Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability...
119
Final Report Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program Baseline Survey Report May 9 – June 6, 2013
Transcript of Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability...
Final Report
Ethiopia
Protection of Basic Services
Social Accountability
Program
Baseline Survey Report May 9 – June 6, 2013
1 / 119
Contents
List of tables ________________________________________________________ 4
list of figures _______________________________________________________ 4
list of acronyms _____________________________________________________ 6
Acknowledgment ____________________________________________________ 7
1. Introduction ________________________ 12
1.1 Objective of the baseline survey _____________________________________ 13
1.2 brief description of how the baseline survey was executed ___________________ 14
1.3 Country context _______________________________________________ 15
1.4 Conceptualization of esap in ethiopian context ___________________________ 17
2. Methodology ________________________ 22
2.1 Team composition______________________________________________ 22
2.2 Sample methodology -sample selection scheme and sample size _______________ 22
2.2.1 Sampling frame ______________________________________________________________________ 22 2.2.2 Selection of study woredas _____________________________________________________________ 23 2.2.3 Targeted and non targeted kebeles ______________________________________________________ 27 2.2.4 Selection of interviewees and fgd participants ____________________________________________ 28
2.3 Data collection methods and tools used _______________________________ 28
2.4 Profile of survey respondents ______________________________________ 29
2.4.1 Citizens _____________________________________________________________________________ 29 2.4.2 Social accountability implementing partners _____________________________________________ 30 2.4.3 Local government ____________________________________________________________________ 30 2.4.4 Service providers _____________________________________________________________________ 31
2.5 Training of senior surveyors and enumerators ___________________________ 31
2.6 Data analysis method ___________________________________________ 31
2.7 Discussion on limitations of the survey ________________________________ 31
3. Survey findings ______________________ 33
3.1 Citizens and citizen groups awareness of their rights, responsibilities and entitlements to
contribute to and demand better quality public basic services _________________ 33
3.1.1 Awareness ___________________________________________________________________________ 33 3.1.2 Training _____________________________________________________________________________ 35 3.1.3 On rights and responsibilities to plan, budget, implement and monitor basic service delivery __ 36
2 / 119
3.1.4 Gender sensitivity of training __________________________________________________________ 38 3.1.5 Claiming of rights ____________________________________________________________________ 38 3.1.6 Capacity of citizens to assess the quality of services _______________________________________ 39 3.1.7 Women’s organization ________________________________________________________________ 40 3.1.8 Consultation _________________________________________________________________________ 40 3.1.9 Access to information _________________________________________________________________ 40 3.1.10 Influence of vulnerable people on public service delivery __________________________________ 41 3.1.11 Accountability ________________________________________________________________________ 42 3.1.12 Suggestions to better include citizens’ needs in service delivery _____________________________ 43
3.2 Involvement and participation of citizens and citizen groups in the planning, budgeting,
implementation and monitoring of the quality of, access to, and quantity of basic public
services _____________________________________________________ 43
3.2.1 Claiming of rights ____________________________________________________________________ 43 3.2.2 Vulnerable groups ____________________________________________________________________ 45 3.2.3 Consultation and decision making ______________________________________________________ 46
3.3 Capacity of saips to empower citizens and citizen groups on multiple social
accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms ________________________ 50
3.3.1 Capacity of saips’ field staff in monitoring and evaluation _________________________________ 51 3.3.2. Citizens’ interest to engage with service providers _________________________________________ 51 3.3.3 Satisfaction of citizens_________________________________________________________________ 52 3.3.4 Cooperation with local government officials _____________________________________________ 52 3.3.5 Possibility of exemplary sa practices by saips _____________________________________________ 52
3.4 Capacity of woreda officials to respond to community and citizens’ needs and
preferences and be accountable _____________________________________ 52
3.4.1 Capacity of citizens to assess the quality of services _______________________________________ 52 3.4.2 Methods used by citizens to present assessment of the quality of service _____________________ 53 3.4.3 Interaction with citizens and citizen groups ______________________________________________ 54 3.4.4 Reporting performance and challenges to citizens ________________________________________ 55 3.4.5 Interaction with citizens _______________________________________________________________ 56 3.4.6 Training of local government officials on social accountability______________________________ 57 3.4.7 Satisfaction on service delivery _________________________________________________________ 58 3.4.8 Suggestions of local government officials for (better ) including citizens’ and communities’
priority needs in service delivery _______________________________________________________ 60
3.5 Capacity of public basic service providers to respond to community and citizens’ needs
and preferences and be accountable __________________________________ 60
3.5.1 Quality of services ____________________________________________________________________ 64 3.5.2 Mechanism of assessing quality of service _______________________________________________ 64 3.5.3 Assessment of citizens’ satisfaction _____________________________________________________ 64 3.5.4 Size of service users ___________________________________________________________________ 64 3.5.5 Suggestions on how to improve service delivery __________________________________________ 65 3.5.6 Training in, and knowledge of, social accountability tools __________________________________ 65 3.5.7 Application of social accountability tools ________________________________________________ 65 3.5.8 Process or forums for determining citizens’ and communities’ priorities with respect to specific
services _____________________________________________________________________________ 66
3.6 Analysis and discussion __________________________________________ 66
3 / 119
3.6.1 Citizens and citizen groups ____________________________________________________________ 67 3.6.2 Capacity of citizens to assess the quality of the service delivered ____________________________ 70 3.6.3 Capacity of saips to empower citizens and citizen groups on multiple social accountability tools,
approaches and mechanisms ___________________________________________________________ 70 3.6.4 Capacity of local government officials and service providers in using social accountability tools 71
4. Conclusion and recommendations _________ 72
4.1 Conclusion ___________________________________________________ 72
4.2 Recommendations _____________________________________________ 75
Annexes ______________________________ 77
1. The baseline survey terms of reference ________________________________ 77
2. Secondary documents reviewed _____________________________________ 85
3. List of social accountability implementing partners surveyed by region and woreda __ 86
4. FGDs and key‐informants by Region and Woreda/Town ____________________ 87
4.1 service providers interviewed ______________________________________ 87
4.2 Local government officials interviewed ________________________________ 91
4.3 List of FGD participants __________________________________________ 95
5 Citizens interviewed during the survey _______________________________ 102
4 / 119
List of Tables
Table 1 Distribution of Number Sample clusters, number of sample people across
geographic areas/strata ............................................................................................. 23
Table 2: Selected Woredas Zonal, Urban/Rural mix and Distribution in Sectors and
vulnerable Groups ...................................................................................................... 26
Table 3: Reasons for not approaching service providers ......................................................... 38
Table 4: Share of the different parties involved who estimate 50% and more of the citizens
are satisfied with the different services (%) ............................................................... 58
List of Figures
Figure 1: Grouping of vulnerable people surveyed ................................................................... 29
Figure 2: Percentage of respondent who said that they are entitled to demand for proper
provision of basic services like education, health ...................................................... 34
Figure 3: Percentage of respondents in each Woreda who said they are entitled, no and don’t
Know .......................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 4: The response of vulnerable groups to the question whether or not they are entitled to
demand/voice for proper provision of basic services in the sectors .......................... 35
Figure 5: Have you ever been trained on how to approach service providers in the field of .... 36
Figure 6: Percentage of respondent who have been trained on rights and responsibilities to
plan, budget, implement and monitor public basic services delivery ....................... 37
Figure 7: Percentage of respondents who have been trained on rights and responsibilities to
plan, budget, implement and monitor public basic service delivery ......................... 37
Figure 8: Percentage of respondent who said that trainings were gender sensitive ................. 38
Figure 9: Percentage of respondent who have access to information on Woreda/kebeles
development plan, budget allocation and expenditures ............................................. 41
Figure 10: Percentage of respondents who reported that there are ways that vulnerable people
(People living with HIV/AIDS, disabled, youth, elderly or women) influence public
basic service delivery .................................................................................................. 42
5 / 119
Figure 11: Percentage of respondents who feel they are equally accountable for the services that
are delivered to them and others ............................................................................... 43
Figure 12: Percentage participation in a meeting with service providers/local government on
service provision ........................................................................................................ 47
Figure 13: Service providers/local government accountability for service they deliver ............. 50
Figure 14: Percentage of government officials that feel citizens are actually able to assess the
quality of service delivered in their sector ................................................................. 53
Figure 15: Percentage of methods used by citizens for assessment presentation ...................... 54
Figure 16: Interaction of officials with citizens to learn about their needs and demands .......... 54
Figure 17: Percentage of officials reporting service delivery performance and challenges to
citizens ....................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 18: Percentage of officials who participated in a meeting with citizens and local
government on service provision ............................................................................... 56
Figure 19: Frequency of meetings that took place in the past year ............................................. 57
Figure 20: Percentage of officials that have training on social accountability tools .................... 57
Figure 21: Percentage of officials who have ever applied social accountability tools ................. 58
Figure 22: Percentage of SAIP respondents to the satisfaction rate ........................................... 59
6 / 119
List of Acronyms
ADF African Development Fund
ANRS Amhara National Regional State
BoFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development
BSC Balanced Score Card
CBO Community Based Organization
CBPM Community Based Performance Monitoring
CGPS Community Generated Performance Score Card
CRC Citizen Report Card
CRCS Citizen Report Card Survey
CSC Community Score Card
CSF Civil Society Fund
CSO Civil Society Organization
CSRP Civil Service Reform Program
CSSP Civil Society Support Program
ESAP Ethiopia Social Accountability Program
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GGS Good Governance Standards
GoE Government of Ethiopia
GRB Gender Responsive Budgeting
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
LFA Logical Framework Approach
MA Management Agency
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
ONRS Oromia National Regional State
PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty
PBET Participatory Budget Expenditure Tracking
PBS Protection of Basic Services
PETS Public Expenditure Tracking Survey
PMTCT Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV
PPB Participatory Planning and Budgeting
SA Social Accountability
SAIP Social Accountability Implementing Partner
SDPRP Sustainable Development to End Poverty
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and People Region
TOR Term of Reference
TTMC TTMC Management Consultancy & Training Service PLC
7 / 119
Acknowledgment
We appreciate the Ethiopian Social Accountability Program (ESAP2) Management
Agency (MA) staff for providing the initial questionnaires and giving the necessary
direction and support for the proper implementation of the survey. In this regard, we
are indebted to The ESAP2 MA Team including Mr. Gerard van Mourik, Mr. Rolf
Hunink, Mrs. Christelle Weckend, and Mr. Salman from the World Bank. Very Special
thanks go to Mr. Tenaw Mengist, M&E Manager of ESAP2, our counterpart, for his
untiring attention, his professional technical guidance and administrative support which
enabled timely completion of the study.
We are grateful to the hundreds of survey respondents who devoted their time to make
the survey work successful.
Our thanks also go to the sampled woreda officials, Finance and Economic
Development, sector offices staff and kebele officials and the Social Accountability
Implementing Partners (SAIP) who were very collaborative and helpful during the
assignment.
TTMC Management Consultancy & Training Service PLC
The survey was conducted by TTMC Management Consultancy & Training Service Pvt. Ltd. Co. The survey was led and coordinated by Tilahun Tassew and Eskinder Tilahun. Ato Getachew Araaya produced the reports with inputs from Negussie Dejene, Ayele Deneke and senior supervisors. Ahmedin Hussien, Ami Tilahun, Belay Tessema, Ferhan Hussein, Haile Wolde Selassie, Kibre Tessema, Mebratu Deffere, Mesfin Demissie, Sehen Deneke, Solomon Teshome and Temesgen Equbay supervised data collection.
8 / 119
Executive Summary
The Ethiopian Social Accountability Program (ESAP2) is part of the Protection of
Basic Services (PBS) Project, which was established by the Government of Ethiopia
(GoE) and international development partners in June 2006 as a new mechanism to
support Ethiopia’s progress toward Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets.
The project addresses the expansion, accessibility and improvement of the quality of
the decentralized service delivery in education, health, agriculture, water supply and
sanitation and rural roads while at the same time deepening local accountability and
transparency in basic service delivery.
The social accountability baseline survey for ESAP2 was undertaken from May 29 to
June 6, 2013. The survey targeted 480 vulnerable citizens in 48 kebeles of the 28
intervention woredas. The citizen respondents were women (25.6%), youth (26.0%),
elderly (30.6%), people with a disability (9.4%) and people living with HIV/AIDS
(8.3%). The baseline survey will serve as a benchmark for measuring progress made
resulting from project interventions. Overall, 114 government officials, experts, and
service post heads along with service providers and 22 woreda level Social
Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIP) of the Management Agency (MA) were
interviewed as key informants. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were undertaken in
the 28 woredas.
Survey Findings
An impressively large majority of citizen respondents claim that they are aware of
their constitutional rights. However; this is not borne out in action. The percentage
of those who actually demand their rights is much less than the percentage of those
who claim they are aware of their rights.
Involvement and participation of citizen groups in planning, budgeting,
implementation and monitoring of the quality of basic public services is very
9 / 119
minimal. Few claim that they had some involvement in the process and the great
majority of those were limited to discussing sectoral programmes that were already
prepared by relevant offices. There is very little follow up on plan implementation.
There was minimal consultation in the kebeles with regard to improving basic
services. Citizens access to information on the development of the services is very
low. Little training has been given to citizens about how and where they should raise
their demands.
About one-half of the local government officials stated they have had training on
Social Accountability (SA) although just one third asserted that they have actually
applied SA tools. Only one third of the service providers have received training on SA
tools while about one quarter stated they had no idea what the subject was all about.
However, both local government officials and service providers work with the people
and have a high appreciation of the citizens capacity to assess the quality of basic
services provided.
Conclusion
Although more than four fifth of the citizens surveyed claimed to know their rights,
responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and demand better quality basic
services, far fewer practiced it. In other words the effective awareness level of their
rights to demand their rights, to complain about the services and hold service
providers accountable is quite low and, therefore, needs necessary action to change
the situation.
Citizens level of access to information on woreda/kebele development plan, budget
allocation and expenditure is low. Most citizens were not consulted on improving
basic services. Proper participatory planning in basic services is almost non-existent
although all parties agree that citizens have a high capability to assess the quality of
basic services.
Government officials, SAIPs and service providers have low levels (if at all) of
knowledge of SA tools. Some who claim to know the tools and to have practiced them
10 / 119
were found to have confused them with civil service tools. This lack of making a
distinction between the two tools is something that needs to be addressed.
The satisfaction level of citizens with the quality of basic services is disputed. Both
local governments and especially service providers claim a much higher satisfaction
level than what the citizens themselves assert. The parties do not seem to see eye to
eye on the subject which indicates some absence of rapport between the parties.
In general there seems to be a lack of effective pressure groups including those of
vulnerable people to help in demanding and contributing the implementation of
improved basic services. This may have helped service providers to be complacent
about their performance and achievement and give high marks to themselves in
responding to the level of satisfaction of the citizens with regard to the quality of
basic services provided to the citizens.
