The Municipality of Mat

Mat

Mati Municipality is located in the northern part of the country and is bordered by Mirdita Municipality to the north, Kurbini Municipality to the west, Kruja Municipality to the south-west, Klos Municipality to the south, and Dibra Municipality to the east. Burreli city is the seat of this municipality. Burreli city is the seat of this municipality. Based on the Civil Registration Office, this municipality counts 38,615 inhabitants. The new municipality extends over a surface area of 493.5 km2, and its population density is 78.24 inhabitant/km2. This municipality consists of 8 administrative units: Burrel, Baz, Derjan, Rukaj, Macukull, Komsi, Lis and Ulëz. The newly established municipality administers a town and 46 villages. The new municipality stretches nearly over the same territory with the ethnographic region of Mat and its terrain is hilly and mountainous. It spreads across both banks of Mat River and forestry comprises the largest part of its new territory. The new municipality encompasses the Regional Nature Park of Ulëz and two artificial lakes, namely Ulëza and Shkopeti, constructed for electricity production purposes. The quite favourable terrain and Mediterranean climate characterised by hot sunny and dry summers and relatively mild winters in Mat Valley provides great conditions for agriculture, fruit-growing and farming development and it determines agriculture and farming as the main income-generating sources. Burrel city was constructed specifically for chromium processingindustry, which is currently under revitalisation process. However, this industry does not possess the capacities to turn into an important employment source for the town, which at present counts 11 thousand inhabitants. Over the recent years, Mat area has attracted a small number of adventurous and mountain hiking-lover tourists thanks to the attractive mountainous terrain. Mat region is a real archaeological museum and the ancient birthplace of Illyrian culture. Several objects have been discovered there and based on their analysis they provide data on all historical periods of cultural development, not only for Mat region, but also broader. Nowadays, Mat is known as a significant archaeological region with particular values, especially for Illyrian culture research and study not only across the country, but also abroad.

Mat Burrel City
Mat Burrel City Mat Burrel City Mat Burrel City Mat Burrel City Mat Burrel City Mat Burrel City Mat Burrel City
Municipality Municipality Center Administrative Units Respective cities and villages
Mat Burrel City Burrel Burrel City
Mat Burrel City Baz Villages; Baz, Fushe-Baz, Rreth Baz, Karice, Drita
Mat Burrel City Derjan Villages; Derjan, Urxalle, Barbullej, Dukagjin, Gjocaj, Lam i Madh, Zall Gjocaj
Mat Burrel City Rukaj Villages; Bruc, Prelle, Rremull, Rukaj, Lac, Urake
Mat Burrel City Macukull Villages; Macukull, Dej Macukull, Shelli, Vig, Shqefen
Mat Burrel City Komsi Villages; Komsi, Koder Qerre, Frankth, Selixe, German, Bater e Vogel, Bater e Madhe, Midhe, Fshati Burrel, Zall-Shoshaj
Mat Burrel City Lis Villages; Lis, Vinjoll, Gjalish, Burgajet, Zenisht, Shoshaj, Mallunxe
Mat Burrel City Ulez Villages; Qyteti Ulez, Kokerdhok, Stojan, Madhesh, Lundre, Bushkash
Download
Final Score of Local Government Mapping 2020
58

Criteria 1 EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY 62

Sub-criteria 1 Does the public administration have a clear vision and participatory and inclusive plan to achieve development? 70

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 81 56 69
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
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
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 81 51 66
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 88 69 79
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 73 46 60
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 71 52 62

Sub-criteria 2 Financial Management: Is there an effective and efficient planning and management of local financial resources? 56

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 71 61 66
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 92 57 75
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 76 76
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 69 69
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 65 65
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 71 71
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 12 12
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 8 8

Sub-criteria 3 Informed Decision-Making: Is the decision-making based on reliable and updated information? 60

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 61 68 65
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 67 42 55
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 65 65
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 48 48
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 40 40
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 67 67
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 71 71
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 69 69

Sub-criteria 4 Effective coordination and cooperation: Are the municipality interactions with central government, donors, other municipalities etc. effective and efficient? 65

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 20 20
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 50 50
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 55 55
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 88 88
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 65 65
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 85 85
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 60 60
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 33 33
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 63 63
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 68 68

