indicates that both male and female are equally victim of corruption.

Figure 3.3.3: Sex-based Analysis of Corruption Experienced

Though the percentage of experiencing corruption in case of male service recipients is slightly higher than the female service recipients. Even then it is still high percentage for both male and female. That means sex category of a service recipient is not


significantly different when facing corruption. Figure 3.3.3 shows the percentage of male and female service recipients who faced different types of irregularities while taking services from different service sectors. Figure 3.3.4 shows the comparison in findings of baseline and satisfaction surveys.

Figure 3.3.4: Sex-based Comparison of Corruption Experienced with Baseline

Survey data shows that 61% of the surveyed households experienced one or the other forms of corruption. From sectoral analysis we find that the level of corruption was the highest in Land Reform & Revenue with the rate of 51% of the households which received services from this sector were victims of one or the other forms of corruption. Land Survey (47%) and Transport (42%) sector occupied the second and the third position respectively in the level of corruption. Service recipient households in important sectors like Water (23%) and Health (25%) were victims of corruption and irregularities.


Figure 3.3.5: Corruption Experienced by Household in Different Service Sector

*Here ‘n’ indicates the total number of service taken incidences from each service sector.

From the view of district-based analysis we find that the level of corruption was the highest in Rupandehi. Among the service recipient households of Rupandehi, about 82% were victims of one or the other forms of corruption. Dhanusa (78%) and Udaypur (71%) district occupied the second and the third position respectively in the level of corruption. This is significantly higher than the overall percentage. Among the surveyed districts, service recipients of Chitwan faced lowest corruption than the rest. Only 39% household faced corruption in Chitwan which was followed by Gulmi (45%) and Morang (47%) districts.


Figure 3.3.6: Corruption Experienced by Household in Different Districts

*Here ‘n’ indicates the sample size for each district

The rate of corruption victims among service recipient households was 72% in the baseline which has decreased to 61% in Satisfaction Survey (Figure 3.3.7). Results of two surveys are compared based on identical indicators. For example, Kathmandu and Dhading districts showed significant improvement in satisfaction survey in terms of difference in corruption rate. Improvements are also observed in overall corruption level in satisfaction survey where corruption rate has decreased significantly (near about 11%) in comparison to the baseline.


Figure 3.3.7: Comparison on Corruption Experienced by Household in Different Districts

3.4 Types of Problem/CorruptionBribery and undue delay are common among different types of corruption or irregularities experienced by service recipients. It was observed that 61% of the households that received services from different sectors became victims of corrupt practices. The practices include taking money more than what was agreed upon (18%), harassment by brokers (6%), negligence or delay (36%). Some households were victim of bribe with other sorts of corrupt practices. About 22% face bribe and negligence together. Again 11% faced both bribery and harassment by broker simultaneously. In others word, more than 57% household was victim of bribery which is really alarming.


Figure 3.4.1: Types of Corruption/Irregularities Faced by Households

3.5 Unauthorized MoneyPayment of unauthorized or unregulated money is significant among various forms of corruption in the service sectors in Nepal. The survey shows that 56.6% of total households has faced corruption or irregularities to receive services from the service sectors by paying bribe and unregulated money (Figure 3.5.1). As we see in this figure, the households experienced corruption in receiving services concerned with DAO paid or were forced to pay unauthorized money at the highest rate (74%). Electricity and Transport Offices have occupied the second and third position in receiving bribe at the rate of 73.6% and 72% respectively of corruption experiencing households which paid or were forced to pay bribe or unregulated money. Among the 13 sectors, Land Reform and Revenue showed better result than others. Wherein at the rate of 43.3% households which faced corruption while receiving service, paid or were forced to pay bribe or unregulated money.


Figure 3.5.1: Sector-based Analysis of Paying Unauthorized Money

*Here ‘n’ indicates the total number of corruption incidences for each service sector.

In the district-based analysis of paying unauthorized money (Figure 3.5.2), we can see that the rate of paying bribe is the highest in Surkhet district where 90% of the household faced corruption while receiving service from different service sector. Morang and Udaypur have occupied the second and third position in paying bribes where 89% and 82% of households respectively experienced corruption.

Figure 3.5.2: District-based Analysis of Paying Unauthorized Money

*Here ‘n’ indicates the total number of corruption incidences for each district.


Among 12 districts in the country the bribe paying rate is very low in Ilam which is only 2% households (Figure 3.5.2).