Recommendations
All parties (citizens, service providers, SAIPs and local government officials) must be
trained in SA tools to get them equipped better with the ability to work as a team to
improve the quality of basic services. Citizens should be made aware of their rights to
demand and contribute to the improvement in quality of basic services and be able to
hold service providers accountable for poor performance. SAIPs should help citizens
to develop and strengthen pressure groups such as womens organizations for
negotiating the improvement of basic services. The other parties, service providers,
SAIPs and local government officials, should also be made aware that citizens have
these rights and that they have an obligation to respect these rights.
Citizens should have access to adequate information on woreda/kebele development
plan, budget allocation and expenditure. They should be consulted on improving
basic services and be allowed to have a much stronger participation in planning basic
services. Plan implementation and the challenges faced should also be effectively
reported to the people.
11 / 119
There is a need for setting up mechanisms/forums for regularly discussing issues,
airing grievances and settling them. These mechanisms/forums can become a
representative entity embracing citizens and citizen groups, local government
officials, service providers, SAIPs etc. For this mechanism/forum to be effective, it
would perhaps need some policy decisions. This will probably mean that the
chairperson of the forum will need to be the person with the most
administrative/political clout in the area to assure prompt and effective compliance
of the parties.
Strengthening the capacity of SAIPs in using SA tools while dealing with their
beneficiaries requires the strengthening of their institutional capacity at woreda and
kebele levels. This should be implemented as soon as possible.
12 / 119
1. Introduction
Ethiopia, with a land mass of around 1.13 million square kilometers and with 84
million inhabitants in 2012 is the second most populous nation in Africa and one
of the fastest growing economies. Ethiopian Social Accountability Program
(ESAP2) is part of the Protection of Basic Services (PBS) Project, which was
established by the Government of Ethiopia and international development
partners in June 2006 as a new mechanism to support Ethiopia’s progress
toward Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets. The project addresses the
expansion, accessibility, and improvement of the quality of the decentralized
service delivery in education, health, agriculture, water supply and sanitation and
rural roads while at the same time deepening local accountability and
transparency in basic service delivery.
ESAP2 is being implemented in a partnership between the Management Agency
and Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs) with distinct
responsibilities. The SAIPs are implementing social accountability programs in
their target Woredas while the Management Agency (MA) provides overall
program coordination, capacity development and training, technical guidance,
support and monitoring of the progress of the SAIPs.
The SA baseline survey for ESAP2 was undertaken from May 29 to June 6, 2013.
The SA baseline survey targeted 480 vulnerable citizens in 48 kebeles of the
intervention 28 woredas. The baseline survey will serve as a benchmark for
measuring impact of intervention of the project that is at the beginning of 2014.
Overall 114 government officials, experts, and service post heads along with
service providers and 22 woreda level SAIPs of the MA were interviewed as key
informants. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were held in the 28 woredas.
13 / 119
As part of the Protection of Basic Services (PBS) program, ESAP2 has embarked
upon a countrywide program to articulate the needs and concerns of citizens
regarding their access to education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and
rural roads. The program seeks to give voice to the needs and concerns of all
citizens on the delivery and quality of basic public services. PBS3 is a
continuation of PBS2 which aims to expanding access and improving the quality
of basic services by funding block grants that ensure adequate staffing and
operations, and strengthen the capacity, transparency, accountability and
financial management of the government at regional and local level.
The implementing agency of ESAP2, the MA, financed through a World Bank
(WB) administered Multi Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) has commissioned a
consultancy firm TTMC Management Consultancy & Training Service Pvt. Ltd.
Co. to undertake a baseline survey in the intervention woredas.
1.1 Objective of the baseline survey
The overall objective of ESAP2 is to strengthen the capacities of citizen groups
and government to work together in order to enhance the quality of basic public
services delivered to citizens. The program seeks to give voice to the needs and
concerns of all citizens on the delivery and quality of basic public services in the
areas of education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads. The
use of SA tools, approaches and mechanisms by citizens and citizens groups, civil
society organizations, local government officials and service providers should
result in more equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable public
basic service delivery. It is designed to complement the supply side reform of the
government by the demand side of the citizens and citizen groups.
The main objective of the baseline survey was to provide a benchmark against
which progress in basic service provision can be measured with respect to:
14 / 119
The level of citizens’ and communities’ awareness of their rights,
responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and demand better quality
public services
Involvement and participation of citizens in the planning, budgeting,
implementation and monitoring of the quality of basic public services
Assessment of the capacity of SAIPs to empower citizens and citizens’ groups
on multiple SA tools, approaches and methodologies
Capacity of Woreda officials and public basic service providers to respond to
community and citizens’ needs and preferences and be accountable
The specific objective of the survey could be summarized as follows:
Conduct a field survey based on questionnaires and analyze data, identify
specific gaps/deficits in SA and clarify training and other specific needs to be
met
Assess the current trends in knowledge and practice of SA i.e. the use of SA
tools, approaches and mechanisms by citizens and citizen groups, SAIPs,
local government officials and service providers
Compile baseline statistics and verifiable indicators for use during the
implementation, monitoring and evaluation
The scope of this baseline survey is expected to cover 28 woredas in all regional
states.
1.2 Brief description of how the baseline survey was executed
The study was conducted in all regions of the country in the woredas
embraced by ESAP2. The target population was people aged 15 years and
above including Youth, Women, Persons with Disablity, Elderly, and People
Living with HIV/AIDS.
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used for the survey.
15 / 119
1.3 Country context
Political background
Ethiopia has enjoyed a decade of peace and relative prosperity that has put
increasing focus on economic growth and achievement of the MDGs. The
macro-economic stability, excellent climate and fertile soils, strategic location
at the cross-roads between Africa, the Middle East and Asia, have been a
fertile ground for accelerated growth.
The Federal Government of Ethiopia is constituted by ten regional/urban
governments and more than 1000 woreda administrations. The Government
of Ethiopia (GoE) has focused resources on the basic services that woredas
provide.
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has issued different reform
programs and economic policies that are considered as the engine for
accelerated growth of the country. The Civil Service Reform Program (CSRP),
PBS Program, Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), Poverty Reduction
Strategy Program (PRSP), Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development
to End Poverty (PASDEP) and Growth and Transformation Program (GTP)
are some of the programs worth mentioning here.
The CSRP is aimed at developing and operationalizing a “comprehensive
service delivery policy, complaints handling mechanism, and service
standards to facilitate positive changes in the culture, attitudes and work
practices of government officials towards the provision of effective and
equitable public services.” The expected outcomes of the reform were to
improve service delivery speed, efficiency and fairness, bring about attitudinal
change among civil servants about the importance of accounting of resources,
searching for more efficient ways of using scarce resources, and
responsiveness to both citizens demands and preferences, to increase
accountability and transparency of government policy makers and service
16 / 119
providers to people and to strengthen customer services and complaints
handling units to handle citizens complaints effectively and in a timely
manner.
The effectiveness of the reform program varies across different regions and
woredas. In regions and woredas with a high staff turnover (estimated to be
25% per annum) the reform program has not been very effective, as the
trained staff and officials get transferred and their replacements are yet to be
trained and capacitated. Therefore, SA initiatives can help to bridge the gap
between the training and implementation of the GoE Reform Agenda. As an
integral component of the GoE’s reform agenda, effective implementation of
the SA program is believed to further strengthen the GoE’s reform and
capacity building efforts.
Economic background:
Ethiopia is currently the fastest growing non-oil producing country in Africa,
with growth rates of more than 10% per annum over the last decade. In terms
of economic performance, Ethiopia has shown not only an impressive growth
but also, more importantly, remarkable consistency. According to African
Development Fund (ADF) July 2012 report, real GDP Growth averaged 11.3%
for the period of FY /05–2010/111.
The focus in the previous and current five-year-plans (PASDEP and GTP) of
the Ethiopian government was poverty eradication and meeting of the MDG
objectives and outcomes. The five-year plan objectives, outputs and indicators
were linked to the MDGs. The GTP set seven strategic pillars, which are
directed to service improvements and poverty eradication. The last two
strategic pillars aim to building capacity, deepen good governance, and
promote gender and youth empowerment and equity. The GTP envisages to
consolidate the capacity building, democratization and good governance
17 / 119
programs through (i) establishing a government structure with a strong
implementation capacity (ii) ensuring transparency and combating corruption
(iii) ensuring public participation and (iv) incorporating cross cutting issues
such as empowering women, affirmative action, increasing HIV/AIDS
awareness, increasing the contribution of people with disabilities and
promoting young professionals [emerging young leaders].”
The objectives of the PBS “is to contribute to reducing poverty and improving
the standard of living of Ethiopians by expanding access and improving the
quality of the decentralized delivery of services in education, health,
agriculture, water supply and sanitation and rural roads while continuing to
deepen local accountability and transparency in basic service delivery.’’
(ADF:V)
It is expected that by 2014/15 the primary education completion rate will have
increased from 49.4% to 64%; maternal mortality ratio will go down from 470
to 367; agricultural productivity for major food crops is expected to increase
from 15 quintals per hectare to 20. The average time to the nearest all-
weather road will be reduced from the current 4.5 hours to 1.6 hours. Access
to potable water supply will have increased from 71.3% to 92%. (ibid.)
Despite its strong growth performance, Ethiopia faces formidable challenges.
The year-on-year inflation by the end of June 2012 has been 20.9 percent. It
has declined in 2013 but still price instability threatens to derail the gains
achieved. Government’s engagement with civil society, program complexities
of PBS, the need for further enhancement of financial management systems
are also other areas of challenge that should be overcome.
1.4 Conceptualization of ESAP in Ethiopian context
The ESAP has completed a pilot phase (PBS I) and is on preparation for a third
phase of Promoting Basic Services Project (PBS III). The PBSI to PBS III are
hereunder summarized.
18 / 119
A. Protection of Basic Services (PBS) pilot project.
The GoE and international development partners established the PBS Project
in June 2006 as a new mechanism to support Ethiopia’s progress towards
MDG targets. The PBS Project aims to ensure that the critical basic services in
primary schooling, basic health care, water supply and sanitation, and
agricultural extension continue to reach the poor. The PBS has four
components (Project Implementation Guideline, February 2008). They are:
Component I: intends to protect the delivery of basic services by Woreda
administrations. Development partners will provide money to the government
on the condition that the full amount is passed to the regions through the
federal block grant.
Component II: deals with the delivery of basic health services. These funds
will be used to pay for commodities such as vaccines, anti-malarial bed nets
and contraceptives associated logistics and procurement.
Component III: attempts to improve citizens’ understanding of regional
and Woreda budgets and to make service facilities (health clinics, primary
schools, etc) more accountable to the citizens they serve.
Component IV: It attempts to strengthen the use of SA approaches by
citizens and civil society organizations (CSO) as a means to make basic service
delivery more effective, efficient, responsive and accountable.
The Protection of Basic Services (PBS‐I) ‐ SA (Component IV) was piloted
between January 2008 and June 2009. ESAP2 is the continuation of the
ESAP1 pilot. The PBS-1 SA Component 4 focused (Evaluation Report June
2010) on transparency of budget processes, citizens and CSO engagement in
the process of budget literacy and piloting of selected tools and approaches to
strengthen citizens’ and CSOs’ voice and downward accountability in the
context of decentralized service delivery. It piloted 86 woredas working in
four sectors namely education, health, water and sanitation and agriculture.
19 / 119
The prime objective of the ESAP1 was to strengthen SA approaches by citizens
and CSOs as a means to make basic service delivery effective, efficient,
responsive and accountable. The other sub-objective was to build capacity on
SA among all stakeholders (i.e., citizens, CSOs, service providers, local
government representatives, etc.)
B. Protection of Basic Services (PBS 2)
ESAP2 has scaled up the SA activities started during ESAP1 (SAIP
Operational Manual). SAIPs are expected to raise awareness and encourage
the use of SA tools and in the process “bring citizens into dialogue with local
governments and service providers to contribute to and increase the demand
for improved quality of public basic services.’’
The CSOs are responsible for implementing SA programs in individual
districts (woredas), with the MA providing overall guidance and capacity
strengthening (Concept note, Impact Evaluation of the PBS II SA Program,
March 2013). The purpose of ESAP2 will be to deepen the process started
under ESAP1 and scale-up its implementation on the basis of lessons learnt
from the pilot phase. The expected outcome of phase II will be:
Informed, empowered and engaged citizenry that demand, contribute to
and negotiate for quality basic services and can hold service providers
accountable for ineffective performance
Informed and engaged public officials and service providers that are open
and responsive to citizens’ needs and demands
Improved quality of basic services
SAIPs must ensure that vulnerable groups such as women, PLWHA,
elderly, OVCs are represented and that SA program is designed to optimize
their participation. This will ensure that the SA program is truly inclusive.
20 / 119
C. Promoting Basic Services (PBS 3)
PBS supports the Government’s commitment to strengthen decentralized
service delivery and enhance local transparency and accountability
mechanisms that support those service delivery objectives. PBS III combines
Sub Program A - Basic Service Block Grants, Sub Program B - Strengthening
Local Accountability and Transparency Systems with three components to
improve transparency and accountability systems at woreda level including:
SA, Financial Transparency and Accountability (FTA) and Grievence Redress
Mechanism (RDM); Sub Program C - Result Enhancement Fund
The most important lessons from the past six years are the strong focus on
results, performance based elements that reward good regional and sub-
regional performance in service delivery, public financial management
accounting and reporting and transparency and accountability. Through PBS
3, Developmental Partners (DP) and the Government will seek to develop
more performance based financing and management approaches. The other
lessons are the need for simplified structures and the need for linking SA and
FTA. Sustainability of decentralized basic service provision will also be
important during PBS 3. The need to maintain a strong PBS secretariat during
PBS3 is also emphasized.
PBS has helped in bringing important progress in Ethiopia across the basic
service sectors. There has been a joint Government DP recognition that
decentralized systems to deliver basic service can be strengthened. The PBS
program has included capacity building and system strengthening
components including SA. As a complement to the financial transparency and
accountability results, the component supports CSOs that improve
opportunities for citizens to provide feedback to local administrators and
service providers. The SA component piloted Community Score Cards (CSC),
Citizen Report Cards (CRC) and Participatory Budgeting (PB). It also
21 / 119
promoted interface meetings between citizens and local authorities to provide
feedback on service delivery.
SAIPs were launching the program, some conducting quick assessments in the
28 earmarked woredas and kebeles for the baseline survey. This is part of the
process of getting ready to provide training for community, citizen groups and
local government officials and public service providers on SA principles,
service standards and on selected SA tools. This baseline study we hope will
contribute in advancing their ongoing efforts and provide the monitoring and
evaluation baseline, which will be instrumental in evaluating their
accomplishments at the end of the project.
22 / 119
Methodology
The study was conducted in all regions of the country in the woredas included in
ESAP2. The target population (Youth, Women, Disabled, Elderly, and HIV/AIDs)
is people aged 15 years and over.