Sub-criteria 5 Satisfaction towards services: What is the degree of citizens' satisfaction with the quality of public service delivery and its accessibility? 61

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 78 78
1 What is the level of municipal service delivery availability and access? % of Citizens that give an opinion for all 21 services scored 48 48
2 To what extent are the citizens satisfied with the quality of service delivery in their municipality? Aggregation of scores for all 21 services 43 43
2 To what extent are the citizens satisfied with the quality of service delivery in their municipality? Aggregation of scores for all 21 services 56 56
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 60 41 51
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 29 52 41
4 Do people have equal access to local government services? 0=no, 25=few people, 50=some people, 75=most people, 100=all people 63 56 60
4 Do people have equal access to local government services? 0=no, 25=few people, 50=some people, 75=most people, 100=all people 56 63 60
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 56 48 52
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 62 63 63
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 65

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? 67

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 37 37
1 How Transparent is your local Government? 0-Not at all transparent to 100- Completely transparent 54 54
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 90 56 40 62
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 79 65 40 61
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 75 56 66
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 88 63 76
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 66 53 60
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 67 56 62
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 93 70 82
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 88 79 84

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? 62

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 76 61 69
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 92 60 76
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 59 40 50
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 71 56 64
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 73 50 42 55
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 69 58 42 56
4 Does the Municipality enforce local laws and regulations impartially? Scale: 0=Not at all to 100= completely 37 37
4 Does the Municipality enforce local laws and regulations impartially? Scale: 0=Not at all to 100= completely 52 52

Sub-criteria 3 Incidence of Corruption: What is the degree of corruption? 65

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 33 40 37
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 71 42 57
2 What is Corruption Perception level for the Municipal Government? Scale: 0= Completely corrupt to 100= Not at all corrupt 49 49
2 What is Corruption Perception level for the Municipal Government? Scale: 0= Completely corrupt to 100= Not at all corrupt 60 60
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. 63 63
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. 93 93
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 56 46 51
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 46 52

Criteria 3 ACCOUNTABILITY 58

Sub-criteria 1 Checks and Balances: Are there institutions, which have control, supervision, and sanction power on the local administration? 50

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 45 41 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 42 29 36
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 50 40 45
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 38 42 40
3 Does the Municipal Council have oversight of the municipal government functions? 0=no, 25=poor, 50=fair, 75, very good, 100=excellent, 74 61 68
3 Does the Municipal Council have oversight of the municipal government functions? 0=no, 25=poor, 50=fair, 75, very good, 100=excellent, 67 50 59
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 86 86
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 79 79
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 50 55 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 40 35 38

Sub-criteria 2 Recourse: Are there any recourse mechanisms for different groups in place, and are they effective? 68

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 65 50 58
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 92 73 83
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 61 46 54
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 52 56 54
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 75 51 39 55
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 92 65 45 67

Sub-criteria 3 Government's Responsiveness: What is the level of Municipality local government's responsiveness? 57

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 90 50 70
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 77 60 69
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 41 49
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 62 29 46
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 48

Sub-criteria 1 Institutional Framework: Is there an effective institutional framework for managing citizen participation? 60

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 71 58 65
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 52 65 59
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 43 45 44
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 23 40 32
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 60 40 50
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 92 50 71
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 56 43 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 88 46 67
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
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 71 71

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 38 46 42
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 29 15 22
2 Does Local Government engage youth in government decision making? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 75 45 60
2 Does Local Government engage youth in government decision making? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 40 52 46
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 55 38 47
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 19 44 32
4 Does the local government engage women in decision making? Average of three indices below 82 82
4 Does the local government engage women in decision making? Average of three indices below 78 78
41 Percentage of Women at the Municipal Council >=50% equals 100 points 100 100
41 Percentage of Women at the Municipal Council >=50% equals 100 points 100 100
42 Percentage of Women in Management Positions >=50% equals 100 points 80 80
42 Percentage of Women in Management Positions >=50% equals 100 points 58 58
43 Percentage of Women over total number of Municipal Employees >=50% equals 100 points 67 67
43 Percentage of Women over total number of Municipal Employees >=50% equals 100 points 76 76
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 65 54 60
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 69 56 63

