The Municipality of Has

Has

Has Municipality is located in the northern part of Albania, and it is bordered by Tropoja, Kosova, FushëArrëz and Kukës municipalities to the north. Kruma town is the seat of this municipality. The municipality encompasses 4 administrative units (Golaj, Kruma, Fajza and Gjinaj) and 29 villages. Kruma town, which is the seat of this municipality, was declared a town in 1994. The municipality is part of Kukës region. Hasi received a slight development following the construction of the highway A1 (National Road). Has is situated on the pathway of mountain tourism of Teth-Valbona-Kukës and rural or mountain tourism might be a good economic perspective for the development of the area. Has municipality extends over a surface area of 399.62 km2 and its population density based on the Civil Registration Office is 53.16 inhabitants/km2, whereas based on the Census 2011 is 42.01 inhabitants/km2 . The economy in this municipality depends on the income from emigration and agriculture, though there are considerable mineral resources. Exploitation of the underground richness of the region set on in the ‘30s by the Italians. Until the mid-1990, mines and copper enrichment factory operated in Golaj, 6 kilometres of Kruma town, as well as smaller mines, where 3000 workers were employed. According to both experts and inhabitants of the zone, the underground is still unexploited. The following areas are rich in copper mineral: Nikoliq Golaj, Krumë and Zahrishtin Hasi district. Has is a border area and a good many of the inhabitants regularly cross the border for employment or education at Gjakova region in Kosovo, where the historical cultural and economic links of the region are found. The relief of the area extends from 300 meters above sea level to the high mountains of Gajrepi, Pashtriku and Kunora Peak, which are located 1400-1900 meters above sea level. Has is situated on the pathway of mountain tourism of Teth-Valbona-Kukës and rural or mountain tourism might be a good economic perspective for the development of the area. Has is known as an ethnographic region of great crafts tradition in wool products designed with elegance, and for craftsmen and bakers. The agricultural land available for cultivation by the inhabitants of the area was restricted significantly due to the construction of Fierza hydro power plant which flooded some valleys and villages .

Has Kruma City
Has Kruma City Has Kruma City Has Kruma City
Municipality Municipality Center Administrative Units Respective cities and villages
Has Kruma City Kruma Kruma City, Villages; Krume, Gajrep, Cahan, Mujaj-Dajc, Zahrisht,
Has Kruma City Fajza Villages; Fajza, Vranisht, Tregtan, Likeni i Kuq, Metaliaj, Brenoge
Has Kruma City Gjinaj Villages; Gjinaj, Pusi i Thate, Myc-Has, Domaj, Pogaj, Kishaj
Has Kruma City Golaj Villages; Golaj, Nikoliq, Bardhaj, Perollaj, Vlahen, Letaj, Peraj, Dobrune, Zgjec, Qarr, Helshan, Kosturr
Download
Final Score of Local Government Mapping 2020
61

Criteria 1 EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY 63

Sub-criteria 1 Does the public administration have a clear vision and participatory and inclusive plan to achieve development? 55

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
11 Is there a general local plan which takes in consideration the community vision and thoughts? 0-100 where 0=No Plan, 25 =Partial Plan with little consideration for Community Thoughts, 50= Partial Plan with partial consideration, 75= Good plan with good consideration 100=Very Good plan with full consideration 0 0 0
11 Is there a general local plan which takes in consideration the community vision and thoughts? 0-100 where 0=No Plan, 25 =Partial Plan with little consideration for Community Thoughts, 50= Partial Plan with partial consideration, 75= Good plan with good consideration 100=Very Good plan with full consideration 0 0 0
12 (If 11 = 0) Is there a strategic local plan for the Municipality that has gone through a participatory process? 0-100 where 0=No Plan, 25 =Partial Plan with little participation, 50= Partial Plan with partial participation 75= Good plan with good participation 100=Very Good Plan with full consideration 0 0 0
12 (If 11 = 0) Is there a strategic local plan for the Municipality that has gone through a participatory process? 0-100 where 0=No Plan, 25 =Partial Plan with little participation, 50= Partial Plan with partial participation 75= Good plan with good participation 100=Very Good Plan with full consideration 0 0 0
13 (If 12 = 0) Is there any other plan (e.g. operational development plan or other medium-term plan) for the Municipality? 0=No other plans, 50=some plans 100=All necessary Plans 0 0 0
13 (If 12 = 0) Is there any other plan (e.g. operational development plan or other medium-term plan) for the Municipality? 0=No other plans, 50=some plans 100=All necessary Plans 50 53 52
2 Are there annual plans for various sectors (education, infrastructure, waste management, water, forestry etc.)? 0=No sectorial plans, 25= Few Sectorial Plans 50=some plans 75=Most of Sectorial plans, 100= All of the necessary sectorial plans 71 51 61
2 Are there annual plans for various sectors (education, infrastructure, waste management, water, forestry etc.)? 0=No sectorial plans, 25= Few Sectorial Plans 50=some plans 75=Most of Sectorial plans, 100= All of the necessary sectorial plans 75 33 54
3 Are these plans implemented in order to guide the municipality decision-making process? (Are these plans implemented) 0 to 100 where 0= No Implementation, 25=Poor Implementation, 50=Some Implementation, 75=Good Implementation, 100=Perfect Implementation 68 48 58
3 Are these plans implemented in order to guide the municipality decision-making process? (Are these plans implemented) 0 to 100 where 0= No Implementation, 25=Poor Implementation, 50=Some Implementation, 75=Good Implementation, 100=Perfect Implementation 88 33 61