What was the reason for paying unauthorized money? According to the survey among the bribe paying households, the largest number of households (59%) had to pay bribe to complete the work or receive the service fast. On the other hand, 24% of household were compelled to pay bribe which is followed by 10% household providing a gift.

Figure 3.5.3: Reason for Paying Unauthorized Money

3.6 Satisfaction Level of Service Recipient Though 61% of the total household faced different corrupt practice found in the satisfaction survey, the satisfaction level of the service recipients with service delivery and with the behaviour of service delivery officials is satisfactory. The figure 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 shows towards a positive direction.


Figure 3.6.1: Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with Service Delivery

Among the total service recipient households most of them are satisfied with the service delivery where near 5% is highly satisfied. Only 14.2% households are dissatisfied with the quality of service delivery. On the other hands, about 44% household is satisfied with the behaviour of the service delivery officials.

Figure 3.6.2: Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with the Behaviour of Service Delivery Officials

About 20% households are dissatisfied with the behaviour of service delivery officials. Again, more than 35% is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

3.7 Complaint against CorruptionInspite of the evidence that six out of ten people had to face some type of corrupt practices, respondents were reluctant to lodge complaints on corruption. Overall 86% of the respondents faced corruption in the last one year and they did not report the incidence of corruption anywhere. Whereas remaining 14% reported the case of corruption.


Figure 3.7.1: The Rate (%) of Complaint against Corruption

The rate of complaint against corruption again decreased to 14% in satisfaction, where in baseline it was 23%. That means the rate of

complaint against corruption is decreasing day by day.

Figure 3.7.2: Comparison with Baseline Findings of Complaint against Corruption

In the district-based analysis we can see that the rate of complaint against corruption is the lowest for the Kailai (1%) followed by Udaypur (3%) and Ilam (3%) respectively. Data shows that the people of Dhanusha are the most alert in reporting corruption. Thus the complaint rate which is 38% is the highest in Dhanusha among 12 districts.


Figure 3.7.3: District based Analysis of Complaint Rate

*Here ‘n’ indicates the total number of respondents faced corruption/irregularities from at least one service sector.

The baseline findings also vindicate similar level of alertness in Dhanusha. Though the percentage has decreased little in satisfaction survey, Dhanusha is in the top position among the districts regarding the complaints against corruption. The vigilance of the people of Gulmi districts has increased the most in the satisfaction survey (Figure 3.7.4).

Figure 3.7.4: Comparison of Complaint Rate between Baseline and Satisfaction Survey

Close to 86% among the respondents who are the victims of corruption stated they did not report corruption anywhere when


they were asked why they did not report corruption. About 56% of them said that they would not report because it would not make any difference or it is useless (Figure 3.7.5). Then 34% said that they did not know where to report. Whereas remaining 10% did not complain due to fear of future complication when getting expected service.

Figure 3.7.5: Reason for no Complaint against Corrupt Practice

The service recipients who lodged complaint against corrupt practices were asked where did they report about corrupt practices. Data presented in Figure 3.7.6 shows that people are willing to report corruption to the authorities and concerned offices where it occurs. Among the respondents who complained against corruption around 55% of them lodged complaints in the concerned office. On an average 25% reported corrupt practices to DAO and 18% to TIN.


Figure 3.7.6: Authority where Corruption Related Complaints Registered

The findings of both baseline and satisfaction survey show that the people are always willing to report about corrupt practices to the concerned office where it occurs. It is 74% and 55% for baseline and satisfaction survey respectively. Data shows that more people (18% respondents) are now reporting to TIN in comparison to the baseline survey (3%).

Figure 3.7.7: Comparison with Baseline on the Authority where Corruption related Complaints Registered

There are institutions that meant to pursue complaints such as the


CIAA, NVC, and District Administrative Offices. These authorities are able to take action against corruption, abuse of authority, malpractices, delays, bribes, non-responsiveness, opaque dealings, etc. The instances of actions or inactions are detailed below:

Figure 3.7.8: Impact of Redress against Corruption

Above figure is (Figure 3.7.8) showing that among the respondents who faced different irregularities and complaint against those corrupt practice most of them (53%) did not get any positive result on their complaint. They said no action was taken as a remedy to their complaint. Nearly 40% said action was taken to address their compalaints.