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used for the survey. The
quantitative approach was used in collecting data on the target population. The
qualitative approach was adopted to assess SAIPs, service providers and Woreda
officials
2.1 Team composition
A survey Project Management Team which consisted of a Manager, three Senior
Survey Supervisors and a Finance Administrator specific to the survey project
was established at Head Office Level. Eleven Senior Surveyors and forty-eight
Data Enumerators were mobilized to conduct the survey.
2.2 Sample methodology, sample selection scheme and sample size
2.2.1 Sampling frame
Sampling frame is a physical list of all units in the survey population from which
the sample is to be selected. Availability of a frame makes the sample selection
relatively easy and in its totality ensures an equal probability of selection for each
unit in the list. The list of kebeles and districts with information on demographic
variables (total population size, target population, etc.) served as a frame of
clusters for the sample selection. This was generated from the MA.
Sample size
The aim of the survey was to generate benchmark data on target population (Youth,
Women, Disabled, Elderly, and HIV/AIDs) as the focal population to learn about their
situation, their concern, priorities, opinion, current situation with regard to SA
23 / 119
(knowledge and practice). The main variables/indicators of interest were therefore
supposed to be percentages and the desired number of people to be sampled and
interviewed was agreed upon to be 480.
Table 1: Distribution of number sample clusters, number of sample people across geographic
areas/strata
Geographic
area/Stratum
Number districts
included in the
program
Number
sample
districts
Number of
sample
clusters / keels
Total sample of
people adjusted
Tigray 16 3 5 50
Afar 7 1 2 20
Amara 21 4 7 70
Oromia 49 8 16 160
Somali 4 1 1 10
Benishangule 1 1 1 10
SNNP 28 5 9 90
Glabella 5 1 2 20
Harari 1 1 1 10
Addis Ababa 11 2 3 30
Diredwa 1 1 1 10
Total 144 28 48 480
According to the sample taken 28 woredas and 48 kebeles were surveyed. The selection
of woredas has taken into account a fair zonal distribution, sectorial areas where the MA
operates and rural and urban woredas.
2.2.2 Selection of study Woredas
The selection of woredas (28 out of the 133 total) has been made with painstaking
care to ensure that the woredas are representative and fulfilling a number of
requirements. The steps taken are listed below:
a. Services provided. In selecting the sample woredas, it was found to be
more rewarding in making the survey result more comprehensive and
24 / 119
therefore more representative if at least four (4) services were provided in the
woredas. Exceptions were made for Benishanguel, Harari, Addis Ababa
Woreda 05 of Lideta and Dire Dawa where the respective services present
numbered 2, 1, 3 and 2 only respectively. Akaki Kaliti on the other hand has 5
service sectors and was included in its own right. This exercise reduced the
number of potential sample woredas significantly.
b. Zonal distribution. This was also an important consideration to be taken.
Taking the reduced number of potential sample woredas, these woredas were
subjected to the test of representative zonal distribution. Everything possible
was done to avoid selecting more than one sample Woreda from the different
zones. This exercise again reduced the number of potential sample woredas.
c. Urban/rural distribution. Given the reduced number of potential woredas
in consideration of services provided and zonal distribution, it was further
desirable to make the choice, as far as possible, more representatives with
regard to urban and rural responding communities. This exercise again had
an effect on balancing the urban/rural distribution as far as possible with the
rural settings being in a clear majority
d. Vulnerable groups. The five targeted vulnerable groups (women, youth,
disabled, HIV/AIDS and elderly) were represented equally (two each). In
cases where there were less than five of the groups in each kebele, the number
of interviewed persons came from those represented groups in a fair manner
with consideration of the relevant service sectors. In woredas where the MA
operates in rural roads, accessibility was the main issue and hence disabled
individuals were interviewed. Likewise, woredas where health is one
operational area, HIV/AIDS patients were interviewed. As long as the zonal
and woreda clusters are widespread, it was found necessary to give
preferences to woredas where all the vulnerable groups are found for basing
baselines in wide range.
25 / 119
e. Gender distribution. There was a need for a fair and representative
distribution of the respondents along gender lines. In cases where less than
five of the service sectors are available the necessary effort was made to realize
the optimal distribution with due consideration of the nature of the relevant
service sectors some of which (like the water sector) are essentially gender
oriented.
26 / 119
Table 2: Selected Woredas Zonal, Urban/Rural mix and Distribution in Sectors and
vulnerable Groups
Region Selected
Woreda
Zone
Distribution
Urban/
rural Mix Sectors
Interviewee
in each
Kebele
No. of
Kebeles
Total
interviewee
Tigray
Endamehoni Southern
Tigray R 5 10 1 10
Mekele Special
Zone U 5 10 2 20
Kola Tembein Central
Tigray R 4 10 2 20
Afar
Awash
Fentale Zone 3 R 5 10 2 20
Asayita Zone 1 R 4 10 2 20
Amhara
Debre Markos East Gojjam R 5 10 2 20
Debre Tabor
Town
South
Gondar U 5 10 2 20
Kalu South Wollo R 5 10 2 20
Tarma Bir North
Shewa R 4 10 1 10
Oromia
Meki Town East Shewa U 5 10 2 20
Bako Tibe West Shewa R 5 10 2 20
Jimma Horo Kelem
Wellega R 4 10 2 20
Sude2 Arsi R 5 10 2 20
Babile East
Harerge R 5 10 2 20
Jima Rare Horo Gudru
Wellega R 4 10 2 20
Lume3 East Shewa U 5 10 2 20
Somali Kebri Beyah Jijiga Zone R 4 10 1 10
2 Arero in the Borena zone was requested by the MA to be replaced by another woreda and not finding any other sample to be included
from the Borenal zone the consultant replaced Arero with Sude from Arsi zone. 3 For the same reason given above Arsi Negalle was replaced by Lume.
27 / 119
Region Selected
Woreda
Zone
Distribution
Urban/
rural Mix Sectors
Interviewee
in each
Kebele
No. of
Kebeles
Total
interviewee
Benshang
ule Guba
Metekel
Zone R 2 10 1 10
SNNP
Gorche4 Sidama R 5 10 2 20
Misha Hadiya R 5 10 2 20
Shebedino Sidama R 5 10 2 20
Kachibira Kembata
Timbaro R 5 10 2 20
Gambella
Gambella
town Ajnewak U 5 10 2 20
Gambella
Zuria Ajnewak R 5 10 1 10
Harari Sofi Harari R 1 10 1 10
Addis
Ababa
Woreda 05 Lideta U 3 10 2 20
Woreda 06 Akaki Kaliti
Sub city U 5 10 1 10
Dire Dawa Dire Dawa
City Dire Dawa U - 10 1 10
48 480
2.2.3 Targeted and non targeted Kebeles
As shown in the Table above, 48 kebeles were covered for the baseline survey.
These kebeles were distributed in the 28 selected woredas. In each of the 20
woredas two kebeles and in the other 8 woredas only one kebele was covered.
In woredas where two kebeles were targeted, one outside the SAIPs was a
targeted kebele. Thus, 28 kebeles were targeted and 20 non-targeted kebeles
were included in the baseline survey.
Gorche was a replacement for Arbegona woreda
28 / 119
2.2.4 Selection of interviewees and FGD participants
Citizens
Based on the set mix of target groups, the SAIPs and kebeles provided the
names of a reasonable number of citizens of each target group in the
targeted and non-targeted kebele from which the senior surveyors
randomly chose the names of the required number of interviewee, which
were 10 in each kebele.
Key informants
Key informants were chosen by the Senior Surveyor at woreda level. These
informants, where applicable, were chosen from government officials,
public service providers and the SAIP representative in the woreda.
FGD participants
Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were conducted in all 28 woredas. FGD
participants consisted of representatives of the target groups,
representatives of the community notably personalities including elders,
religious leaders, CBO representatives including government officials and
the SAIP representative in the woreda as much as possible.
2.3 Data collection methods and tools used
Study Instruments
Structured questionnaires were provided by the MA and adopted for the
quantitative study. The content of the questionnaire was discussed and
finalized in consultation with the MA. A brief interview guide was also
prepared for the data collectors used during the training and field data
collection.
Semi-structured questionnaires prepared for the qualitative study to
collect the required information from key informants/woreda officials and
service providers were also provided by the MA.
Methods of data collection
29 / 119
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were applied in data collection.
Structured questionnaires for household interviews were applied. Parallel
to the quantitative survey, key informants were interviewed to assess the
existing capacity of service providers and awareness of the community
about SA. FGDs were conducted in each of the 28 woredas.
2.4 Profile of survey respondents
2.4.1 Citizens
The SA baseline survey targeted 480 vulnerable citizens in 48 kebeles of
the intervented 28 woredas. The citizen respondents were women (25.6%),
youth (26.0%), elderly (30.6%), disabled (9.4%) and people living with
HIV/AIDS (8.3%).
Figure 1: Grouping of vulnerable people surveyed
Gender wise 41% were female. Out of the total number of respondents,
30% have not attended formal education, while 38.7%, 20.8% and 10.5%
have attended grades 1-8, 9-12 and higher education consequetively. PSNP
beneficiaries among the respondents were 26.2%.
30 / 119
2.4.2 Social Accountability Implementing Partners
The survey aimed to measure the capacity of SAIPs to build the capacity of
citizens, citizen groups and service providers. Twenty-one SAIPs were
surveyed. Eleven were partner SAIPs, the remaining ones (10) lead SAIPs.
(Annex 3).
Some of the lead and partner SAIPs were participants in the ESAP1 program.
Most of the SAIPs did not participate in ESAP1 but according to a
documentary review all have used one or multiple types of SA tools. The
following were some of the tools used by the target SAIPs.
CSC Community Score Card
CRC Citizens Report Card
PPB Participatory Planning and Budgeting
PBET Participatory Budget Expenditure Tracking
GRB Gender Responsive Budgeting
CGPS Community Generated Performance Scorecard
PETS Public Expenditure Tracking Survey
BSC Balanced Score Card
In the question of the target services sectors in which they were involved,
22 SAIPs were interviewed. Accordingly, SAIPs were involved in education
(63.6%), health (50%), agriculture (40.9%), water and sanitation (36.4%),
and rural roads (31.8%).
2.4.3 Local Government
Local government officials in the areas where SAIPs operate were
interviewed. One hundred fourteen government officials, experts and
department heads were interviewed. Local government key informants
consisted of health and agriculture officials (23.7%), education officials
(22.8%), water and sanitation officials (17.5%) and rural roads officials
(12.3%). Gender wise, 92% were male and 7.8% female.
31 / 119
2.4.4 Service Providers
School directors, health officers or nurses heading health institutions,
government officials which are directly involved in rendering public
services like agriculture and water and sanitation were included in the
survey.
2.5 Training of senior surveyors and enumerators
The quality of data heavily depends on the quality of each interviewer’s
work. Therefore, every effort was made during the recruitment to select
interviewers that have experience in data collection. Technical follow-
up/supervision has also played a role in improving the quality of data.
Hence, experienced supervisors were assigned during data collection to
facilitate the execution of the survey, provide field-level technical
guidance as well as to ensure the quality of the data at field level. A
daylong training was undertaken for Senior Surveyors where Ato Tenaw
from the MA attended and gave guidance and shared his experience. Data
Enumerators were responsible for conducting citizen interviews. Their
training was limited to training for using the citizen interview
questionnaire. The Data Enumerators training was conducted by the
Senior Surveyors in each woreda for half a day in an interactive and
practical exercise in the field.
2.6 Data analysis method
Data editing and coding was done in Addis Ababa. After office editing and
coding the data were entered into the computer using a template prepared
based on CSPro software to have an electronic copy of the information and
perform analysis. Finally, the electronic data were converted into the SPSS
format for easier cross tabulations and statistical analysis of the data.
2.7 Discussion on limitations of the survey
The great challenge faced during the field survey was the delay of the
transmission of the support letter written by the Ministry of Finance and
32 / 119
Economic Development (MoFED) to the woredas through the regional
Bureau of Finance and Economic Development (BoFED). Senior surveyors
were required to spend time in facilitating the transmission of the letters
to the target woredas and in the case of Afar, the senior surveyor was
returned back to Addis Ababa to be sent again when the problem was
addressed.
Rescheduling of the field trip in order to fit the schedule of the SAIPs was
also a problem. Some SAIPs were in the process of signing a memorandum
of understanding with the target woredas and others were launching their
programs in their target woredas. Thus, we were rescheduling our
program while working in the woredas where the SAIPs were ready to
accommodate us.
The Capacity Building Offices in the woredas have been conducting
training on good governance during the PASDEP and the current GTP
strategic plan period but the specific issue of SA was a foreign concept to
most interviewees. This has led many not to respond to questions related
to SA. During the FGDs, participants were observed to be conversant on
topics referring whether the service delivery was improving and to
questions which referred to what they suggest should be done in the future
to further improve the quality and accessibility of services. Citizens were
clearer on the general constitutional rights rather than social
accountability and transparency.
There was also a tendency to confuse SA tools to tools applied in the civil
service reform program. Respondents who answered affirmatively that
they were trained in SA tools were found to refer to the CSRP tools when
asked which tools they were trained in. The CSRP tools are directed to
efficient and effective service delivery from the supply side and thus they
could be considered as contributing to SA in the demand side. But their
difference was not appreciated in responding to the questions.
The sheer number of questions used for conducting interviews was found
by most citizen interviewees to be tiresome. This was reported by senior
surveyors who supervised the survey at kebele level.
33 / 119
3. Survey findings
In line with the overall and specific objectives of the survey, the survey has
been conducted with a view to answer certain questions, which would lead to
the establishment of a benchmark against which progress in basic service
provision will be measured with regard to
Citizen and citizen groups awareness of their right, responsibilities, and
entitlements to contribute to and demand for better quality public basic
services.
Involvement and participation of citizen groups in the planning,
budgeting, implementation and monitoring of access to and quality and
quantity of basic public services.
Capacity of SAIPs to empower citizens and citizen groups on multiple
social accountability tools.
Capacity of Woreda officials and public basic service providers to respond
to community and citizens’ needs and preferences and their degree of
accountability.
The survey findings incorporated the response of citizens, SAIPs, Service
Providers and Local Governments. The findings are presented below.
3.1 Citizens and citizen groups awareness of their rights,
responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and demand
better quality public basic services
3.1.1 Awareness
A very significant number of citizens (83.3%) seem to know that they are
entitled to demand for a proper provision of basic services like health,
education, etc. Those who definitely do not know and are not sure are
13.1% and 3.5 of the total respectively. Regionwise the proportion of those
who are aware of their entitlement go as high as 100% in Benishanguel
Gumuz and Dire Dawa and as low as just 20% in Somali. With regard to
woredas, the proportion is 100% in Endamakoni, Tarma Ber, Babille,
34 / 119
Guba, Kacha Bira, Shebedino, Addis Ababa Kaliti 06, and Dire Dawa City.
The lower proportions are recorded in Kebri Beyah with only 20%,
Gambella town with 35% and Gambella Zuria with 50%.