Sub-criteria 2 Financial Management: Is there an effective and efficient planning and management of local financial resources? 55

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Does the municipality have a medium term budget framework to deliver its strategic plan objectives/or projects? 0=No Medium Term Budget, 25=Medium term budget with little/no linkage to strategic plan/objective, 50= Medium term budget with some linkage to strategic plan/objectives 75=Medium term budget with good linkage to strategic plan/objectives, 100=Medium 63 17 40
1 Does the municipality have a medium term budget framework to deliver its strategic plan objectives/or projects? 0=No Medium Term Budget, 25=Medium term budget with little/no linkage to strategic plan/objective, 50= Medium term budget with some linkage to strategic plan/objectives 75=Medium term budget with good linkage to strategic plan/objectives, 100=Medium 57 56 57
2 Does your Municipality have the adequacy and capacity (administration and department staffing) to manage its budget efficiently? 0 to 100 where 0= no capacity, 25= little capacity, 50=some capacity, 75= good capacity, 100=full capacity 81 81
2 Does your Municipality have the adequacy and capacity (administration and department staffing) to manage its budget efficiently? 0 to 100 where 0= no capacity, 25= little capacity, 50=some capacity, 75= good capacity, 100=full capacity 87 87
3 Is there in place a good and effective financial management and control mechanisms? 0=No mechanisms in place, 25=few mechanisms in place, 50=some mechanisms, 75=good number of mechanisms, 100=All necessary mechanisms 75 75
3 Is there in place a good and effective financial management and control mechanisms? 0=No mechanisms in place, 25=few mechanisms in place, 50=some mechanisms, 75=good number of mechanisms, 100=All necessary mechanisms 72 72
4 How efficient is the municipality in collecting local revenues (tax and tariffs) from citizens and businesses? % of the own revenues over total revenues (2016). That will be the score assigned 3 3
4 How efficient is the municipality in collecting local revenues (tax and tariffs) from citizens and businesses? % of the own revenues over total revenues (2016). That will be the score assigned 3 3

Sub-criteria 3 Informed Decision-Making: Is the decision-making based on reliable and updated information? 67

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Is the municipality decision making based on reliable statistics/data and up to date information? 0=No reliable statistics, 25=few reliable statistics, 50=some reliable statistics, 75=Reliable statistics, 100=Very reliable statistics 65 46 56
1 Is the municipality decision making based on reliable statistics/data and up to date information? 0=No reliable statistics, 25=few reliable statistics, 50=some reliable statistics, 75=Reliable statistics, 100=Very reliable statistics 83 44 64
2 How reliable are the data on the Land Registry that your Municipality uses? 0=No reliability in Land Registry, 25=Little reliability, 50=some reliability, 75=High reliability, 100=Full reliability 63 63
2 How reliable are the data on the Land Registry that your Municipality uses? 0=No reliability in Land Registry, 25=Little reliability, 50=some reliability, 75=High reliability, 100=Full reliability 58 58
3 To what extent does the municipality use a GIS system/Platform? 0=No usage/system, 25=Little usage, 50=Average usage, 75=High usage, 100=Full usage 61 61
3 To what extent does the municipality use a GIS system/Platform? 0=No usage/system, 25=Little usage, 50=Average usage, 75=High usage, 100=Full usage 73 73
4 Is there a comprehensive reporting system within the municipality? 0=No system, 25=little reporting, 50=average reporting, 75=good reporting, 100=Very Good Reporting 61 61
4 Is there a comprehensive reporting system within the municipality? 0=No system, 25=little reporting, 50=average reporting, 75=good reporting, 100=Very Good Reporting 73 73