Both in the findings of baseline and satisfaction survey we see that the larger portion of the households of corruption victim did not lodge any complaint on their problesm as most of them thought it is meaningless and some did not know where to file complaints. But data shows that majority of the respondents (59.01%) have shown their willingness to report the corrupt practice in future.


Figure 3.7.9: Willingness to Lodge Complaints against Corruption in Future


CHAPTER 4

Public Perception about Governance Situation

4.1 Perception about Corruption Level Changed The change in the level of perception about corruption was also investigated in the survey. Respondents were asked to share their view on whether the level of corruption has increased or decreased in their district in the last two years. According to the findings, 48% of the respondents perceived that the corruption level has increased in their districts. Only 18% respondents perceive the level of corruption has decreased in the last two years in their districts. While according to 34% respondents the level of corruption remained unchanged in their districts.

Figure 4.1.1: Overall Perception on Change in Corruption Level

According to the satisfaction survey most of the people think that


the level of corruption has increased in their districts. It has provided approximate fact than in the baseline findings (Figure 4.1.2). The total rate in increment in corruption level has decreased to 48% in the satisfaction survey in comparison to 66% in the baseline survey.

Figure 4.1.2: Comparison of Perception on Change in Corruption Level with Baseline

Regional differences can also be found on people’s current perception of corruption in their districts. Around 85% of respondents in Ilam and 76% in Kailai perceived an increase in the level of corruption over the last two years. Whereas only 8% respondents of Dhanusha and 19% in Chitwan district perceived an increase in the level of corruption during last two years.


Figure 4.1.3: District based Analysis of Perception on Change in Corruption Level

The gender-based analysis of perception on change inncorruption level does not show much difference as shown on the figure below. Most of the male and female respondents think that the level of corruption in their districts has not changed but remained the same.

Figure 4.1.4: Gender-based Analysis of Perception on Change in Corruption Level


4.2 Prevalence of Corruption in the DistrictsRespondents were asked to give a score to their districts on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 represents “nil” or very little level of corruption and 100 represents extremely corrupt. People’s view on corruption was the worst in Morang with an average score of 71. While people in Rupandehi and Gulmi viewed their districts as less corrupt with a score of 42 and 45 respectively.

Figure 4.2.1: Score for Districts on Prevalence of Corruption

In the baseline survey the scale was used from 0 to 100, where 0 was represented very high level of corruption and 100 represented as very low level of corruption. To compare the findings of baseline with satisfaction, the scale was reversely used like satisfaction and converted all score regarding this. In the comparison with baseline findings, respondents of Morang district perceived their district more corrupt than it was two years ago. On the other hands respondents of Dhanusha districts perceived that the corruption level of their district has decreased much than it was two years ago. Figure below shows a comparison of two findings.


Figure 4.2.2: Score for Districts on Prevalence of Corruption: A Comparison with Baseline

4.3 Government’s Actions to Combat CorruptionCombating corruption is a multi-stakeholder endeavour. Government in a conducive environment responds to fight against corruption, set standards, put anti-corruption laws in place and ensure they are implemented successfully. Apart from this role of the government, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are vital to fight against corruption.

There are so many government agencies which are directly involved in combating corruption like CIAA, NVC, Police, etc. These government agencies abide by the anticorruption laws enacted by government to fight against corruption. Effectiveness of government actions to combat corruption entirely depends on transparency, accountability and capacity of those agencies, judicial system and above all the political willingness of a ruling party. Are government actions enough to fight corruption?


Figure 4.3.1: Effectiveness of Government’s Actions

Most of the respondents (43%) think that the government actions are neither effective nor ineffective. Figure 4.3.1 shows the data. Only 29% of the respondents considered the actions to be either very effective or somewhat effective. Again 28% thinks government actions are to be either very ineffective or somewhat ineffective.

Comparison between baseline and satisfaction survey on peoples view on effectiveness of government actions to fight against corruption is shown in Figure 4.3.2. It shows that somehow ordinary people’s perception on effectiveness of government actions to fight corruption has decreased. In the baseline survey 44% respondents considered government actions as to be either very effective or somewhat effective in comparison to a decreased in perception in satisfaction survey of only 29%.


Figure 4.3.2: Effectiveness of Government’s Actions: A Comparison with Baseline

4.4 Efforts of CSOs to Combat CorruptionBesides governmental actions, the roles of Civil Society Organizations are considered as vital to fight against corruption. According to 45% respondents, the efforts of CSOs are to be either very effective or somewhat effective. On the other hand, 18% respondents think it is either very ineffective or somewhat ineffective. 36% of the respondents considered the efforts of CSOs are neither effective nor ineffective.