Figure 2: Percentage of respondent who said that they are entitled to demand for proper
provision of basic services like education, health
Figure 3: Percentage of respondents in each Woreda who said they are entitled, no and
don’t Know
The result was corroborated by FGD participants. 61% of the FGD
participants viewed that more than 50% of them knew that they have
constitutional right to demand proper provision of basic services like
35 / 119
health, education etc. With regard to Woredas the proportion where 100%
participants stated they are aware of their constitutional right are Sude,
Dire Dawa, Shebedino, Katchabira, Tarma Ber, Kalu, Jimma Rare, Jimma
Horo, and Gambella Town.
Most respondents in FGD seemed to know their constitutional rights
through mass media, the ethic education provided in schools, training and
attending meetings conducted by government officials. The capacity
building offices in Woredas had conducted training on good governance
for a long period of time (TTMC 2007).
The survey also indicated the awareness level among vulnerable groups.
The youth seems more aware than other vulnerable groups. About 88.8%
of the youth claimed that they are aware of their entitlement.
Figure 4: Response of vulnerable groups to the question whether or not they are entitled to
demand/voice for proper provision of basic services in the sectors
3.1.2 Training
Very little training seems to have been given to citizens on how to
approach service providers with regard to service provision. Just 18.5%
responded that they have been given training in the field of education,
22.9% in health, 16.5% in water and sanitation, 11.5% in rural roads and
18.3% in agriculture. With regard to woredas, only in Endamakoni more
than 50% received training in all sectors. Training given at woreda level
36 / 119
differed substantially among sectors with health showing a relative
superiority.
Figure 5: Have you ever been trained on how to approach service providers in the field of
The response of participants in FGD showed that a higher proportion of
participants than household interviewees declared they have participated
in conferences, seminars, workshops on citizen entitlements. Most of the
FGD participants stated that their awareness is limited only to attending
public meetings called by kebele and woreda officials where such issues are
imparted as an awareness creation component. The participation of
government officials, SAIPs representatives other than the vulnerable
groups targeted for household survey seemed to affect the difference in the
results of the citizens survey findings and FGD results.
3.1.3 On rights and responsibilities to plan, budget, implement and monitor basic
service delivery
Just 20% of the respondents say they have been given training with the
highest figure (33.3%) registered in Addis Ababa region and the lowest
(3.3%) in Gambella. Woreda wise by far the highest was registered in Enda
Makoni (70%) with Kacha Bira, Gorche and Awash Fentale following with
50%. The lowest figure (5%) was registered in Mekele, Bako Tibe, Jima
Harrow, Jimma Rare, Babille, Lume and Gambella Town.
37 / 119
Disaggregating the figure into vulnerable groups those that received
training were 32% of the elderly, 29% of women, 25% of youth, and only
5% for the disabled and those living with HIV/AIDS received the training.
Figure 6: Percentage of respondent who have been trained on rights and responsibilities to plan, budget,
implement and monitor public basic services delivery
Figure 7: Percentage of respondents who have been trained on rights and responsibilities to plan,
budget, implement and monitor public basic service delivery
38 / 119
3.1.4 Gender sensitivity of training
The training has been found to be highly gender sensitive with 84.4%
responding that it was so. All respondents in Tigray, Benishangul Gumuz,
Gambella and Addis Ababa said the training was gender-sensitive. The
least figure was recorded in Somali (50%). With regard to woredas, all
respondents in fully 15 woredas said the training was gender sensitive. The
lowest figure reported (50%) was in Misha.
Figure 8: Percentage of respondent who said that trainings were gender sensitive
3.1.5 Claiming of rights
Awareness of rights and claiming them, it seems, do not necessarily go
together. Responding to a multi-response question, a significant number of
people do not approach service providers to discuss services. Responding
to the question whether they had approached any service provider in the
past year, 32.7% had in the education sector, 40.6% in water and
sanitation, 18.1% in rural roads, and 25.4% in agriculture. Among those
that never approached any of the service providers reasons, given for not
doing so and their share in the number of respondents is shown below:
Table 3: Reasons for not approaching service providers
# Reasons Share%
1 Not feeling concerned/not aware of rights 28.1
2 Expecting no response 17.1
39 / 119
3 Did not face any problem 15.7
4 Not my priority 13.3
5 Do not know the reason 8.6
6 Thought someone else would do it/felt shy 9.5
7 Do not know where to go 4.3
8 Too busy 2.9
9 No response 0.6
Total 100.1*
* Figures do not add up because of approximations
With regard to making complaints about the different services, the service
that was most complained about was water and sanitation where 31.2% of
respondents said they had complained from a few to many times. The least
complained about was rural roads (12.3%). Most complaints seem to come
from the Somali Region where respondents said they had complained from
a few to many times about education (70%), health (70%) water and
sanitation (60%), rural roads (10%) and agriculture (50%). The least
complaints came from Amhara Region with those claiming that they
complained a few times or many times accounting for just 4.3% in
education, 11.4% in health, 28.6% in water and sanitation, 2.9% in rural
roads, and 4.3% in agriculture.
With regard to following up on complaints when they were not acted upon,
those who said they waited until response was received numbered 31.3%
and those who just gave up numbered 53.5%.
Those that appealed to higher bodies numbered 15.2%.
3.1.6 Capacity of citizens to assess the quality of services
The proportion of respondents who claimed that they were able to assess
the quality of the services well or a little ranged from 26.8% with regard to
rural roads to 52.7% regarding health. The methods used by citizens vary
in making the assessment. In a multi-response question regarding these
40 / 119
methods the main method was found to be the observation of work
accomplished, results obtained, the quality of work and satisfaction
obtained. Other methods include the mere availability of services, and the
commitment and capacity of service providers. Discussion with other
beneficiaries and /or service providers, assessment of reports submitted
and using monitoring and evaluation methods were also used.
3.1.7 Women’s organization
The proportion of respondents who never used their women’s
organizations for the purpose of approaching service providers regarding
any of the services ranged from 27.9% in rural roads to 37.8% in education.
Among the respondents 33% said they were members of women
organizations. All three respondents in Benishanguel Gumuz but only two
out of 21 respondents (9.5%) in Gambella were members of women
associations.
3.1.8 Consultation
Those who have been consulted on improving basic services in their
kebeles a few times or often ranged from 22.3% in rural roads to 33.1% in
health.
3.1.9 Access to information
The level of access to information on the woreda/kebele development plan,
budget allocation and expenditure seems to be low. Only 16.2% of
respondents positively claimed that they had access to the information.
There is quite a variation of the figures between the regions, however.
Those who say they have access are as few as just 5% in Afar and as high as
40% in Somali. Woreda wise Tarma Ber was the highest with 80%
receiving information while those in Gambella Town, Misha, Sofi and
Jimma Rare responded as having no access or do not know. Those who
said to have access following Tarma Ber are Debre Markos (45%), Jima
Horro and Kebribeyah (40%), Sude and Gambella Zuria (30%) followed by
41 / 119
Dire Dawa, Addis Ababa Kaliti, Guba, Kola Tembein and Endamekoni
(20%) each.
Figure 9: Percent of respondent who have access to information on Woreda/kebeles development plan,
budget allocation and expenditures
3.1.10 Influence of vulnerable people on public service delivery
Some 45% of the respondents say that there are ways that vulnerable people do
influence the delivery of public services. The proportion ranges from a low of 22.2%
in Dire Dawa to a high of 90% in Benishanguel Gumz.
42 / 119
Figure 10: Percentage of respondents who reported that there are ways that vulnerable people (People living
with HIV/AIDS, disabled, youth, elderly or women) influence public basic service delivery
3.1.11 Accountability
In assessing whether service providers/local governments are more
accountable for the service they deliver, 69% of citizen respondents
delivered a positive verdict. This positive response, however, ranged from a
low of 16.7% in Gambella to a high of 100% in Dire Dawa.
Asked whether they felt they were equally accountable for the services that
are delivered to them and to other people, 75.9% replied in a positive way.
Figures ranged from just 10% in Somali to 100% in Benishanguel Gumuz
and Addis Ababa. Woreda wise, 100% of the respondents in Endamakoni,
Guba, Addis Ababa Lideta 05 answered affirmatively. The lowest figures
were registered in Kebri Beyah (10%) and Misha (20%) where respondents
answered that they were not equally accountable for the services that are
delivered to them and to other people. All the rest responded in the
affirmative were 60% and above.
43 / 119
Figure 11: Percentage of respondents who feel they are equally accountable for the services that are
delivered to them and others
3.1.12 Suggestions to better include citizens’ needs in service delivery
Respondents were asked to forward suggestions on how to (better) include
citizens and community priority needs in service delivery. The suggestions
made numbered 38. Some of these were interrelated and complementary
to each other. Some were more technical like increasing the number of
skilled staff. Others, more relevant to SA, were suggested. The suggestion
that was forwarded by the highest number was the need for citizen
participation in planning and budgeting followed by training/ awareness
creation of stakeholders on rights and responsibilities, identification of
priority needs of society and implementing them, close supervision of
service providers and implementing citizen, community and government
cooperation/good governance.
3.2 Involvement and participation of citizens and citizen groups in
the planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring of
the quality of, access to, and quantity of basic public services
3.2.1 Claiming of rights
3.2.1.1 Visit to basic service providers
Survey respondents who claimed their rights did so, among other things,
to request service provision, for improvement of service provision, and to
44 / 119
submit complaints about the services. Less than half of the respondents
had approached a service provider in the past one year for any reason.
Among those who approached the service provider the highest number
(40.8%) were concerned with the health service followed by 40.6%
concerned with water and sanitation. Looking at it on a regional basis, the
highest proportions were recorded in Somali (70%) in both health and
agriculture and 70% in health in Benishanguel Gumuz.
The most important reasons for their visits in a multi-answer setting were
for requesting service provision, to discuss accessibility of basic
services/pharmaceuticals, uninterrupted water supply, free medical
service, material assistance and to request improvement of quality.
3.2.1.2 Frequency of visits
Among those who had approached service providers in the past one year
and definitely know the frequency, the highest number (47.3%) had made
3-5 visits with regard to health matters and 38.9% concerning water and
sanitation. Those who have visited more than 10 times were those with
regard to water and sanitation (16.8%).
3.2.1.3 Forwarding of complaints
The majority of respondents have not made any complaints about any of
the sectors. The highest proportion that did not complain was 81% in the
rural roads and 76.3% in the agricultural service.
Reasons given for not having forwarded complaints are varied. The most
important ones are that they do not feel the need for complaining (39.1%),
lack of knowledge about how to complain (30.5%), and the feeling that it
would be a futile exercise (25%). A small percentage (4.1%) do not
complain because of fears of reprisals.
Those who complained did so to kebele officials (63.7%), and woreda
officials (32.4%). Only 3.9% complained to other officials. Talking to the
head of the service providing organization was by far the most frequented
45 / 119
mode of complaint (77.3%) followed by writing a letter of complaint
(20.6%).
The main subjects of complaint were on the quality of the service, on the
inadequacy of service and on accessibility of the service. The subject of
unfair distribution of services was also recorded.
3.2.1.4 Responses to complaints
The responses to complaints were varied. Those who definitely did not get
any response totaled 30.8%. Among those who got any response 24.8%
said that they sometimes get responses. On the other hand, those who
always received responses were 41.6%. Those receiving the responses
quickly numbered 15.9% and those receiving the responses after a long
time totaled 25.7%. The region where responses were made quickly and
always was Amhara (34.6%), followed by Tigray (24%). The regions that
received no response were Harari (71.4%) followed by Afar (50%).
3.2.2 Vulnerable groups
Vulnerable people (PLWHAs, disabled, youth, elderly or women) have
varying degrees of influence in the various regions. A significant portion of
respondents does not know if there are any ways that vulnerable people
can influence public service delivery. Those who said that there are ways to
influence numbered more than those who said that there are no ways,
44.8% to 31.7%. The region where most respondents replied in the
affirmative was Benishanguel Gumuz (90%) whereas the lowest proportion
was recorded in Harari (22.2%). Several ways have been suggested by
which vulnerable people’s interests have been taken care of. Special
support provision in materials and inclusion of interest in provision, active
participation like other members of the community and respect gained
from the community, formation of, and action through, associations of
vulnerable groups and government measures in universal provision of
services and implementation of good governance lead the suggestions.
46 / 119
3.2.3 Consultation and decision making
In general, respondents claim that they are not consulted on improving
basic services with figures ranging from 65.6% of respondents on health
matters to 74.2% in rural roads. Those who said they were consulted often
or a few times totalled a high of 27.7% in matters of education and a low of
16.8% with regard to rural roads.
Participation in meetings with service providers/local
government on matters of service provision
The proportion of people who stated that they have participated in
meetings with service providers and local governments with regard to
public service provision was 48.8% with those asserting the opposite
being 47.6%. The highest rate of participation rate overall was in
matters of health (66.7%) and the lowest in agriculture (23.8%). With
regard to the frequency of these meetings on an annual basis, the
highest frequency was 3-5 times a year (45.7%) and lowest just once a
year (11.2%) and 11.6% with frequencies of 6-10 times a year.
Among those reporting participation in meetings and discussion
forums 51.1% said that those were meetings on issues. Participation in
meetings on issues called by Kebeles were 13.4%. Just 1.6% participated
in those called by development committees. Those who said they
participated in democratic and participatory discussion totaled 9.1%.
With regard to participation of vulnerable groups, the proportion
of respondents who said that they do not know about the matter and
those who definitely said that vulnerable people did not participate
numbered 14.6%. Those who said that vulnerable people, although
present, remained silent numbered 13.4%. The majority of respondents
(54.7%) said that some of the vulnerable people were actively engaged
while 17.2% claimed that all vulnerable people present were actively
engaged in the discussion.
47 / 119
Figure 12: Percentage participation in a meeting with service providers/local government
on service provision
Planning, decision making and follow up.
There seems to be little participation of citizens in planning regarding
service provision. Respondents were asked if they had ever participated
in developing a joint action plan on basic public services. Those
replying in the affirmative were 14.4% in education, 14.4% in health
12% in water and sanitation, 9.8% in rural roads and 15.2% in
agriculture. In all, less than one fifth of the respondents have been
involved in planning any kind of joint action plan. The frequency of
involvement was just once (26.5%), twice (22.5%), 3-5 times (33.3%),
and 6-10 times (12.7%). The rest (4.6%) did not know. The discussions
were all sector –specific. Overall participation of citizens was in 91.7%
of the cases. All respondents except 14.3% in SNNPR, and 33.3% in
Gambella and Addis Ababa reported that citizens participated in the
discussions. All said that decisions were made during the discussions
except 32.9% in SNNPR and 4.2% in Oromia. Most decisions were
made on meeting targets in each sector (76.2%). Others related to the
48 / 119
quality of education (7%), giving priority to women (2.4%) and money
contributions (4.8%).
With regard to follow up on these decisions, 72.3% said there was, with
the remaining (27.7%) saying there was no follow up.