Sub-criteria 4 Effective coordination and cooperation: Are the municipality interactions with central government, donors, other municipalities etc. effective and efficient? 66

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 How effective is the process of consultation between central and local government? 0=No effectiveness, 25=little effectiveness, 50=average effectiveness, 75=good effectiveness 100=very good effectiveness 71 71
1 How effective is the process of consultation between central and local government? 0=No effectiveness, 25=little effectiveness, 50=average effectiveness, 75=good effectiveness 100=very good effectiveness 58 58
2 How effective is the coordination among the municipal departments? 0=No effectiveness, 25=little effectiveness, 50=average effectiveness, 75=good effectiveness 100=very good effectiveness 68 68
2 How effective is the coordination among the municipal departments? 0=No effectiveness, 25=little effectiveness, 50=average effectiveness, 75=good effectiveness 100=very good effectiveness 83 83
3 To what extent is the Municipality productive in its cooperation with donors and international community? 0=No cooperation, 25=little cooperation, 50=Some cooperation, 75=Good cooperation, 100=Perfect cooperation 56 56
3 To what extent is the Municipality productive in its cooperation with donors and international community? 0=No cooperation, 25=little cooperation, 50=Some cooperation, 75=Good cooperation, 100=Perfect cooperation 70 70
4 To what level does the local government cooperates with other municipalities? 0=No cooperation, 25=little cooperation, 50=Some cooperation, 75=Good cooperation, 100=Perfect cooperation 46 46
4 To what level does the local government cooperates with other municipalities? 0=No cooperation, 25=little cooperation, 50=Some cooperation, 75=Good cooperation, 100=Perfect cooperation 50 50
5 Is there a good internal cooperation within the municipal council? 0=No cooperation, 25=little cooperation, 50=Some cooperation, 75=Good cooperation, 100=Perfect cooperation 66 66
5 Is there a good internal cooperation within the municipal council? 0=No cooperation, 25=little cooperation, 50=Some cooperation, 75=Good cooperation, 100=Perfect cooperation 71 71

Sub-criteria 5 Satisfaction towards services: What is the degree of citizens' satisfaction with the quality of public service delivery and its accessibility? 69

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 What is the level of municipal service delivery availability and access? % of Citizens that give an opinion for all 21 services scored 95 95
1 What is the level of municipal service delivery availability and access? % of Citizens that give an opinion for all 21 services scored 52 52
2 To what extent are the citizens satisfied with the quality of service delivery in their municipality? Aggregation of scores for all 21 services 47 47
2 To what extent are the citizens satisfied with the quality of service delivery in their municipality? Aggregation of scores for all 21 services 62 62
3 Does local government conduct assessments to determine the level of satisfaction that citizens have with the delivery of public services? 0=No assessment at all, 25=irregular and few assessment, 50=Some assessments, 75= regular assessments, 100=full procedure and regularity for citizen assessments of service satisfaction 66 53 60
3 Does local government conduct assessments to determine the level of satisfaction that citizens have with the delivery of public services? 0=No assessment at all, 25=irregular and few assessment, 50=Some assessments, 75= regular assessments, 100=full procedure and regularity for citizen assessments of service satisfaction 62 44 53
4 Do people have equal access to local government services? 0=no, 25=few people, 50=some people, 75=most people, 100=all people 53 48 51
4 Do people have equal access to local government services? 0=no, 25=few people, 50=some people, 75=most people, 100=all people 73 61 67
5 Is the process of obtaining municipal administrative services (permits, licenses, certifications, different documents etc.) easily accessed? 0=very difficult, 25= difficult, 50=average, 75=easy, 100=very easy 60 28 44
5 Is the process of obtaining municipal administrative services (permits, licenses, certifications, different documents etc.) easily accessed? 0=very difficult, 25= difficult, 50=average, 75=easy, 100=very easy 67 90 79
6 Do women and men have equal access to local government services? 0 to 100 where 0=not at all equal and 100= completely equal 100 100
6 Do women and men have equal access to local government services? 0 to 100 where 0=not at all equal and 100= completely equal 100 100