Figure 4.4.1: Effectiveness of CSO’s Efforts


A comparison with baseline findings also gives similar result of the government actions against corruption. Figure 4.4.2 shows that people are little bit frustrated with the efforts of CSOs to fight against corruption. In the baseline survey we found that 60% of the respondents said that the efforts of CSOs are to be either very effective or somewhat effective. It decreased to 45% in the satisfaction survey.

Figure 4.4.2: Effectiveness of CSO’s Efforts: A Comparison with Baseline

The main effort of CSOs plays as supportive roles with government to combat corruption. If government actions get failed and then initiatives and efforts of CSOs also fail. It is supported by the respondents’ observations.

4.5 Service Delivery as per Public Expectations

Everyone expects smooth, efficient and hassle-free services from the public service delivery agencies. But our findings show that reality is different. Respondents were asked that whether they have received services as per their expectation level or not. Most of them said sometimes it fulfils their expectation level and or sometimes


not. Nearly half of the respondents answered in this matter. On the other hand, 37% was frustrated with the service delivery. Only 16% was satisfied with the service they received.

Figure 4.5.1: People Getting Service as per Their Expectation Level or Not


CHAPTER 5

Public Suggestions to Improve Governance Situation

5.1 Factors to Promote CorruptionIn this survey people were asked about the main factor which played influential role to promote corruption. Nearly half of the respondents (48%) viewed the politics or political party as the main factor behind promoting corruption. Again 18% viewed bureaucracy (government) as the main reason behind promoting corruption. Lack of political will and dishonesty or negligence of citizen are considered as major cause behind promoting corruption by 15% and 10% respondents respectively. Details regarding this are shown in the figure below.

Figure 5.1.1: Factors Play Role to Promote Corruption


5.2 Necessary Measures to Fight against CorruptionDifferent governmental and non-governmental agencies are working to combat corruption with several measures. In spite of this coalition and collaboration, the corruption situation has not improved as per the expectation level of the country. Appropriate measures need to be taken to fight corruption. We have asked to our respondents what types of measures can be taken to fight corruption and what are their suggestions in this regard.

Figure 5.2.1: Measures Need to Take to Fight against Corruption

In the survey, respondents were asked to say about the most effective measures that can be taken to curb corruption in the country (Figure 5.2.1). About 41% of the respondents suggested to increase public awareness to fight corruption. Again 34% considered legal action as the most effective measures to fight corruption. Administrative accountability and political will are the two next important measures to fight corruption according to 16% and 7% respondents respectively.


5.3 Role of Civil Society to Combat CorruptionCSOs and NGOs also play vital role to curb corruption in the country. They take different initiatives and activities to fight against corruption. People were asked what sorts of action should be taken by the civic society to fight corruption (Figure 5.3.1). According to 52% of respondents, public awareness is the most appropriate action civic society has to undertake to fight corruption. Whereas 25% respondents defined the role of civic society to work as a pressure group to curb corruption.

Figure 5.3.1: Role of Civil Society to Combat Corruption

Rest of the respondents think that policy-advocacy and oversight role is best suited for CSOs and NGOs.

5.4 Initiatives to Improve Public Service DeliveryIn spite of all sorts of action and initiatives, the quality of public service delivery has not improved much. There were questions on what types of initiatives can be taken to improve the situation and what are the suggestions of the general people in this regard?


Figure 5.4.1: Initiatives Need to Take to Improve Public Service Delivery

Figure 5.4.1 shows that according to 27% of the respondents demanded that officials of public service delivery agencies must get due punishment for the abuse of authority.Only the the service delivery would improve. About 22% of the respondents said that initiatives be taken to enhance the capacity of service delivery officials. Nearly 18% respondents wanted to improve infrastructure and to instal CCTV in public service offices respectively. Again 13% respondents recommended to digitalize service system to improve service delivery.


CHAPTER 6

Recommendations and Conclusion

The Satisfaction Survey reflects the state of corruption as perceived and experienced by ordinary people. The Survey assesses corruption in general and corrupt practices in different public sectors in particular. The Survey provides an overview of the public services whichthe public perceives as the most corrupt. And it assesses the efforts of governmental institutions, non-governmental organizations and civil society to fight corruption.