With regard to discussions on the needs of vulnerable people/groups,
72.4% asserted that the issue was discussed. Those who said the issue
was not raised where they participated were 21% and those who did not
know were 6.1%. As to how the needs of the vulnerable groups were
taken into account, the response was by having the opportunity to voice
their concerns in the meetings and by giving priority in service
provision. The majority were those who were of the opinion that by
their participation as citizens and being treated as citizens their needs
would be addressed. Decisions made by the kebele/woreda are reported
to be made with the subject of accessibility uppermost in mind with
regard to all basic services. Between 89.8 % (education) and 96.5%
(rural roads) of decisions are made on this criterion. Other criteria like
quality of service are comparatively given minimum attention.
Local Plan implementation and reporting
10.8% of the respondents asserted that all plans were implemented.
Those who claim that the plans were partly implemented numbered
64.7% while 15.7% said that only very few of the plans were
implemented. Only 2% said there was no plan implementation
while 6.9% said they did not know. With regard to the method of
service delivery performance and challenges reporting to citizens by
service providers/local government it seems that meetings were the
most favorable vehicle (70.4%). The rest are informed through the
mass media or the notice board.
Service usage, assessment and monitoring, and evaluation
Citizens make use of basic services quite frequently as high as 20
times per month with regard to schools and 10 times per month
49 / 119
with regard to agriculture. For understandable reasons no use of
rural roads has been made in Somali and Benishanguel Gumuz. In
the same way, no use was made of agricultural services in
Benishanguel Gumuz and Addis Ababa.
Methods used to assess/monitor the services provided are varied.
The most favorite is by evaluating the work accomplished, followed
by the availability of services and also the quality of work.
Assessment of the commitment and capacity of service providers
and discussion with others and consulting professionals was a
method preferred by some. Other methods were satisfaction of
citizens on services provided and efficiency of the service. A small
number of respondents declared that they did not have the skills
and did not know how to evaluate.
In an exercise where citizens were asked to evaluate the individual
services on a scale of 1-6, ranging from excellent and not needing
any improvement to very bad and need extensive reform, a big
majority was of the opinion that the sectors were essentially good or
very good but needed little or some important improvement. The
proportion of respondents who made the above judgment was
82.9% on education, 76.2% on health, 55.1% on water and
sanitation, 53.6% on rural roads and 70% on agriculture. On the
other hand, those who said the sector is excellent and needs no
improvement were 3.4% on education, 2.5% on health, 2.4% on
water and sanitation, 4.5% on rural roads, and 8.8% on agriculture.
At the other extreme those who asserted that the service was very
bad and that the whole sector needed extensive reform numbered
1.7% on education, 1.4% on health, 5.4% on water and sanitation,
8.6% on rural roads and 5.4% on agriculture.
Respondents were asked how many citizens they thought were
satisfied with the services in different sectors. The estimate was to
be made on a scale of 1-7 with 1 representing 0% indicating no one
50 / 119
was satisfied and 7 indicating more than 75% were satisfied. Those
that estimated more than 30% were satisfied were in the majority
except for rural roads and water and sanitation accounting for
67.3% on education, 60.7% on health, and 60.4% on agriculture.
The corresponding figures were 46.8% on water and sanitation and
37.0% on rural roads.
Figure 13: Service providers/local government accountability for services they deliver
The same exercise was made with regard to the satisfaction of
women specifically with the services. Those that said that more than
30% of women were satisfied numbered 66.6% on education, 67.8%
on health, 47% on water and sanitation, 38.2% on rural roads and
60.3% on agriculture.
3.3 Capacity of SAIPs to empower citizens and citizen groups on
multiple social accountability tools, approaches and
mechanisms
The SAIPs that were targeted in this survey either were just launching their
programs or were a few days away from launching their programs. Some
were still trying to open offices in the woredas. The counterparts assigned
51 / 119
by the SAIPs to work with the Senior Surveyors were asked to complete
questionnaires for the SAIPs.
3.3.1 Capacity of SAIPs’ field staff in monitoring and evaluation
Respondents were asked what M&E tools consist of by making available to
them 2 correct answers and a third open ended one. 66% of the
respondents identified the logframe and only 28.6% identified the
monitoring plan as correct answers. Provided with five correct choices
about a transparent financial management system, those who responded
by choosing the five are 14 and those who selected none or one to three are
seven. The SAIPs are still in the process of organizing woreda level offices
and the findings may not reflect what will happen once the field offices are
established and operational. The findings indicate the need SAIPs’ field
staff capacity building at the woreda and kebele level.
3.3.2 Citizens’ interest to engage with service providers
Asked about the citizens interest to actively engage service providers to
improve service delivery, 27.8% of the SAIPs claimed that more than 25%
of the population in their project areas actually do so. Those who claimed
that less than 1% showed interest were 22.2% and those who claimed from
5% to 20% added up to 38.9%. This showed that a significant number of
people will be available for the SAIPs to start their program as
participating citizens and communities.
In responding to the question how many citizens in their project woreda
participate in planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring the
quality of basic service delivery, more than two thirds (68.8%) said that
less than 5% do so.
Genderwise, women seem more active according to SAIP respondents.
About 37.5% of the SAIPs claimed that 10-25% of the women in the
engagement woreda have participated in planning, budgeting, and
implementation and monitoring of quality of basic services.
52 / 119
3.3.3 Satisfaction of citizens
SAIP respondents to the question how satisfied they felt the citizens were
with the quality of the service provided, 41.1% responded that they were
satisfied or very satisfied and another 47.1% said that they were rather
satisfied. Only 11.8% of the respondents claimed dissatisfaction of the
citizens in their target woredas.
3.3.4 Cooperation with local government officials
Cooperation of local government officials to respond to demands of
citizens is important for creating an enabling environment for SA. Out of
19 SAIP respondents, 36.8% claimed that local officials are definitely
responsive to citizens basic needs in terms of service delivery provision
while 63.1% answered that they were a bit or rather little responsive.
3.3.5 Possibility of exemplary SA practices by SAIPs
The survey also showed that the SAIPs are engaged in service delivery to
vulnerable people in the five sectors. As indicated in the previous chapter,
in a multiple response question twenty two SAIPs surveyed at woreda level
identified their intervention programs in agriculture (40.9%), education
(63.6%), health (50.0%), rural roads (31.8%) and water and sanitation
(36.4%). The SAIPs can use the services they provide in these sectors as
exemplary demonstration points to citizens, local government and service
providers.
3.4 Capacity of Woreda officials to respond to community and citizens’
needs and preferences and be accountable
3.4.1 Capacity of citizens to assess the quality of services
Almost all government officials seem to believe that citizens have the
capacity to assess the quality of the service delivered to them. A significant
number (87.1%) responded positively to the question. Regionwise the
proportion of those who feel citizens are actually able to assess the quality
of the service delivered in their sector goes as high as 100% in Tigray,
53 / 119
SNNPR, Harari and Addis Ababa and as low as in Gambella (40%), Somali
(66.7%) and more than 70% in Afar, Benishanguel Gumuz and Dire Dawa
and in Oromia (94.1%). Those who feel that citizens are able to a lesser
extent to assess the quality of the service delivered to them goes as high as
50% in Gambella, 14.3% in Amhara and Afar and 5.9% in Oromia. Only
2% in all regions answered that they do not know whether citizens have the
capacity to assess the quality of services delivered to them.
Figure 14: Percentage of government officials that feel citizens are actually able to assess the
quality of services delivered in their sector
3.4.2 Methods used by citizens to present assessment of the quality of service
The method of presentation acknowledged by local governmen officials
were too many for presentation. As a result they were consolidated into a
manageable number of four. In addition, since the question was open
ended and each official named a number of presentation methods, the
result was weighted to arrive at the representative percentages. The
methods were offerring suggestions in kebele/woreda meetings (23.9%),
participating in the work/project (2.6%), evaluating the service using
service standards (12.6%), participating in monitoring and evaluation
forums (60.9%).
54 / 119
Figure 15: Percentage of methods used by citizens for assessment presentation
3.4.3 Interaction with citizens and citizen groups
Most of the respondent officials claimed that they interact with citizens to
learn about their needs and demands. Out of the respondents, 93.9% said
they interact with citizens. This positive response however ranged from
100% in Tigray, Oromia, Somali, SNPPR, Harari to the least in Addis
Ababa (66%) followed by Gambella (77.8%). Those respondents who
answered they interact only a little amounted to (4.3%). Those who
responded they do not know were only 0.9%.
Figure 16: Interaction of officials with citizens to learn about their needs and demands
Respondents were asked how many women organiztions and or networks
approached them regarding the quality of the services provided during the
last year. Those who said no one approached them were 66.7% in
55 / 119
Benishanguel Gumuz, followed by Harari (33.3%), Amhara (18.5%),
Oromia (17.2%) with the least in Afar (16.7%). Those who said 1-2 times
range from 100% in Somali to 66.7% in Harari and 33.3% in Benishanguel
Gumuz and Gambella each. Those who said they were approached more
than 10 times in the last year numbered the highest in SNNPR (47.1%) and
the lowest in Tigray (7.1%).
3.4.4 Reporting performance and challenges to citizens
The majority of local government official respondents answered in the
affirmative to the question whether they report delivery performance and
challenges to citizens (93%). The range goes from 100% in Tigray, Afar,
Oromia, Benishanguel Gumuz, Harrari and Addis Ababa to 66.7% in
Somali.
Figure 17: Percentage of officials reporting service delivery performance and challenges to
citizens
The means of reporting service delivery performance and challenges to
citizens was similar to those reported by the household survey. The general
assembly was the predominant way. 87.5% said they reported using the
general assembly and 11.5% using notice board and 1.0% said other. In
Afar, Oromia, Somali, Benishanguel Gumuz and Addis Ababa, the general
assembly was said to be the 100% reporting mechanism.
56 / 119
3.4.5 Interaction with citizens
Government official respondents answering if they interact with citizens to
learn about their needs and demands responded in the affirmative
(96.8%). Those who answered in the negative were 2.6%. The highest
answer in the affirmative (100%) was in Tigray, Oromia, Somali, SNNPR
and Harari. The least was in Addis Ababa (66.7%) followed by
Benishanguel Gumuz (75.0%), Gambella 77.8% and Dire Dawa 85.7%.
Figure 18: Percentage of officials who participated in a meeting with citizens and local
government on service provision
Government officials responded that they report performance and
challenges to citizens. Those who claimed that they report amounted to
93.0% while those who answered in the negative was 5.2%. The most
popular method for reporting service delivery and challenges to citizens is
the general assembly (87.5%) followed by notice boards (11.5%) and others
(1.0%). Notice boards were used the most (55.6%) in Gambella followed
by Dire Dawa 20.0%.
57 / 119
Figure 19: Frequency of meetings that took place in the past year
3.4.6 Training of local government officials on social accountability
A significant number of respondents (51.8%) answered in the affirmative that
they have received training on SA. The number of trained persons was highest
in SNNPR (81.3%) followed by Afar and Harari. The understanding of
Balanced Score Cards (BSC) and CSRP tools as SA tools has led many to
assume that they had training on SA. Asked to identify the tools they were
trained in showed this misunderstanding. The percentage of those who have
ever applied SA tools were in SNNPR (31.3%), Afar (16.7%) and Harari (0%)
in contrast to the claims that they have received training on SA. Those who
answered in the affirmative to the question that they have ever applied SA
tools are most in Tigray (50%) followed by Oromia (42.9%), Amhara (42.9%)
and SNNPR (31.3%).
Figure 20: Percentage of officials that have training on social accountability tools
58 / 119
Figure 21: Percentage of officials who have ever applied social accountability tools
The SA tools that are popular with government officals are CRCs (37.1%),
followed by CSCs (25.7%). Government offficals in a multi answer open
ended question who referred to explaining what SA tools they used, made
clear that they mix uo SA tools with CSRP tools. Those who reported BPR,
BSC and other CSRP tools as SA are significant. Out of the total number of
respondents, (11.4%) answered that they considered the CSRP tools as SA
tools while 37.2% considered service standard tools and training related to
them as SA tools. A significant number (20.1%) considered procedural
guidelines as SA tools.
3.4.7 Satisfaction on service delivery
A comparison of the actual responses of citizens, local governments and
service providers with their estimation of the level of satisfaction of
citizens with the basic services is encapsulated in the following table. The
figures show the estimation of the different groups with the different
services and show the estimates for 50% and above of the citizen being
satisfied.
Table 4: Share of the different parties involved who estimate 50% and more of the citizens are
satisfied with the different services (%)
59 / 119
SN Service Citizens Service
providers
Local
government
Education 40.5
Health 37.6
Water and sanitation 23.5
Rural roads 23.0
Agriculture 38.6
Aggregated estimate 84.4 77.2
The estimates for service providers are aggregated to give the average
figure. Local governments estimates are also for all sectors. A substantial
margin emerges between the estimates of citizens and service providers.
SAIPs assessment of the satisfaction rate was in a scale of 1-4 where 1 is
very satisfied and 4 not satisfied. The respondents (43.5) said the
population was rather satisfied and 8.6% not satisfied. Those who
responded as satisfied were 17.3% and very satisfied 13.0%. Those who did
not respond to the question were 17.3%.
Figure 22: Percent of SAIP respondents to the satisfaction rate
60 / 119
3.4.8 Suggestions of local government officials for (better ) including
citizens’ and communities’ priority needs in service delivery
In a multi response open-ended question a significant number of
respondents suggested participation of citizens in planning and
implementation as important (40.2%). This was followed by training and
awareness creation of citizens and communities (27.2%). Regionwise the
suggestion for training was forwarded in Tigray and Afar (50.0%), Amhara
(25%), Oromia (58.3%), Somali (66.7%), SNNPR (17.6%), Gambella
(28.6%), Harari and Addis Ababa each (66.7%) and Dire Dawa) 33.3%).
3.5 Capacity of public basic service providers to respond to
community and citizens needs and preferences and be
accountable
Service providers confirm that 95.2% of them have been approached by
citizens regarding the services they provide. Only 4.8% said that no one
approached them.
Asked why citizens do not approach them about the services, those that
were not approached suggested various reasons such as a lack of interest
(50%) and because citizens are supported by other bodies (25%) as well as
being too busy and the matter not being their priority.
The most important reasons why citizens approach them, according to
service providers, are to get services (85.1%), to talk about the quality of
the services and follow up (37.8%) and to participate in capacity building
of service providers.
With regard to the quality of services provided, 8.9% of the service
providers asserted that no one had approached them. Those approached
by one to two people and those by three to five people were each 7.6%. On
the other hand, those that were approached by more than ten people were
70.9%.
61 / 119
In the case of the number of times they received complaints about the
services they provide, 10.8% of the service providers said they did not
receive any while 65.1% said they received complaints a few times and
22.9% said they received complaints many times. Those that received
complaints many times were in Addis Ababa (75%) and those with no
complaints in Somali (66.7%).
As far as the method citizens used to make complaints, 20% of the service
providers said letters were written while 78.6% said citizens approached
them in person. Other methods accounted for a mere 1.4%.