Criteria 2 TRANSPARENCY & RULE OF LAW 67

Sub-criteria 1 Transparency: Is information related to public service delivery performance and resources planning and utilization (including bidding processes) available and accessible for citizens? 65

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 How Transparent is your local Government? 0-Not at all transparent to 100- Completely transparent 63 63
1 How Transparent is your local Government? 0-Not at all transparent to 100- Completely transparent 85 85
2 Is there a good information flow from the Municipality around local projects, activities, municipal budget or service provision available and accessible? 0=No Information, 25=little information, 50=some information, 75=good information, 100=All necessary information/Very Good 66 46 55 56
2 Is there a good information flow from the Municipality around local projects, activities, municipal budget or service provision available and accessible? 0=No Information, 25=little information, 50=some information, 75=good information, 100=All necessary information/Very Good 78 28 60 55
3 Does the municipality have transparent administrative procedures (e.g. to get a building permit, business license, etc.)? 0=No at transparent procedures, 25=little transparent, 50=Average, 75=Good level of transparency, 100=Fully transparent 56 53 55
3 Does the municipality have transparent administrative procedures (e.g. to get a building permit, business license, etc.)? 0=No at transparent procedures, 25=little transparent, 50=Average, 75=Good level of transparency, 100=Fully transparent 86 47 67
4 Do communities have access to information about the performance of the local services, the resources available to it, and how these resources were used? 0=No Information, 25=little information, 50=some information, 75=good information, 100=All necessary information/Very Good 61 44 53
4 Do communities have access to information about the performance of the local services, the resources available to it, and how these resources were used? 0=No Information, 25=little information, 50=some information, 75=good information, 100=All necessary information/Very Good 75 28 52
5 Does the municipality have a website that is updated with the all relevant information? 0= no website, 25= website with little update, 50= website with average update, 75= website with good updated, 100= website with full updated information 53 35 44
5 Does the municipality have a website that is updated with the all relevant information? 0= no website, 25= website with little update, 50= website with average update, 75= website with good updated, 100= website with full updated information 90 42 66

Sub-criteria 2 Rule of Law: Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework: What is the level of effectiveness of the institutional legal framework - at local level? 61

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Is the institutional legal framework effective and efficient in ensuring equal rights for all municipality citizens (women, man, youth, and vulnerable groups)? 0=Not at all effective, 25= little, 50=Average, 70=Good level, 100=Fully effective 71 53 62
1 Is the institutional legal framework effective and efficient in ensuring equal rights for all municipality citizens (women, man, youth, and vulnerable groups)? 0=Not at all effective, 25= little, 50=Average, 70=Good level, 100=Fully effective 82 44 63
2 Are there measures in place (with regard to municipality) to educate citizens about their legal rights and obligations? 0=No measures, 25=few measures, 50=some measures, 75=Good measures, 100=All necessary measures 50 41 46
2 Are there measures in place (with regard to municipality) to educate citizens about their legal rights and obligations? 0=No measures, 25=few measures, 50=some measures, 75=Good measures, 100=All necessary measures 60 33 47
3 Does the local government raise awareness through its own website or public media (radio, newspapers, and social media) about laws and local regulations? 0=no awareness raising, 25=little awareness raising, 50=some awareness raising, 75=good awareness Raising, 100=full awareness raising 55 44 55 51
3 Does the local government raise awareness through its own website or public media (radio, newspapers, and social media) about laws and local regulations? 0=no awareness raising, 25=little awareness raising, 50=some awareness raising, 75=good awareness Raising, 100=full awareness raising 67 31 58 52
4 Does the Municipality enforce local laws and regulations impartially? Scale: 0=Not at all to 100= completely 27 27
4 Does the Municipality enforce local laws and regulations impartially? Scale: 0=Not at all to 100= completely 82 82