6.1 RecommendationsBased on the survey findings the following recommendations are presented to implement them at policy and institutional level.

A. Institutional Level

Taking steps against corruption: Public officials engaged 1. in corrupt practices must be undergo trial. The sectors that showed higher level of corruption and have greater importance to poor people’s life and livelihood (such as education, health, local government, police) should give priority in taking actions against corruption.

Increasing the skills to fight against corruption: Skills for 2. fighting corruption must be enhanced in different institutions especially the service providing ones so that the institutions can take stern and effective steps against corruption. This should be done through training on the implementation of the anti-corruption laws, right to information act and whistle-


blower protection provision, and developing complaint redressal system or strengthening it.

Adopting Code of Conduct: Every institution must adopt its 3. own Code of Conduct. Accountability and transparency must be ensured on this basis.

Incentives: Steps should be taken to provide both positive 4. and negative incentives to prevent corruption. Benefits of government officials must be increased in accordance with the cost of living in order to prevent ‘corruption out of needs’. At the same time reward and punishment must be ensured on the basis of work performance of public officials in providing services.

Digitalization of Service System: The use of information 5. technology in every service providing institution has to be increased so that need for a direct contact between the service providers and service recipients decreases. Online/one stop services must be introduced in cases where necessary.

Implementation of Citizen’s Charter: All the service-providing 6. institutions must implement the second generation Citizen’s Charter. This must be accessible to all service recipients. The complaint mechanism must be made easy, and the redressal of complaints must be ensured.

B. Policy Level Initiative

Establishing the Rule of Law: The concerned institutions 7. (law enforcing agencies, judiciary) must act professionally to establish the rule of law. Conducive environment must be created free from the partisan politics. It must be established that irrespect of position and level the extent of corruption is a punishable act.

Establishing an Independent and Effective Anti-corruption 8. Authority: The CIAA and NVC must be independent and functional. It must be ensured that those agencies can act


without any bias or control. Its capacity and human resource must be strengthened and more resource should be allocated. On the other hand, specific training and other programs must be undertaken to enhance professional skill, integrity and sense of independence among the CIAA and NVC staff. They should go through rigorous screening to ensure qualities indispensable to combat corruption, and the staff should be suspended or removed from the job. Similar screening as well as punishment should be carried out at the local level.

C. Awareness, Campaign and Advocacy

Increasing the Roles of Civil Society: Different civil society 9. organizations should undertake its own initiatives to ensure transparency and accountability of different public and private service providing institutions. This can be done through using different social accountability tools such as open budgeting, report card survey, score card, and integrity pledge.

Increasing the Roles of the Media: The media must be allowed 10. to operate independently in creating mass awareness against corruption. The security of the reporters who investigate and report incidents of corruption must be protected, and in applicable cases, special reward and acknowledgement must be given. On the other hand, the media must strictly follow their own policies in maintaining the standard and quality of such reports.

Sustained Research and Policy Advocacy: Research on 11. corruption in service sectors must be continued to comprehend the changing trends so that the way out can be identified and policy advocacy can be sustained.

6.2 ConclusionCorruption is a serious problem in Nepal. Around one in two people said that in the last two years, the level of corruption has


increased in their districts, and people’s perception of many public institutions was negative. Efforts of governmental institutions to combat corruption were found to be only somewhat effective on average. On a more positive note, about half of the respondents found CSOs and NGO’s effort to fight corruption to be effective. People’s experience of corrupt practices while seeking services with a public institution was alarmingly high. More than six out of ten respondents experienced some form of malpractice or corruption at the local public institutions. but it is good to know that the rate is decreasing in this direction. While corrupt practices are prevalent, people’s reporting of corruption is discouragingly low. Near 70% of the people who experienced corrupt practices did not report such problem. A lack of reporting can be attributable to people’s lack of confidence in existing institutions. As 56% of people believed that reporting corruption would not make a difference. Active participation by different stakeholders to overcome the existing limitations and challenges can ensure quality public service delivery system in Nepal.