Giving judgment on the capability of citizens to assess the quality of
services delivered, 84.5% of the service providers were positive that
citizens had the capability, 8.3% said citizens had some capability in some
services, 6.0% said citizens had no capability and 1.2% did not know. Of
those who were positive, a 100% score was registered in Tigray, Amhara,
Benishanguel Gumuz and Dire Dawa. Those who said citizens had no
capability were in Somali (66.7%) and Gambella (75%).
Service providers believe that citizens have several ways of assessing the
quality of services provided. The proportion of service providers who think
observation of outcomes and accomplishments of services provided,
quality of construction and inadequacy of services was 49.3%, observation
of the quality of materials, equipment and tools (8.2%), information
gathered from service users, for example students informing parents
(12.3%). They make their assessments known through various means
including participating in evaluations and other public meetings (46.6%)
and through face to face discussions (16.4%).
With regard to women organizations/networks approaching them about
the quality of services during the last year, 14.9% said that they were not
approached, 32.4% said they were approached one to two times, 28.4%
from three to five times, 2.7% from 6 to 10 times and 20.3% more than ten
times.
62 / 119
When service providers were asked if they had ever developed a joint
action plan regarding service provision with citizens and local
governments the response was varied in relation to sectors. Participation
was 80% in education, 73.3% in health, 51.6% in water and sanitation, 45%
in rural roads and 68.8% in agriculture.
The average frequency of participation of service providers in developing a
joint action plan with citizens and local governments in the past year just
once was 28.8%, two times was 21.2%, three to five times was 36.4% and
six to ten times was 7.6%. Those who did not know accounted for 6.1%.
The planning exercise included action plan preparation (53.3%) including
sector specific issues (20.0%). There were cases where participants
discussed issues freely and set agenda (8.3%) and comments were
prepared on the action plan (6.7%).
On the question of whose ideas were taken into account, the service
providers judgment was that 13.6% represented views voiced by the
communities, all views (16.9%), joint plan with the community (15.3%),
and sector specific priorities (54.2%).
Citizens participation in the discussions according to the service providers
varied between regions. Overall the participation rate scored 88.1% against
a non-participation rate of 11.9%. Regionwise, the lowest participation rate
was in Afar (50%) and Addis Ababa (50%). Regions that had 100%
participation were Tigray, Somali, SNNPR, Harari and Benishanguel
Gumuz.
Service providers also stated that decisions were made with regard to joint
actions plan implementation (74.1%) and the preparation of action plan
(12.1%). They also said that agreement was made on participatory
budgeting (10.3%).
With regard to the question on follow up of such meetings, service
providers said that there were follow ups (91.2%). The remaining (8.8%)
63 / 119
said there were none. There were follow-up actions of 100% in all regions
except Gambella (50%), Oromia (15%) and Tigray (10%).
Service providers asserted that the needs of vulnerable groups were taken
into account in the plans. The proportion of service providers who asserted
this was the case was 100% in Benishanguel Gumuz, SNNPR, Gambella
and Harari. The proportion in Addis Ababa was only 25%.
Service providers enumerated several ways in which the needs of
vulnerable groups were taken into account. The most important were
availing special support to vulnerable groups including employment
opportunities for women and youth and support for OVC (66%). Other
ways mentioned were the incorporation of the views of vulnerable people
in planning (34.0%) and awareness creation (22.0%).
The majority of service providers (82.7%) stated that they made reports on
their service delivery performance and challenges to citizens while 17.3%
said they did not. Reporting was done 100% in Tigray, Benishanguel
Gumuz and Harari with only 33.3% in Somali.
The most favorite way of reporting, according to service providers was by
calling a general assembly and reporting there (81.4%), followed by putting
the report on a notice board (15.7%) and through involvement of the mass
media (2.9%). In the case of Gambella, though, reports were made
available through the mass media on a significant scale (33.3%).
With regard to participation in meetings with citizens and local
governments on service provision, the providers (89.2%) stated that they
had participated while 10.8% said they had not.
Concerning the frequency of such meetings service providers said that in
the past one year they had participated once (13.2%), twice (28.9%), three
to five times (34.2%) and six to ten times (18.4%). The remaining 5.3% did
not know if they participated.
64 / 119
3.5.1 Quality of services
Service providers replying to a question asking them honestly to rank the
quality of the services they provide, stated that the quality was very good
(13.3%), good (84.3%), and mediocre (2.4%).
3.5.2 Mechanism of assessing quality of service
Various methods have been used by service providers. The major ones
were using service standards (20%), gauging public satisfaction/feedback
from service users (35.1%), the use of household questionnaires/checklists
to collect views and priorities (16.3%), use of suggestion box/open books
for finding out users opinions (10.0%), comparing of results with previous
periods (8.8%) and comparing accomplishment with the plan (11.3%).
Monitoring and evaluation reports are prepared and consulted for this
purpose (12.5%).
3.5.3 Assessment of citizens’ satisfaction
The proportion of service providers who are of the opinion that more than
75% of citizens are satisfied with the services they provide numbered
(39.8%), from 50-75% satisfaction was 44.6% and less than 50%
satisfaction was 13.2%.
With regard to the satisfaction of women with the services provided, 32.5%
of the service providers were confident that more than 75% was satisfied,
36.1% believed that the satisfaction rate was in the range of 50-75%. Those
who said less than 50% wase satisfied numbered 26.5%.
3.5.4 Size of service users
A breakdown of service users by size showed that the largest group is 1001-
10,000 users according to 38.1% of service providers followed by the 101-
1,000 groups according to 33.3% of service providers. The group with
more than 100,000 people is served by 2.4% of the service providers while
the group with 100 or less people is served by 10.7%.
65 / 119
3.5.5 Suggestions on how to improve service delivery
Quite a number of suggestions have been made by service providers to improve
service delivery. The suggestions made by a large portion of the respondents were:
Use of questionnaires to identify the needs and priorities of citizens
(34.2%)
Awareness training for service users (26.3%)
Discussion forums with citizens and communities (21.1%)
Application of participatory planning (17.1%)
Accomplishment of tasks in an accountable way (6.6%)
Training and capacity building for service providers (6.6%).
3.5.6 Training in, and knowledge of, social accountability tools
Of the 82 service provider respondents, 28 or 34.1% had received SA
training. The remaining 54 or 65.9% or roughly two thirds have not
received any training. While some percentage of respondents has received
training in the majority of regions, all those in Harari, Gambella and Addis
Ababa did not receive any training.
Asked what SA meant to them, the response of the service providers was
satisfaction in services provided (37.8%), consulting and transparency of
services (37.8%), accountability and fairness (21.6%), and support
provided for vulnerable people (4.1%). Eight service providers did not, or
could not respond.
3.5.7 Application of social accountability tools
Among the 75 service provider respondents, 24% said they had applied SA
tools and 72% said they had not while 4% did not know if they had.
Only 22 service providers would say which SA tools they had used. The
result of this multi-response question showed that the main tools used in
descending order were budget tracking, citizen report card, community
score card and participatory planning.
66 / 119
3.5.8 Process or forums for determining citizens and community priorities with
respect to specific services
Service providers response to the existence of processes or forums for the
determination of citizens and community priorities with respect to specific
services was 73.8% in the affirmative, 25.0% in the negative and 1.2% do
not know.
The frequency of these processes and forums according to the service
providers is
At least every month (23%)
Every second to fourth month (24.6%)
Twice a year (23.0%)
Once a year (11.5%)
Very irregularly (13.1%)
There were also service providers who did not know (4.9%).
The types of mechanisms chosen for implementing the process are varied.
However the types used by most service providers known from a multi-
answer question showed the main types to be:
Community meetings on issues
Community meetings on issues and setting agenda
Community meeting briefings for participants and getting feedback
Consultation with students and parents
Other like the use of developmental/one to five/transformational
committees
3.6 Analysis and discussion
This brief analysis focuses on the findings of the survey with regard to the
awareness of rights, involvement and participation in the provision of
public services of citizens and the role of other actors and their interaction
67 / 119
with citizens in the provision of basic public services and the status of SA
in this respect.
3.6.1 Citizens and citizen groups
Citizens interviewed numbered 480 and they were all from the vulnerable
groups. The mix of the vulnerable groups was 25.6% women, 26.0% youth,
30.6% elderly, 9.4% disabled, and 8.3% living with HIV/AIDS.
Awareness and Involvement
Citizens and citizen groups for the most part seem to be aware of their
rights, responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and demand
better quality public services. Only 16.6% of the respondents do not know
or are not sure of their rights while 83.3% know about their rights. There
are however differences in the proportion of people that are aware between
regions. Benishanguel Gumuz and Dire Dawa recorded 100% awareness
while only 40.0% claimed awareness in Gambella region and just 20% in
Somali. Very little difference exists between groups of vulnerable people in
the awareness scale which ranges from 80% of the disabled to 88.8% of the
youth.
Claiming of Rights
Approaching Service Providers
Although large majorities of the respondents are aware of their rights,
less than half of the respondents have approached a service provider for
any reason. Among the reasons given for not doing so, a lack of
knowledge on how to complain accounted for 30.7% or almost one
third. This can be explained by the fact that more than three quarters of
the respondents said they have been given no training on how to
approach service providers.
Furthermore, a substantial number answered that they felt that there
would be no response. Such answers show a significant problem with
citizens understanding of SA. Citizens do not seem to be sure that the
basic services are their own and that they have the right to confront
68 / 119
service providers or local governments with their legitimate demands.
This can also be explained by the fact that they have little feeling of
ownership of the services as their role in the preparation of a joint
action plan, budget, implementation and monitoring basic service
delivery is minimal as shown below. Also when having complained
once, the majority just waits for a response passively or just gives up.
There was no follow up.
Right to participate in the preparation of a joint action plan,
budget, implement and monitor public basic service delivery
A maximum of 15.2% of the respondents said they have been involved
in the preparation of a joint action plan. This was in agriculture and the
lowest was 9.8% in rural roads. Just 4.9% of these have been involved
only once or twice. The discussion and decisions made mostly revolved
around the sector plan, essentially plans made in the offices of the
service providers and local government offices and therefore not
participatory in inception. This suggests that there is little reason for
citizens to consider the plan as their own and therefore some of the
resultant inertia for not approaching service providers. Furthermore,
80% of the citizens reported that no training was given to them on their
rights and responsibilities to plan, budget, implement and monitor
public basic service delivery. The disaggregated picture at the regional
and woreda levels is even more striking. While those that have received
training in Addis Ababa are 33.3%, those in Gambella are only 3.3%.
Sometimes the intra-regional figures are also striking. In Tigray region,
those that received training in Enda Makoni is 70% while those in
Mekele just 5%. Access to information on woreda/kebele development
plan, budget allocation and expenditure is very low (16.2%). This can go
as low as 8.9% in SNNPR and even just 5% in Afar.
Consultation on service delivery is low with more than 65% having
not been ever consulted on improving service delivery. This can be
69 / 119
compared to the claim of 93.9% of local officials that they interact
with citizens to learn about their needs and demands. The same can
be said about the claim of 73.8% of service providers that there are
processes and forums for the determination of citizens and
community needs and priorities with respect to specific services.
Rights of special groups (vulnerable people)
The influence of vulnerable people with regard to public service
delivery is not very definite. Those who said that there are ways for
vulnerable people to influence were around (45%) while 31.7% said
that there is none and 23.5% did not know. There were 191
respondents who suggested ways for vulnerable people to influence
the delivery of public services. The main ways suggested in response
to a multi-answer question were the following. They are shown in
descending order of popularity. There is active participation of the
group like any member of the community, special support provided
for the groups (in materials, medicine, labor, cash etc), formation of
association of vulnerable groups or acting through associations, and
gaining respect from the community. Issues concerning vulnerable
groups have been discussed in meetings according to 72.4% of
discussants participating in joint action plan. Many respondents are
of the opinion that just by their participation as citizens and being
treated as citizens their needs will be addressed. In this regard
71.9% of the respondents said that vulnerable people were engaged
in discussion meetings in varying degrees of intensity. This is an
encouraging sign for vulnerable group rights.
Training given to citizens is reported to include the interests of
vulnerable groups. For example, 84.4% of the respondents who
received training in citizens’ rights and responsibilities to plan,
budget, implement and monitor public basic services delivery
affirmed that the training was gender sensitive, which is positive.
70 / 119
3.6.2 Capacity of citizens to assess the quality of the service delivered
A significant number of citizens are quite confident that they are capable of
assessing the quality of basic services, around 50% on average regarding
the different sectors. This is corroborated by service providers who are
confident that citizens can assess the quality of services (84.5%) and local
government officials very much agreed (87.1%). It is against this that the
relative inactivity of citizens must be measured bringing into the
discussion the lack of training and encouragement to be more aggressive
and consistent in demanding their rights.
3.6.3 Capacity of SAIPs to empower citizens and citizen groups on multiple
social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms
A number of the SAIPs have direct experience with SA tools through
participating as partners during ESAP1. This experience will be useful for
the SAIPs to empower citizens and citizen groups on multiple SA tools,
approaches and mechanisms.
The SAIPs have a favorable environment to apply SA and SA tools in their
target woredas. Asked about citizens interest to engage service providers to
improve service delivery, 27.8% of the SAIPs claimed that more than 25%
of the population in their project areas showed interest to engage service
providers to improve basic service delivery. They also claimed that there is
a significant number of citizens who have experience in participating in
planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring of the quality of
basic services. Those who claim about 1-10% of the population have
already participated added up to 25.1%. Genderwise, women seem more
active according to SAIP respondents. About 43.8% of the SAIPs claimed
that 10-25% of the women in the engagement woreda have participated in
planning, budgeting, and implementation and monitoring the quality of
basic services.
A level of satisfaction that is conducive for interaction between the social
accountability stakeholders seems to exist. On the question how satisfied
71 / 119
do you feel the citizens are with the quality of service provided, 41.1% of
the SAIP respondents answered that they are satisfied or very satisfied and
another 47.1% said they are rather satisfied. Only 11.8% of the respondents
claimed the dissatisfaction of citizens in their target woredas.
The cooperation of local government officials to respond to demands of
citizens was also found favorable for SAIPs. Out of 19 SAIP respondents,
36.8% claimed that local officials are definitely responsive to citizens
basic needs in terms of service delivery provision while 63.1% answered
that they were a bit or rather little responsive.
The survey also showed that the SAIPs are engaged in service delivery to
the vulnerable people in the five sectors. As indicated in the previous
chapter, in a multiple response question twenty two SAIPs surveyed at the
woreda level identified their intervention programs in agriculture (40.9%),
education (63.6%), health 50.0%, rural roads (31.8%) and water and
sanitation 36.4%. The SAIPs can use the services they provide in these
sectors as exemplary demonstration points to citizens, local governments
and service providers.