Sub-criteria 3 Incidence of Corruption: What is the degree of corruption? 75

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Is there any anti-corruption policy, strategy or action plan in place dealing with corruption or bribing cases at local level? 0=No Policy/strategy/action plan, 50=existing but insufficient, 100=Existing and sufficient 60 48 54
1 Is there any anti-corruption policy, strategy or action plan in place dealing with corruption or bribing cases at local level? 0=No Policy/strategy/action plan, 50=existing but insufficient, 100=Existing and sufficient 60 44 52
2 What is Corruption Perception level for the Municipal Government? Scale: 0= Completely corrupt to 100= Not at all corrupt 13 13
2 What is Corruption Perception level for the Municipal Government? Scale: 0= Completely corrupt to 100= Not at all corrupt 98 98
3 What is the Corruption Experience level with the Municipal Structures? % of citizens how had at least one contact with Municipality during the last 12 months and said that no bribe was paid or implied. 100 100
3 What is the Corruption Experience level with the Municipal Structures? % of citizens how had at least one contact with Municipality during the last 12 months and said that no bribe was paid or implied. 95 95
4 Are there local government systems/mechanisms to prevent corruption in your Municipality? 0=no mechanisms, 25=poor mechanisms, 50=average, 75=good mechanisms, 100=Perfect mechanisms 66 50 58
4 Are there local government systems/mechanisms to prevent corruption in your Municipality? 0=no mechanisms, 25=poor mechanisms, 50=average, 75=good mechanisms, 100=Perfect mechanisms 58 50 54

Criteria 3 ACCOUNTABILITY 62

Sub-criteria 1 Checks and Balances: Are there institutions, which have control, supervision, and sanction power on the local administration? 60

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Are there open forums for CSOs to engage with local authorities on the Municipal budgeting and planning process? 0=no, there aren't any, 25= few forums with little access, 50=some forums with some access, 75=Yes there are forums mostly accessible, 100=Enough Forums fully accessible 53 33 43
1 Are there open forums for CSOs to engage with local authorities on the Municipal budgeting and planning process? 0=no, there aren't any, 25= few forums with little access, 50=some forums with some access, 75=Yes there are forums mostly accessible, 100=Enough Forums fully accessible 60 39 50
2 Are local non-governmental organizations well equipped and skilled to hold local government accountable? 
 (0 = Not capable at all; 25=Mostly not capable; 50=Average, 75= Mostly Capable, 100 = Very capable 51 44 48
2 Are local non-governmental organizations well equipped and skilled to hold local government accountable? 
 (0 = Not capable at all; 25=Mostly not capable; 50=Average, 75= Mostly Capable, 100 = Very capable 60 50 55
3 Does the Municipal Council have oversight of the municipal government functions? 0=no, 25=poor, 50=fair, 75, very good, 100=excellent, 66 62 64
3 Does the Municipal Council have oversight of the municipal government functions? 0=no, 25=poor, 50=fair, 75, very good, 100=excellent, 70 61 66
4 Does the municipality management follow adequately the recommendations of the audits (State Audit)? 0=not at all, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=a lot of the time, 100=all the time 85 85
4 Does the municipality management follow adequately the recommendations of the audits (State Audit)? 0=not at all, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=a lot of the time, 100=all the time 81 81
5 Are community councils involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the public sector performance? (departments, projects, budgeting) 0=No/No community councils exist, 25=little involvement, 50=average, 75=good involvement, 100=Very high involvement 63 42 53
5 Are community councils involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the public sector performance? (departments, projects, budgeting) 0=No/No community councils exist, 25=little involvement, 50=average, 75=good involvement, 100=Very high involvement 61 33 47

Sub-criteria 2 Recourse: Are there any recourse mechanisms for different groups in place, and are they effective? 49

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Does the municipality have the mechanisms for lodging complaints and giving a feedback (e.g. Complaint Office)? 0=no mechanisms, 25=there is a mechanism but with little or no feedback 50=there is a mechanism with average feedback, 75=there is a mechanism with good feedback, 100=there is a mechanism with full feedback 58 48 53
1 Does the municipality have the mechanisms for lodging complaints and giving a feedback (e.g. Complaint Office)? 0=no mechanisms, 25=there is a mechanism but with little or no feedback 50=there is a mechanism with average feedback, 75=there is a mechanism with good feedback, 100=there is a mechanism with full feedback 27 66 47
2 Is there any feedback mechanisms established for citizens to share inputs with local government concerning services delivery? 0=no mechanisms, 25=few mechanisms, 50=some mechanisms, 75=good number of mechanisms, 100=all the necessary mechanisms 50 41 46
2 Is there any feedback mechanisms established for citizens to share inputs with local government concerning services delivery? 0=no mechanisms, 25=few mechanisms, 50=some mechanisms, 75=good number of mechanisms, 100=all the necessary mechanisms 23 59 41
3 How effective is the municipality in treating citizens or businesses complaints? 0=No effectiveness 25= Mostly ineffective, 50=Average, 75= Mostly effective, 100=Very effective 68 51 53 57
3 How effective is the municipality in treating citizens or businesses complaints? 0=No effectiveness 25= Mostly ineffective, 50=Average, 75= Mostly effective, 100=Very effective 71 47 58 59