ANNEx I

Tables

Table 1: Sampling Distribution

Districts Sample Size %Kathmandu 300 12.9Morang 270 11.6Rupandehi 240 10.3Kaski 240 10.3Kailali 160 6.9Dhanusha 160 6.9Ilam 160 6.9Chitwan 160 6.9Gulmi 160 6.9Dhading 160 6.9Surkhet 160 6.9Udaypur 160 6.9

Total 2330 100.0


Table 2: Rate of Respondents Who Took Service from Different Service Sector

Sector Service Taken %Forest 207 9Agriculture 432 19Police 440 19Customs/Tax 604 26Land Survey 739 32Transport 924 40Communication 955 41Land Reform & Revenue 1058 45

Water 1095 47CDO Office 1178 51Health 1321 57Municipality 1501 64Electricity 1538 66

Table 3: Rate of the Corruption Incidents in Different Service Sector

Sector Corruption Faced (f)

Corruption faced (%)

Total Service Incidents

Communication 148 15 955Water 247 23 1095Electricity 374 24 1538Health 335 25 1321CDO Office 310 26 1178Police 119 27 440Agriculture 121 28 432Municipality 457 30 1501Customs/Tax 199 33 604Forest 77 37 207Transport 387 42 924Land Survey 349 47 739Land Reform & Revenue 542 51 1058


Table 4: Rate of the Corruption Incidents in Different Districts in Satisfaction and Baseline Survey

Districts Satisfaction (%)

Satisfaction (n)

Baseline (%)

Baseline (n)

Chitwan 39 160 53 62

Gulmi 45 160 49 72Morang 47 270 77 128Kaski 50 240 71 121Kathmandu 54 300 100 161Kailali 65 160 79 104Dhading 66 160 100 106Surkhet 70 160 85 112Ilam 70 160 70 112Udaypur 71 160 47 113Dhanusha 78 160 69 125Rupandehi 82 240 68 197

Overall 61 2330 72 1413

Table 5: Sector based analysis of Level of Change in Quality of Service Delivery

Sector Improve a little (%)

Improve a lot (%)

Stayed Same (%)

Worsen little (%)

Worsen lot (%)

Land Reform & Revenue

39 5 44 8 3

Land Survey 52 4 28 14 3CDO Office 55 7 32 5 1Health 52 7 36 5 1Police 54 9 31 5 1Communication 56 8 32 4 1Transport 42 4 41 12 2Municipality 38 11 43 6 2Electricity 45 8 40 5 2Water 42 10 41 5 1Agriculture 45 9 38 7 0Forest 33 8 49 7 2Customs/Tax 42 5 43 8 2

Overall 46 8 38 7 2


Table 6: Districts based analysis of Level of Change in Quality of Service Delivery

Districts Improve a little (%)

Improve a lot (%)

Stayed Same (%)

Worsen little (%)

Worsen lot (%)

Kathmandu 58 4 24 12 3Morang 24 9 55 8 4Rupandehi 52 3 40 5 0Kaski 22 4 64 9 1Kailali 49 18 28 4 1Dhanusha 43 1 55 0 0Ilam 77 1 19 3 0Chitwan 65 5 25 3 2Gulmi 56 28 15 1 0Dhading 42 8 40 8 1Surkhet 33 1 55 8 3Udaypur 41 20 33 6 1

Overall 46 8 38 7 2

Table 7: Sector based analysis of Types of Corruption (%)

Sector Bribery Harassment by brokers

Negligence or Delay Others Bribe &

Negligence Bribe &

Harassment Bribe & Others

Land Reform & Revenue 29.5 5.7 22.0 1.3 19.7 13.5 8.3

Land Survey 38.1 2.6 23.2 0.6 17.2 13.5 4.9CDO Office 10.3 5.5 44.2 2.3 21.3 12.3 4.2Health 5.4 4.2 47.5 5.1 25.1 3.0 9.9Police 14.3 3.4 32.8 6.7 25.2 10.1 7.6Communication 6.8 8.8 38.5 3.4 29.7 10.8 2.0Transport 12.4 9.0 33.1 1.3 19.1 13.4 11.6Municipality 19.5 6.6 42.5 2.4 13.3 7.9 7.9Electricity 6.1 4.5 45.5 3.2 30.7 8.8 1.1Water 7.7 6.9 44.5 0.0 32.4 6.9 1.6Agriculture 7.4 6.6 41.3 0.0 33.1 10.7 0.8Forest 24.7 0.0 26.0 0.0 31.2 18.2 0.0Customs/Tax 37.7 5.0 23.1 0.0 18.6 15.1 0.5

Overall 17.8 5.6 35.7 2.0 22.4 10.7 5.8


Table 8: Districts based analysis of Types of Corruption (%)