Sub-criteria 3 Citizen Engagement: What is the level of citizen engagement? 40

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 63 68 66
1 Do citizens participate in local government strategic planning meetings? 0=never, 25=rarely, 50=sometimes, 75=often, 100=always 52 50 51
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. 36 36
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. 24 24
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 66 56 61
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 67 44 56
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 60 56 58
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 27 33 30

Sub-criteria 4 Civic engagement: What is the level of civic engagement? 44

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. 46 46
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
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 73 66 70
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 46 37 42
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 54 54
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 45 45
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 56 56
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 29 29
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 73 55 64
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 83 40 62



Download Municipality Profile

Demographic Profile

Surface (km2)Number of Administrative UnitsNumber of CitiesNumber VillagesNumber of FamiliesPopulation Civil Register 2016Population Cencus 2011
493.508146110553590627600

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
216213432078039

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
265830846563430672926124192

Economic Profile

Number of Businesses (total)Large BusinessesSmall BusinessesNumber of FarmsAgricultural Land Surface (in ha)
626673511236

Administrative Profile

Number of Municipal EmployeesCity Council Members
MenWomenTotalMenWomenTotal
19321340617421

Mat Municipality Administrative Map

Local Governance Mapping - Mat Municipality

58
Download

Effectiveness and Efficiency

62

Transparency & Rule of Law

65

Clear vision and inclusive planning

70

Transparent and accessible information

67

General Local Plan

69

Transparency

54

Strategic Plan

0

Information around projects, activities etc.

61

Operational Development Plans

0

Transparent administrative procedures

76

Annual Sectorial Plans

79

Access to information about services performance

62

Implementation of plans

62

Updated Website with all the relevant information

84

Financial Management

56

Rule of Law

62

Medium Term Budget Programme

75

Effectiveness of Institutional Legal Framework

76

Administration and Department staffing

69

Educative measures on citizens legal rights and obligations

64

Financial management mechanisms

71

Awareness raising on aws and local regulation

56

Collection of Local Revenues

8

Impartially enforcement of local laws and regulations

52

Informed Decision-Making

60

Corruption

65

Reliable statistics and up to date information

55

Anti-corruption policy, strategy, or action plan

57

Reliability of data on the Land Registry

48

Perception on corruption

60

Usage of GIS Platform

67

Corruption Experience

93

Comprehensive Reporting System

69

Mechanisms to prevent corruption

52

Cooperation with third parties

65

Participation and Citizen Engagement

48

Consultation with central goverment

50

Institutional Framework

60

Coordination among departments

88

Patforms for citizen participation

59

Cooperation with donors and international community

85

Community structures arising from civil initiative

32

Cooperation with other municipalities

33

Coordinator of Public consultation & Notification

71

Internal cooperation within the municipal council

68

Coordinator of the Right on Information

67

Satisfaction towards services

61

Participatory budget system

71

Access to municipal service delivery

48

Involvement of all stakeholders

48

Quality of service delivery

56

Influence of CSO-s in decision-making

22

Municipality Assessments for Services Provided

41

Engagement of youth in decision-making

46

Equal access to local government services

60

Engagement of vulnerable groups in decision- making

32

Obtaining municipal administrative services

63

Engagement of women in decision-making

78

Gender equality in access to services

100

Gender and Domestic Violence Officer

63

Accountability

58

Citizen Engagement

40

Control mechanisms

50

Participation of citizens in municipal meetings

51

Open forums for CSOs to engage with local authorities

36

Engagement with local government or CSOs

24

Well equipped and skilled local NGOs

40

Participation of citizens on local government projects

56

The supervisory role of Municipal Counsil

59

Involvement in monitoring and evaluation

30

Following of recommendations of state audit

79

Civil engagement

44

Involment of community councils in monitoring

38

Membership in political parties, trade unions and NGOs

43

Recourse

68

Awareness of legal rights and responsibilities

42

Mechanisms for lodging complaints

83

Active Citizens in Interaction on Local Issues

45

Mechanisms to share inputs

54

CSOs active in educating citizens

29

Effectivity on treating complaints

67

The capability of media to raise awareness

62

Responsiveness

57

Responsiveness to requests from the community

69

Responding to complaints

46

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