Sub-criteria 3 Government's Responsiveness: What is the level of Municipality local government's responsiveness? 77

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Is the local government responsive to requests (i.e. letters and phones calls) from the community regarding projects, developmental issues etc.? 0=no responsiveness, 25=little responsiveness, 50=some responsiveness, 75= good responsiveness, 100= full responsiveness 70 55 63
1 Is the local government responsive to requests (i.e. letters and phones calls) from the community regarding projects, developmental issues etc.? 0=no responsiveness, 25=little responsiveness, 50=some responsiveness, 75= good responsiveness, 100= full responsiveness 98 53 76
2 Is the local government responsive to filed complaints of citizens? 0=no responsiveness, 25=little responsiveness, 50=some responsiveness, 75= good responsiveness, 100= full responsiveness 60 80 70
2 Is the local government responsive to filed complaints of citizens? 0=no responsiveness, 25=little responsiveness, 50=some responsiveness, 75= good responsiveness, 100= full responsiveness 56 100 78
3 What is the average of resolved complaints by the municipality? 0=No data or & of cases resolved over the total cases 80 80
3 What is the average of resolved complaints by the municipality? 0=No data or & of cases resolved over the total cases

Criteria 4 PARTICIPATION AND CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT 53

Sub-criteria 1 Institutional Framework: Is there an effective institutional framework for managing citizen participation? 64

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Are there opportunities/platforms for citizen participation in development planning (annual plans, budgets, and legislations) and decision-making process (LGUs public consultation process, municipal council meetings etc.)? 0=No opportunities, 25=few opportunities, 50=some opportunities, 75=Good opportunities, 100=All necessary opportunities/Very Good 61 44 53
1 Are there opportunities/platforms for citizen participation in development planning (annual plans, budgets, and legislations) and decision-making process (LGUs public consultation process, municipal council meetings etc.)? 0=No opportunities, 25=few opportunities, 50=some opportunities, 75=Good opportunities, 100=All necessary opportunities/Very Good 70 44 57
2 Are there community structures as councils, arising from civic initiative, which tackle different issues and propose changes and suggestions to the local government? 0=No structure, 25=few structures 50= some structures, 75=a good number of structures, 100=all necessary/needed structures 46 32 39
2 Are there community structures as councils, arising from civic initiative, which tackle different issues and propose changes and suggestions to the local government? 0=No structure, 25=few structures 50= some structures, 75=a good number of structures, 100=all necessary/needed structures 64 61 63
3 How effective is the function of the Coordinator of public consultation and notification at your municipality? 0=Not at all effective, 25=little, 50=average, 75=good, 100=very good 63 44 54
3 How effective is the function of the Coordinator of public consultation and notification at your municipality? 0=Not at all effective, 25=little, 50=average, 75=good, 100=very good 79 56 68
4 How effective is the function of the Coordinator of the Right on Information at your Municipality? 0=Not at all effective, 25=little, 50=average, 75=good, 100=very good 53 46 50
4 How effective is the function of the Coordinator of the Right on Information at your Municipality? 0=Not at all effective, 25=little, 50=average, 75=good, 100=very good 77 58 68
5 Does the Municipality have a participatory budget system, where citizens have the opportunity to participate and affect allocations? 0=no system 25=limited participation with no or little impact, 50=average participation with average/good impact, 75=good participation with good impact, 100= very good participation with full impact 48 48
5 Does the Municipality have a participatory budget system, where citizens have the opportunity to participate and affect allocations? 0=no system 25=limited participation with no or little impact, 50=average participation with average/good impact, 75=good participation with good impact, 100= very good participation with full impact 63 63

Sub-criteria 2 Decision making: Is there an effective dialogue platform which ensures the involvement of all stakeholders in the process of decision making? 48