Table 9: Sector based Analysis of Paying Unauthorized Money

Sector Bribe Given (f) Bribe Given (%) Corruption Incidence Land Reform & Revenue 385 43 542

Communication 257 47 148

Agriculture 149 48 121

Municipality 145 49 457

Customs/Tax 68 49 199

Police 73 49 119

Forest 219 52 77

Land Survey 222 57 349

Health 175 57 335

Water 120 71 247

Transport 63 72 387

Electricity 57 74 374

CDO Office 143 74 310

Overall 2076 57 3665

Districts Bribery Negligence or Delay

Harassment by brokers Others Bribe &

Negligence Bribe &

Harassment Bribe & Others

Kathmandu 8.5 71.7 7.0 0.9 5.2 6.4 0.3Morang 31.7 8.2 1.2 1.2 45.9 10.0 1.8Rupandehi 19.9 38.4 2.6 1.9 20.4 10.6 6.3Kaski 8.5 50.8 14.8 2.2 9.0 8.5 6.3Kailali 36.5 25.6 6.4 1.9 21.2 5.0 3.3Dhanusha 14.2 51.0 2.6 0.0 12.3 20.0 0.0Ilam 1.2 88.5 4.0 5.2 0.0 1.2 0.0Chitwan 11.5 34.4 9.0 2.5 32.0 7.4 3.3Gulmi 0.0 85.7 10.2 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0Dhading 5.6 17.8 4.7 2.7 33.5 22.3 13.4Surkhet 20.9 5.5 2.0 2.4 34.4 27.3 7.5Udaypur 25.2 6.9 8.5 2.4 26.4 6.1 24.4

Overall 17.8 35.7 5.6 2.0 22.4 10.7 5.8


Table 10: District based Analysis of Paying Unauthorized Money

Districts Bribe Given (f) Bribe Given (%) Corruption Incidence

Ilam 6 2 252

Gulmi 3 3 98

Kathmandu 67 20 329

Kaski 133 32 413

Dhanusha 72 46 155

Chitwan 66 54 122

Rupandehi 308 57 539

Kailali 237 66 359

Dhading 252 75 337

Udaypur 202 82 246

Morang 502 89 562

Surkhet 228 90 253

Overall 2076 57 3665

Table 11: Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with Service Delivery

Satisfaction Level Frequency %

Highly Satisfied 104 4.5

Satisfied 1049 45.0

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

765 32.8

Dissatisfied 330 14.2

Highly Dissatisfied 82 3.5

Total 2330 100.0


Table 12: Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with the Behaviour of Service Delivery Officials

Satisfaction Level Frequency %

Highly Dissatisfied 92 3.95

Dissatisfied 378 16.22

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 828 35.54

Satisfied 937 40.21

Highly Satisfied 95 4.08

Total 2330 100.00

Table 13: Reason of No Complaint against Corrupt Practice

Reasons Frequency %

It is Useless 686 56

Did not know where to complain 410 34

Fear of future complication 120 10

Total 1216 100

Table 14: Authority of Complaint against Corruption

Authority Frequency %Concerned Office 101 51

DAO 43 22

TIN 28 14

Others 22 11

CIAA 5 3

NVC 1 1

Total 200 100


Table 15: Factors Play Role to Promote Corruption

Main Factor Frequency %

Politics/ Political Party 1116 47.9

Bureaucracy 423 18.2

Lack of Political Will 341 14.6

Dishonesty/Negligence of Citizens 231 9.9

Unemployment 96 4.1

Poverty/Illiteracy 74 3.2

Inflation 30 1.3

Others 19 0.8

Total 2330 100.0

Table 16: Measures Need to Take to Fight against Corruption

Measures Frequency %

Public Awareness 948 40.7

Legal Action 782 33.6

Administrative Accountability 367 15.8

Political will 154 6.6

Oversight 66 2.8

Others 13 0.6

Total 2330 100.0

Table 17: Role of Civil Society to Combat Corruption

Role Frequency %

Public Awareness 1200 51.5

Work as a Pressure Group 579 24.8

Policy & Advocacy 309 13.3

Oversight 217 9.3

Others 25 1.1

Total 2330 100.0


Table 18: Initiatives Need to Take to Improve Public Service Delivery

Initiatives Frequency %

Punishment 638 27.4

Capacity Building 510 21.9

Increase Facilities 427 18.3

Install CCTV 419 18.0

Digitization of Service System 307 13.2

Others 29 1.2

Total 2330 100.0


Annex II

Questionnaire

Sl. No

Date

An Interview Schedule

On

Satisfaction Survey on Public Service Delivery 2015

All the data/ information will be used for research purpose only. Your identity or any collected data will not disclose to anyone. The interview may take 25-30 minutes. If you agree, please sign below.