3.6.4 Capacity of local government officials and service providers in using
social accountability tools
A significant number of respondents (51.8%) answered in the affirmative that
they have received SA training. The number of trained persons was highest in
SNNPR (81.3%) followed by Afar and Harari. The understanding of BSC and
CSRP tools as SA tools has led many to assume that they had training on SA.
Asked to identify the tools they were trained in showed this
misunderstanding. Those who reported BPR, BSC and other CSRP tools as SA
tools are significant.
72 / 119
4. Conclusion and recommendations
4.1 Conclusion
This survey shows that citizens entitlement to demand better quality basic
services is low. Although 83.3% claimed to know their constitutional
rights, far fewer citizens actually attempted to use these rights. Less than
half of the citizens surveyed had approached service providers of the
different basic services in the last year. Except for those who did not
approach service providers because they had no problem or those who had
other priorities (31.9%), of the remaining almost 70% did not visit service
providers for reasons such as not being aware of rights, expecting no
response, being too shy or thinking that others would do it and not
knowing where to go.
In addition, the majority of respondents did not make any complaints
about any of the services. Major reasons given for not having forwarded
complaints were a lack of knowledge about how to complain (30.5%), the
feeling that it would be a futile exercise (25%) and even fear of reprisals
(4.1%). With regard to follow up on complaints when complaints were not
acted upon, those who waited until response was received constituted
31.3% and those who just gave up were 53.5%. Only 15.2% further pursued
and sought higher bodies. All this seems to reflect citizens low level
effective awareness that they can demand their rights and hold service
providers accountable which indicates a great deal has to be done to
improve the situation.
Citizens level of access to information on woreda/kebele development
plan, budget allocation and expenditure is low. Only 16.2% of the
respondents positively claimed that they have access to the information.
Most citizen respondents stated that they were not consulted on issues
related to improving basic services with figures ranging from 65.6% on
health matters to 74.2% on rural roads. Participation in meetings with
73 / 119
service providers and government officials has been almost totally limited
to meeting on issues that were called by kebele and government officials
(84.4%). On the other hand, meetings called by development committees
were 1.6% and just 9.1% were considered to be democratic and
participatory discussions. From the responses, the majority of the
respondents (54.7%) said that some of the vulnerable people were
consulted and actively engaged while 17.2% claimed that all were
consulted. There seems to be very little participation of citizens in planning
basic services. Less than 15.2% of citizens have participated in the planning
of any basic service. Such gaps need to be addressed effectively.
Reporting of plan implementation by service providers and local
governments is for the most part done through meetings (70.4%). The rest
is made through mass media or notice boards. As there is little
participation of the citizens in the preparation of the plans, it will be
difficult to see how citizens will be excited about the implementation of
such plans. A substantial portion of the citizens affirm that they are able to
assess the quality of the different services ranging from 26.8% on rural
roads to as high as 52.7% on health. Their capability of assessing the
quality of services is corroborated by statements of local governments and
service providers. Based on this expertise, the majority asserted that the
services were excellent, essentially good or very good but needs little or
some important improvements with figures ranging from 53.6% for rural
roads to 82.9% for education. The same exercise made on estimates for the
satisfaction level of women produced a practically identical result with that
of the general population. Based on these figures it seems that in general
citizens have a fairly good appreciation of the services but that they wish
things would still be better.
The SAIPs targeted in the survey were launching their programmes. Some
were still trying to open offices in the woredas. Just the same, they stated
their intervention programmes in agriculture (40.9%), education (63.6%),
health (50.0%) rural roads (31.8%), and water and sanitation (36.4%).
74 / 119
Their view on the responsiveness of local governments to citizens basic
needs does not seem to be very high. Only 36.8% asserted that they are
definitely responsive while 63.1% were only a bit or rather a little
responsive. If this is definitely so, it may be a constraint for a healthy
development of the services.
Government officials, on the other hand, claimed that they interact with
citizens to learn about their needs and demands (93.9%). Just over half
(51.8%) of local government officials claimed they had SA training and a
further 33.7% asserted that they had applied SA tools. However, when
asked about the tools they had trained in, they wrongly identified BSC and
CSRP tools and others as SA tools. In fact, only 37.1% of the 35
respondents identified CRC and 25.7% identified CSC as SA tools. This
deficiency can be a constraint in applying the actual complete SA tools.
In the case of service providers the situation is no different. Only 24% said
they had applied SA tools. Service providers (84.5) acknowledge the face
that citizens are definitely capable of assessing the quality of services
delivered. Service providers seem to believe that they are doing a good job,
that they interact with citizens and there are forums and processes for
determining citizens and community priorities with respect to services.
They (84.5%) also seem to believe that the majority of citizens are satisfied
with the services they provide. This does not tally with the evaluation of
citizens themselves and is rather exaggerated. There seems to be some lack
of rapport between the two groups.
A common denominator for all groups (citizens, local governments, service
providers, and SAIPs) is the very low level or absence of training in
necessary SA tools and the resultant minimal application of the tools.
Continuation of the status quo will be a detriment to improve the quality of
basic services in a satisfactory way.
There seems to be a lack of effective pressure groups including those
vulnerable people to help in demanding the implementation of improved
75 / 119
basic services. This may have helped service providers to believe that they
are doing an almost perfect job.
4.2 Recommendations
All parties (citizens, service providers, SAIPs and local government
officials) must be trained in SA tools to get them equipped better with the
ability to work as a team to improve the quality of basic services. Citizens
shall be made aware of their rights to demand and contribute to the
improvement in quality of basic services and be able to hold service
providers accountable for poor performance. SAIPs should help citizens to
develop and strengthen pressure groups such as womens organizations for
negotiating the improvement of basic services. The other parties, service
providers, SAIPs and local government officials, should also be made
aware that citizens have these rights and that they have an obligation to
respect these rights.
Citizens should have access to adequate information on woreda/kebele
development plan, budget allocation and expenditure. They should be
consulted on improving basic services and be allowed to have much
stronger participation in planning basic services. They should also be
effectively reported to, with regard to plan implementation and the
challenges faced.
There is a need for setting up mechanisms/forums for regularly discussing
issues, airing grievances and settling them. These mechanisms/forums
would include representatives of citizens and citizen groups, local
governments, service providers, SAIPs etc. For this mechanism/forum to
be effective, it would perhaps need some policy decisions. This will
probably mean that the chairperson of the forum will need to be the person
with the most administrative/political clout in the area to assure prompt
and effective compliance of the parties.
76 / 119
Strengthening the capacity of SAIPs in using SA tools while dealing with
their beneficiaries requires strengthening of their institutional capacity at
woreda and kebele level. This should be implemented as soon as possible.
77 / 119
Annexes
1. The baseline survey terms of reference
1.1 Overview
The Management Agency is implementing the Ethiopia Social Accountability
Program phase 2 (ESAP2), financed through a World Bank administered Multi
Donor Trust Fund. As a reference point for future evaluations, a baseline survey shall
be conducted on the status of social accountability in the field of public basic service
delivery in the intervention Woredas.
The Management Agency is therefore seeking the services of a qualified
organization/consultancy company to carry out a baseline survey for ESAP2.
1.2 Introduction and Background
ESAP2 is part of the Protection of Basic Services program, which is implemented by
the Government of Ethiopia at regional, Woreda and Kebele levels in cooperation
with the World Bank. The Program has a countrywide scope and articulates the
needs and concerns of citizens regarding their access to education, health, water and
sanitation, agriculture and rural roads. Working through civil society organizations,
the program opens up channels of communication between citizens, responsible
government bodies and public service providers.
The overall objective of the Ethiopia Social Accountability Program (ESAP2) is to
strengthen the capacities of citizen groups and government to work together in order
to enhance the quality of basic public services delivered to citizens. The program
seeks to give voice to the needs and concerns of all citizens on the delivery and
quality of basic public services in the areas of education, health, water and sanitation,
agriculture and rural roads. Finally, the use of social accountability tools, approaches
and mechanisms by citizens and citizens’ groups, civil society organizations, local
government officials and service providers should result in more equitable, effective,
efficient, responsive and accountable public basic service delivery.
78 / 119
For ensuring efficient implementation of the program, a Management Agency
outside the Ethiopian government and donor structure has been established. The
responsibilities of the Management Agency are the overall program coordination,
capacity development and training, technical guidance, support and monitoring of
the progress of the implementing civil society partners.
1.3 Objective
A part of the program is to conduct a baseline survey to provide a benchmark against
which progress in basic service provision can be measured. The baseline will serve
the Management Agency to fine-tune its M&E system and complete the indicators.
1.4 Methodology
The consultancy company is expected to develop a concise methodology for
undertaking this baseline. Three different actor groups are to be surveyed: citizens,
service providers and woreda officials.
The methodology should include:
Experience of the company
Rationale
Understanding of the project
Comments on the ToR
Risks and assumptions for project implementation
Strategy
Well-elaborated survey methodology, including a comprehensive
sampling approach (calculation, clustering, stratification of woredas
etc.)
List of woredas to be surveyed resulting from the above sampling
exercise and number of citizens, service providers and woreda officials
to be interviewed in each of these woredas
An organizational strategy for conducting field visits to sampled
woredas
Project management
Quality insurance and support approach
Logistics
79 / 119
Timetable of activities
Work plan including staffing and number of working days
The statistical package to be used is SPSS.
Note: The questionnaires are produced by the Management Agency. The contractor
will have to comment on it and make necessary adjustments based on the literature
review and pre-testing of the questionnaires.
1.5 Specific Tasks
Specific responsibilities of the applicant include the following:
Review of secondary documents including ESAP2 and other related materials;
Review the questionnaires and recommend changes if applicable;
Translate the questionnaire into the local languages of the target regions;
Pre-test the questionnaires with at least 2 SAIPs, 4 officials from different woredas and 10 citizens;
Provide a team of enumerators and supervisors that have a solid record of conducting surveys;
Train enumerators for the field work;
Organize all field logistics (team composition, transportation, accommodation, appointments etc.);
Conduct a field survey based on questionnaires: Methods may include
interviews with local authorities, service providers, SAIPs and citizens as
also FDGs with citizen groups/community-based organization. The survey
must clearly ascertain the present status, levels of community involvement
and sectors of interest by the community. The field data shall be collected
in the five thematic areas of ESAP2 (education, health, water and
sanitation, agriculture and rural roads);
Enter data in SPSS database;
Verify/clean SPSS dataset;
Analyze data, identify specific gaps/deficits in social accountability and
clarify training and other specific needs to be met;
Prepare and present draft report on survey design, implementation and
major findings to the Management Agency;
80 / 119
Prepare and submit final report of baseline survey with an annexed
complete and comprehensive dataset, incorporating feedback from
stakeholders.
1.6 Output/Deliverables
Four main outputs are expected from this baseline survey:
a) Inception Report
An inception report should be submitted not later than one week after
commencement of the assignment and before starting primary data
collection. It shall highlight deviations to the methodology presented in the
original technical proposal and contain the work plan, organization and
composition of the teams (incl. contact details), the detailed time schedule
and all other logistical and organizational matters for the field mission.
b) Regular phone-reporting
The supervisors of each data collection team should call the M&E expert of
the Management Agency every week to report on the progress made
compared to the plan. Any difficulties encountered should be
communicated immediately to this representative of the Management
Agency.
c) Draft Report
A draft report shall be produced and submitted to the Management Agency
no later than four weeks after submission of the inception report. The
report should conform to the Management Agency reporting format, which
will be made available to the applicant upon contract signature. It should
follow a chapter format which includes background, literature review,
methodology, findings, conclusions, recommendations and all other topics
required in this Terms of Reference. The applicant will submit a draft
report to the Management Agency and make a clear PowerPoint
Presentation in person. Questions of the Management Agency during this
meeting should be responded to in this session.
81 / 119
d) Final Report
A final report shall be produced within two weeks after the submission of
the draft report. The final report should be submitted in four bound hard
copies and a soft/electronic copy. The raw, clean dataset should be
annexed to the report (hard copy and soft copy). The report should be
concise in its findings and follow the Management Agency reporting
format. It must incorporate:
Quality data and analysis from individual interviews and focus group
discussions.
Present status, gaps and recommendations for future interventions,
including suitable implementation methodology, appropriate structures
for program success, and possible sustainability strategy.
The inception report, draft and final report should be written in English
language.
1.7 Timeframe
The baseline will run for a maximum of 42 calendar days starting from the
date of the contract. The following proposed plan will be used to guide the
baseline survey:
Step 1: Initial Review (1 week)
This phase will involve initial review of documents and the presentation of an
inception report. The inception report should include an elaborated plan,
methodology, draft data analysis instruments and sampling strategy of the
field survey.
Step 2: Field Survey (maximum 3 weeks)
This main activity of this phase will be the pretesting of tools and the actual
data collection/analysis in line with the agreed plan, methodology and
sampling strategy from phase 1.
Step 3: Analysis, Reporting and Dissemination (2 weeks)
Following data collection, this last phase will involve analysis of information,
report writing and packaging of all collected information into an accessible
82 / 119
format for future use by the Management Agency. The selected firm is also
expected to make a presentation on the findings of the report to the
Management Agency in person.
1.8 Budget
Interested firms should submit their competitive technical and financial
proposal in line with these Terms of Reference. The applicant firm shall
submit a clear and quality technical and financial proposal worth up to
30,000 USD (incl. tax) for the whole assignment. The budget should be
developed into the application format.
The presentation of the budget should be presented in the application format.
1.9 Staffing Requirements
Based on the proposed methodology of the applicant and the time frame for
implementation (max. 42 days), the firm shall present an adequate number of
staff to cover the tasks mentioned in the Terms of Reference. Senior
supervisors should be part of the team. The team composition should reflect
all languages spoken in the target regions.
Qualifications for senior survey supervisors:
At least Masters Degree in social sciences, statistics, development, project management, monitoring and evaluation or equivalent;
At least 10 years of experience in carrying out surveys;
Prior experience in supervising at least 3 large surveys in Ethiopia;
Very good knowledge of social accountability in public service provision;
At least basic knowledge of the five ESAP2 sectors;
Excellent analytical skills;
Excellent SPSS skills;
Excellent English skills (oral and report writing).
Note: The composition of the senior survey supervisors should represent the
major languages of the country (Amharic, Oromifa, Tigrinya), i.e. at least one
supervisor fluent in each of the above languages.
83 / 119
1.10 Qualifications for enumerators:
Degree in social sciences, statistics, development, project management,
monitoring and evaluation or equivalent;
At least 3 years of experience with data collection or participation in at
least 5 surveys including government officials and civil society
representatives;
At least basic knowledge of the five ESAP2;
Good analytical skills;
Good knowledge of English language.
Note: All major languages spoken in the target regions should be covered by the team
of enumerators.
1.11 Profile of the Firm
The firm should have a proven record of conducting large surveys in
Ethiopia (at least 5 national surveys above 350 interviewees, covering high
government officials, civil society organizations/community-based
organizations and citizens);
The firm should have experience with measuring social accountability;
The firm should have experience with measuring consumer satisfaction
(ideally with public service provision);
The firm should have survey experience in at least 3 of the ESAP2 target
sectors (education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural
roads) and can easily mobilize experts for the remaining 2.