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Are the CSO able to lobby and advocate effectively to influence local government planning and decision-making? 0=No ability, 25=little, 50=average, 75=Good, 100=Great/Very good ability 50 39 45
1 Are the CSO able to lobby and advocate effectively to influence local government planning and decision-making? 0=No ability, 25=little, 50=average, 75=Good, 100=Great/Very good ability 59 42 51
2 Does Local Government engage youth in government decision making? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 48 46 47
2 Does Local Government engage youth in government decision making? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 52 47 50
3 Does Local government engage vulnerable groups (disabled, extreme poor, marginalized communities, elderly) in decision making? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 41 48 45
3 Does Local government engage vulnerable groups (disabled, extreme poor, marginalized communities, elderly) in decision making? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 35 50 43
4 Does the local government engage women in decision making? Average of three indices below 20 20
4 Does the local government engage women in decision making? Average of three indices below 42 42
41 Percentage of Women at the Municipal Council >=50% equals 100 points 10 10
41 Percentage of Women at the Municipal Council >=50% equals 100 points 38 38
42 Percentage of Women in Management Positions >=50% equals 100 points 32 32
42 Percentage of Women in Management Positions >=50% equals 100 points 22 22
43 Percentage of Women over total number of Municipal Employees >=50% equals 100 points 19 19
43 Percentage of Women over total number of Municipal Employees >=50% equals 100 points 67 67
5 How effective is the function of gender and domestic violence officer/professional in your municipality? 0=Not at all effective, 25=little, 50=average, 75=good, 100=very good 58 55 57
5 How effective is the function of gender and domestic violence officer/professional in your municipality? 0=Not at all effective, 25=little, 50=average, 75=good, 100=very good 54 58 56

Sub-criteria 3 Citizen Engagement: What is the level of citizen engagement? 42

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Do citizens participate in local government strategic planning meetings? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 41 32 37
1 Do citizens participate in local government strategic planning meetings? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 61 53 57
2 Are citizens active in engaging with local government or CSOs to improve local situation? % of households that has done at least one of the following: -. Participated in public meetings, hearings, Council sessions, NGO activities, Communal activities, etc. 92 92
2 Are citizens active in engaging with local government or CSOs to improve local situation? % of households that has done at least one of the following: -. Participated in public meetings, hearings, Council sessions, NGO activities, Communal activities, etc. 11 11
3 Are the local government projects implemented with the participation of local actors/citizens in the Municipality? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 45 50 48
3 Are the local government projects implemented with the participation of local actors/citizens in the Municipality? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 53 50 52
4 Are citizens involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the public sector performance? (departments, projects, budgeting) 0= no involvement, 25= little involvement, 50= some involvement, 75= a lot of involvement, 100= very high involvement 46 32 39
4 Are citizens involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the public sector performance? (departments, projects, budgeting) 0= no involvement, 25= little involvement, 50= some involvement, 75= a lot of involvement, 100= very high involvement 50 50 50

Sub-criteria 4 Civic engagement: What is the level of civic engagement? 59

Indicator Scoring Scale Data
Source
Score
MFGMunicipality Focus Group
CDCommunity Dialogue
CRCCitizen Report Card
DRDesk Research
1 Are citizens affiliated or have membership in political parties, trade unions and NGOs? % of citizens that declare membership at least on the following – political part, religious group, charity organization, NGO/association, community group, etc. 43 43
1 Are citizens affiliated or have membership in political parties, trade unions and NGOs? % of citizens that declare membership at least on the following – political part, religious group, charity organization, NGO/association, community group, etc. 44 44
2 Are citizens aware of their civil rights and responsibilities as members of the community? 0=no awareness, 25=little awareness, 50=some awareness, 75=a lot of awareness, 100=full awareness 61 41 51
2 Are citizens aware of their civil rights and responsibilities as members of the community? 0=no awareness, 25=little awareness, 50=some awareness, 75=a lot of awareness, 100=full awareness 56 69 63
3 Are citizens active in interacting with local government or publicly expressing their opinions about local/political/social issues? % of people who declare that have had at least one interaction which local government or have public expressed their opinion on a local issue 98 98
3 Are citizens active in interacting with local government or publicly expressing their opinions about local/political/social issues? % of people who declare that have had at least one interaction which local government or have public expressed their opinion on a local issue 44 44
4 Are the CSOs active and effective in civic education regarding citizen s right and responsibilities? 0=Not at all, 25=little effective, 50=average 75=Effective, 100=Highly effective 42 42
4 Are the CSOs active and effective in civic education regarding citizen s right and responsibilities? 0=Not at all, 25=little effective, 50=average 75=Effective, 100=Highly effective 72 72
5 Does the media have the capability to raise awareness on rights, responsibilities and key local developmental issues? 0=no capability, 25= little capability, 50=some capability, 75= Good capability 100= Very High capability 68 48 58
5 Does the media have the capability to raise awareness on rights, responsibilities and key local developmental issues? 0=no capability, 25= little capability, 50=some capability, 75= Good capability 100= Very High capability 71 69 70