...........................................

Signature & date

District:........................................................................ Ward No: .................................

Section A. Respondent’s Information

Respondent's Name & Phone No. (Optional) Sex Age Education Occupation Type


Codes for table A:

Sex: Male=1, Female=2

Education: Write the classes or degree s/he has completed

Occupation: Farmer=1, Service=2, Business=3, Labour=4, Unemployed=5, Other=6

Type: Household Head=1, Other=2

Section B. Public Service Delivery

B1: Please share the experience that you or your family member have gained while visiting following government offices, during the past 1 year.

Service providing

offices

Services Taken

Improvement in service?

Faced any problem?

Type of problem

/ corruption faced?

If extra money paid, why?

Land Reform & Revenue

Land Survey

CDO Office

Health

Police

Communication

Transport

Municipality

Electricity

Water

Agriculture

Forest

Customs/Tax


Codes for table B1:

Service Taken Yes=1, No=2

Improvement in serviceIncreased a lot =1, Increased a little=2, Stayed the same=3, Decreased a little=4, Decreased a lot=5

Faced any problem? Yes=1, No=2

Type of problem/corruption faced?

Bribery=1, Negligence or Delay=2, Harassment by brokers=3, Others=4

If extra money paid, why?

To make work fast=1, As a gift =2, Compelled to give=3, Other=4............

Code

B2: How satisfied you are with the services you received?

Highly Satisfied=1, Satisfied=2, Neither Satisfied nor Satisfied=3, Dissatisfied=4, Highly dissatisfied=5

B3: How satisfied you are with the behaviour of concerned service delivery officials?

Highly Satisfied=1, Satisfied=2, Neither Satisfied nor Satisfied=3, Dissatisfied=4, Highly dissatisfied=5

B4: Have you ever been complaining against corruption?

Yes=1, No=2 (If No, go to B7)

B5: If yes, where did you file complaints?

DAO=1, Concerned Office=2, CIAA=3, NVC=4, TIN=5, Others=6….

B6: What was the impact of the complaints?

Yes=1, Nothing happened=2, Action in progress=3

B7: If answer of B4 is no, then why?

Did not know where to lodge complain=1, Useless to complain=2, Fear of future complication=3

B8: Would you lodge a complaint in future? Yes=1, No=2, Don't know=3


Section C. Perception about Governance

Code

C1: Over the past two years, how has the level of corruption in your district changed?

Increased a lot =1, Increased a little=2, Stayed the same=3, Decreased a little=4, Decreased a lot=5

C2: What rating would you like to give to your district in terms of the degree of corruption? (0 = No corruption, 100=Fully corrupt)

C3: How effective do you think your government’s actions are in the fight against corruption?

Very Effective=1, Effective=2, Nei-ther effective nor ineffective=3, Ineffective=4, Very ineffective=5

C4: How effective do you think NGO’s effort to combat corruption?

Very Effective=1, Effective=2, Nei-ther effective nor ineffective=3, Ineffective=4, Very ineffective=5

C5: In your view does the office provide services as per public expectations?

Yes=1, No=2, Sometimes


Section D. Suggestions

(Only one answer is acceptable)

Code

D1: According to you, what is the main factor to promote corruption?

Bureaucracy=1, Politics/Political Parties=2, Lack of political will=3, Dishonesty/Negligence of citizens=4, Unemployment=5, Poverty/Illiteracy=6, Inflation=7, Others=8

D2: What measure is necessary to fight corruption?

Legal Action=1, Public awareness=2, Administrative accountability=3, Oversight=4, Political will=5, Others=6

D3: What should be the role of civic society to fight corruption?

Public awareness =1, Oversight =2, Work as a pressure group=3, Policy & advocacy=4, Others=5

D4: What initiatives can be taken to improve public service?

Increase facilities=1, Capacity building=2, Punishment=3, Install CCTV=4, Digitalized service system=5, Others=6

Thank you

Name & Signature of the Enumerator:

Name & Signature of the Supervisor:

Satisfaction survey 2015

Documents

Transcript of Satisfaction survey 2015