Download Municipality Profile

Demographic Profile

Surface (km2)Number of Administrative UnitsNumber of CitiesNumber VillagesNumber of FamiliesPopulation Civil Register 2016Population Cencus 2011
399.62412953222176416790

Social Profile

Number of beneficiary households of economic aidNumber of persons with disabilities receiving social paymentsNumber of caretakers receiving social paymentNumber of health centersNumber of polyclinicsNumber of ambulances
1985791118425

Educational Profile

Kindergartens Level 1 (1-3 Year old)Kindergartens Level 1 (4-6 Year old)Elementary SchoolHigh School
Number of KindergartensNumber of childrenNumber of educatorsNumber of KindergartensNumber of childrenNumber of educatorsNumber elementary schoolsNumber of pupilsNumber of teachersNumber of high-schoolsNumber of pupilsNumber of teachers
0002157030212352182278249

Economic Profile

Number of Businesses (total)Large BusinessesSmall BusinessesNumber of FarmsAgricultural Land Surface (in ha)
1793514439308011

Administrative Profile

Number of Municipal EmployeesCity Council Members
MenWomenTotalMenWomenTotal
1407521520121

Has Municipality Administrative Map

Local Governance Mapping - Has Municipality

61
Download

Effectiveness and Efficiency

63

Transparency & Rule of Law

67

Clear vision and inclusive planning

55

Transparent and accessible information

65

General Local Plan

0

Transparency

85

Strategic Plan

0

Information around projects, activities etc.

55

Operational Development Plans

52

Transparent administrative procedures

67

Annual Sectorial Plans

54

Access to information about services performance

52

Implementation of plans

61

Updated Website with all the relevant information

66

Financial Management

55

Rule of Law

61

Medium Term Budget Programme

57

Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework

63

Administration and Department staffing

87

Educative measures on citizens legal rights and obligations

47

Financial management mechanisms

72

Awareness raising on aws and local regulation

52

Collection of Local Revenues

3

Impartially enforcement of local laws and regulations

82

Informed Decision-Making

67

Corruption

75

Reliable statistics and up to date information

64

Anti-corruption policy, strategy, or action plan

52

Reliability of data on the Land Registry

58

Perception on corruption

98

Usage of GIS Platform

73

Corruption Experience

95

Comprehensive Reporting System

73

Mechanisms to prevent corruption

54

Cooperation with third parties

66

Participation and Citizen Engagement

53

Consultation with central goverment

58

Institutional Framework

64

Coordination among departments

83

Patforms for citizen participation

57

Cooperation with donors and international community

70

Community structures arising from civil initiative

63

Cooperation with other municipalities

50

Coordinator of Public consultation & Notification

68

Internal cooperation within the municipal council

71

Coordinator of the Right on Information

68

Satisfaction towards services

69

Participatory budget system

63

Access to municipal service delivery

52

Involvement of all stakeholders

48

Quality of service delivery

62

Influence of CSO-s in decision-making

51

Municipality Assessments for Services Provided

53

Engagement of youth in decision-making

50

Equal access to local government services

67

Engagement of vulnerable groups in decision- making

43

Obtaining municipal administrative services

79

Engagement of women in decision-making

42

Gender equality in access to services

100

Gender and Domestic Violence Officer

56

Accountability

62

Citizen Engagement

42

Control mechanisms

60

Participation of citizens in municipal meetings

57

Open forums for CSOs to engage with local authorities

50

Engagement with local government or CSOs

11

Well equipped and skilled local NGOs

55

Participation of citizens on local government projects

52

The supervisory role of Municipal Counsil

66

Involvement in monitoring and evaluation

50

Following of recommendations of state audit

81

Civil engagement

59

Involment of community councils in monitoring

47

Membership in political parties, trade unions and NGOs

44

Recourse

49

Awareness of legal rights and responsibilities

63

Mechanisms for lodging complaints

47

Active Citizens in Interaction on Local Issues

44

Mechanisms to share inputs

41

CSOs active in educating citizens

72

Effectivity on treating complaints

59

The capability of media to raise awareness

70

Responsiveness

77

Responsiveness to requests from the community

76

Responding to complaints

78

The average of complaints fully addressed

0

Legends
85(80 - 100 points) very good
65(60 - 79 points) good
50(40 - 59 points) average
32(20 - 39 points) poor
15(0 - 19 points) very poor