1.12 Application Procedure
Interested consultants/firms should submit a detailed technical and financial
proposal according to the application template to the Management Agency.
Applicants should strictly follow the application template.
Clarifications can be asked by interested parties in writing only. Please request
the clarification before 12 November 2012 to [email protected] with the
subject “clarification on baseline survey”. We will process your question(s) as
quickly as possible.
84 / 119
The full proposal shall be submitted in two (2) hard copies to the address
mentioned below and one (1) soft copy to [email protected] with the subject
“application for baseline survey”.
Deadline for submission of the proposal: 22 November 2012, COB
Management Agency, Cape Verde St., WMA Sets Bldg, 2nd Floor, Addis Ababa.
P.O. Box: 28024/1000
E mail address: [email protected]
www.esap2.org.et
85 / 119
2. Secondary documents reviewed
African Development Fund: Appraisal Report, 2012
CSSP CSSP Annual Report For the Learning Period 2012-2013
ESAP1: Paper of The Social Accountability Knowledge Event, July 16-17, 2007
Mekonnen Manyazewal: An Opening Remark Presented in The Social Accountability Knowledge Event, July 17, 2007
MOFED: Growth and Transformation Plan Vol. I, November 2010
MOFED: Growth and Transformation Plan Vol II. November 2010
MOFED: A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty, September 2006
HelpAge International: Eleven Woredas Capacity Assessment Study (11 volumes)November 2008
Poverty Action Network of Civil Society in Ethiopia (PANE): Ethiopia at Halfway Point of the MDGs: Status, Prospects and Challenges, November 2007.
JeCCDO: Citizen Report Card on Primary Education Services in Six Towns of Amhara, Oromia and Dire Dawa Regions, May 2009.
JeCCDO: Unpacking Social Accountability: Promoting Dialogue Towards Improving Primary Education, Addis Ababa, July 2009
ESAP: Project Implementation Guide. February 2008.
David Post and Sanjay Agarwal of the World Bank’s Social Development Department (SDV): Dealing with Governance and Corruption Risk in Project Lending,
FDRE: Woreda and City Administrations Benchmarking Survey IV (Supploy side report), Addis Ababa 2012
ESAP2: SAIP Operational Manual
JPE Global: Evaluation Report-Final, June 2010
African Development Bank: Promoting Basic Servcies (PBSIII)
Ministry of Forein Affairs of Finland: Country Report for Ethiopia
CSSP: CSSP Annual Report For the Learning Period (2012-2013)
GAL in Project: How to Notes, Citizen Service Centers: Enhancing Access, improving Service Delivery and Reducing Corruption
Editrudth Lukanga: Draft Baseline Study Report
ESAP 1: Evaluation Report of Social Accountability
86 / 119
3. List of social accountability implementing
partners surveyed by region and woreda
# SAIP Lead/Partner Organization
1 ACSOT Partner Organization for Mums for Mums
2 Mums For Mums Lead Organization
3 Tigray Youth Association Lead Organization
4 Redeem the Generation Lead Organization
5 Development & Enterprise Center Partner to Wabe Children Aid Training (WCAT)
6 Amhara Development Association Lead Organization
7 WCAT Lead Organization
8 Association For Migrants Partner of EOC-DICAC
9 New Vision in Education Association Partner for Hope for Children
10 Education For Development Association Partner for WCAT
11 EOC-DICAC Lead Organization
12 Hope For Children Organization Lead Organization
13 Mujejeguwa Loka Women Development Association
Partner to NEWA and BGDA
14 Love in Action Ethiopia Lead Organization
15 Save Your Generation Ethiopia Partner for Professional Alliance for Development (PADET)
16 BICDO Partner for Hope for Children
17 SOS Sahel Lead Organization
18 Vision Ethiopia Congress for Democracy (VECOD)
Lead Organization
19 Development and Relief Association Partner to PDN
20 Dire Dawa community Action Charity Association
Partner to JeCCDO
21 Mothers and Children Health Sectoral Development Organization
Partner of Union of Ethiopian Women Charitable Association (UEWCA)
87 / 119
4. Fgds and key‐informants by region and woreda/town
4.1 Service Providers Interviewed
# Name Position Region Woreda
1 Girmay Tilahun Metaferia Kebele Rural
Desk Officer Tigray Endamekoni,
Maichew
2 Assefa Arayaa Megersa Family Health
Officer Tigray Endamehoni
3 Abreha Arefe Ambaye Principal of
school Tigray Endamehoni
4 Tsegaye Alemayehu Abraha Principal of
school Tigray Mekalle
5 Edul Kahsay Tesfaye Principal of
school Tigray Kola Tembein
6 Tsega Birhan Teklab Arayaa Principal of
school Tigray Mekele
7 Yemane Redai Alemahehu Director of
Health Center Tigray Mekele
8 Mulualem Alemu G/Mariam Family Health
Officer Tigray Kola Tembein
9 Wod Abzegi Hagos D/principal of
School Tigray Kola Tembein
10 Letal H/Selassie Khasay Health post
officer Tigray Kola Tembein
11 Hafte G/Hiwot W/Michael School Director Tigray Kola Tembein
12 Alemayehu Admassu Haile School
Administrator AFAR Awash 7 Kila
13 Zebene Hailu Zerfu School principal Afar Awash 7 Kilo
14 Beyene Bekele Gnfam Agricultural Ext.
Officer Afar Awash 7 Kilo
15 Anwar Mohame Hasen School principal Afar Awash 7 Kil0 16 Solomon Luengo Health Officer Afar Assayita
17 Solomone Kebede Shume D/School
principal Afar Asayita
18 Meleskachew Demelash Ijegu
D/ School principal
Amhara Debre Markos
19 Moges Kinf M/Tsadik Health Officer Amhara Debre Markos
20 Sewale Hailu Deputy School
Principal Amhara Debre Markos
21 Yihune Melese Principal of
School Amhara Debre Markos
22 Demeke Ahmed Kasim Customer Servie
Expert Amhara Debre Tabor
23 Abdu Ali Hassen Health Center
Head Amhara Kalu
88 / 119
# Name Position Region Woreda
24 Ahmed Biru yesuf Irrigation
Agronomist Amhara Kombolcha
25 Kifle Hailu Taddese Principal of
School Amhara Tarma Ber
26 Kefelegne Teferi Aytenew Head Health
Center Amhara Tarma Ber
27 Demoz Desta Tekle Service Head Amhara Tarma Ber
28 Edao Lenisso Boru Principal of
School Oromia Meki, Dugda
29 Brehane Gurmu Head Nurse Oromia Meki, Dugda
30 Meseret Lema Wordofa Development
Worker Oromia Bako Tibe
31 Geramu Mekonen Focal Person Oromia Bako Tibe
32 Desalenge Feyera Bayisa Development
Agent Oromia Bako Tibe
33 Oromia
34
Yitatku Kelbesa Moka Health Extension Worker
Oromia Bako Tibe
35 Negussie Debela Feyessa Principal of
School Oromia Bako Tibe
36 Desalegn Abdi weyos Principal of
School Oromia Bako Tibe
37
Meshesha Deliso Keno Agriculture Extension worker
Oromia Jimma Horro
38 Mohamed Hasen Enderes Agriculture
worker Oromia Jimma Horo
39 Emiru Merga Wakjera Principal of
School Oromia Jimma Horo
40 Obsi File Jira Head, health
Center Oromia Jimma Horo
41
Shewaye Mosisa Gofere Health Extension Worker
Oromia Jimma Horo
42 Mohamed Issman Abibeker Bono/water
Controller Oromia Babille
43 Bjegdu Bongase Momed School
Supervisor Oromia Jima Rare
44
Bogalech Chala koye Health Extension Coordinator
Oromia Jima Rare
45
Tsegaye Insarem Roro Agriculture Extension Coordinator
Oromia Jima Rare
46 Getachew Regassa Head, Health
Center Gambella Gambella Town
47 ADish Seid Principal of
School Gambella Gambella Town
89 / 119
# Name Position Region Woreda
48 Geremu Nemera Wirtu Teacher Oromia Jimma Horro 49 Fanta Guesa Teacher Oromia Jimma Rare
50
Dhibile Grrbiba Woyesa Health Extension Worker
Oromia Jima Rare
51 Wakgari Oljira Fayissa Animal Health
Assistant Oromia Jima Rare
52
Tesema Degefa Negere Plannin g and Budgeting Team Leader
Oromia Lume
53 Ahmed Sherif Deg Animal Health
Provider Somali Kebri Beyah
54 Ferhan Mohamed Usman School Director Somali Kebri Beyah
55
Furdos Tahir Health Extension Practitioner
Somali Kebre Beyah
56 Dawoo Ali Taddesse Prinicpal of
Schol Benishanguel Gumuz
Guba
57 Bakir Remedan Abringe Head, Health
Centre Benshaguel Gumuz
Guba
58 Melaku yokola Health center SNPPR Gorche
59 Lonsokeo Abute Watlero Head, Health
Center SNPPR Misha
60 Taddese Moltumao Manedo Teacher SNPPR Misha
61 Weno Toshe Dugna Principal of
School SNNPR Shebediono
62 Kebede kayam kunasa Crop Extension
Supervisor SNNPR Shebedino
63 Abebe Fela Wembetp Principal of
School SNNPR Shebedino
64 H/Maskel Obose Tsapra Principal of
School SNNPR Kacha Bira
65 Temesgen Gulmo Abusa Head, Health
Center SNNPR Kacha Bira
66 Nurse Gambella Gambella Zuria 67 Awisi Aryow Oukom Gambella Gambella Zuria
68 Mohamed Sabit Adem Principal of
School Harari Sofi
69 Fikre Selassie Kebede Zewdie
Development Center Worker
Harari Sofi
70
Dehabo Adem Ayub Health Extension Worker
Harari Sofi
71 Wondeafrash Getachew D/School
Prinicpal Addis Ababa Lideta 05
72
Dr. Hamzamo Mohamed Doctor and Head, Health Centre
Addis Ababa Lideta 05
73 Gezahegne Mekonen Pricipal of Addis Ababa Akaki Kaliti 06
90 / 119
# Name Position Region Woreda
School 74 Abiye Chekol Nurse Addis Ababa Akaki Kaliti 06
75 Dandena Hundessa Debesa Principal of
School Dire Dawa Dire Dawa 02
76 Dagmawi Abebe Head, Health
Centre Dire Dawa Dire Dawa 02
77
Solomon Fiseha Mekete Head, Water Operation and Maintenance
Dire Dawa Dire Dawa 02
78
Deresegn Sishah Asaye Road Planning and Budget Offier
Dire Dawa Dire Dawa 02
91 / 119
2.1 Local government officials interviewed
# Name Position Region Woreda
1 Mola Muresa Kahsay Construction and Road
Supervisor Tigray Endamekoni,
Maichew
2 Goitom Alemie Dessu Health Officer Tigray Endamehoni
3 Tesfaye Teka Endalew Teachers Development
coorinator Tigray Endamehoni
4 Gebre Yohannes Abay Extension Coordinator and
Deputy Head of Office Tigray Mekele
5 Sr. Wahid Kassa Head, Health Office Tigray Mekele
6 Sr. Amare Wole Selassie Head, Health Office Tigray Mekele,
Hadnet
7
Mulugeta Gbreselassie G/Tsadkan
Planning and Finance Expert, Finance and Economic Dev. Office
Tigray Mekele
8 G/Chekos G/Tsadik Head, Education Office Tigray Mekele, Adi
Haki
9 Mulugeta G/Selassie G/Meskel
Head, Plan and Finance Office
Tigray Mekele, Handnet
10 Birtukan Gebru Atsbeha Head, Rural Roads Office Tigray Kola
Tembein
11 Berihu Kidanu Head, Education Office Tigray Kola
Tembein
12 Abraha Lemlem Hailu Head, Water, Mineral and
Energy Office Tigray Kola
Tembein
13 Hadush Yohanes Hagos Health Officer Tigray Kola
Tembein
14 Hagos W/Giorgis Planning Officer Tigray Kola
Tembein 15 Ambasager G/Selassie Health Office Afar Awash 7 Kilo
17 Asrat Bizuneh Gashaw Beza
Head, Education Office Afar Awash 7 Kilo
18
Ali Ahmed Acting Head, Pastoralist agriculture and Rural Development Office
Afar Awash 7 Kil0
19
Abud Ali Hanfere Head, Pastoralist agriculture and Rural Development Office
Afar Assayita
20 Yayo Mohamed Husel Head, Health Office Afar Asayita 21 Abubeker Mohamed Ali Head, Education Office Afar Asayita 22 Momin Suloiman Head, Water Resource Office Afar Asayita
23
Debasu Eskeza Health Process Coordinator and Deputy Head, Health Office
Amhara Debre Markos
24 Melesachew Demelash Ijegu
Head, Water Office Amhara Debre Markos
25 Adane Demssie Mequanint Manager, Kebele 02 Amhara Debre Tabor 26 Fetene Abay Ayele Water Officer Amhara Debre Tabor
92 / 119
# Name Position Region Woreda
27 Zelalem Temesgen Manger, water and Sewerage
Office Amhara Debre Tabor
28 Adane Getaneh Tsgie Deputy Manager, Water and
Sewerage Amhara Deber Tabor
29 Azmatch Desalegne W/Yohanes
Head, Rural Road Office Amhara Kalu, Kombolcha
30 Mesfin Kasa gatew Head, Agriculture Dev. Office Amhara Kalu,
Kombolcha
31 Kebede wolde Tsadik Deputy Head, Health Office Amhara Kalu,
Kombolcha 32 Assefa Taye Kumelachew Head, Health Office Amhara Tarmra Ber
33
Zenebe Degnet Mulat Deputy Head, Agriculture and Rural Development Office
Amhara Tarma Ber
34 Ephrem Birhanu Asfaw Head, Water Resource Office Amhara Tarmra Ber
35 Yemewedew Chemeda Cabisa
Deputy Head, Education Office
Amhara Tamra Ber
36 Birhanu Mekuria Bizuneh Deputy Head, Education
Office Amhara Debre
Markos 37 Erro Hamdino Plan Officer Oromia Meki, Dugda 38 Daniel Abebe Head, Education Office Oromia Meki, Dugda 39 Lemmi Tafa Bissa Head, Health Office Oromia Meki, Dugda 40 Water Resource Oromia Meki, Dugda 41 Ashenafi Gemchu Gelu Extension Team Leader Oromia Meki, Dugda 42 Aster Teshome Head, Health Office Oromia Lume, Mojo
43 Taye Ayana Kitesa Head, Water, Mineral and
Energy Dept Oromia Bako Tibe
44 Getachew Insermu Tolla Head, Education Office Oromia Bako Tibe 45 Getachew Sakata Tolera Head, Rural Roads Office Oromia Bako Tibe
46 Mesfin Mengesha Derbaba Head Dept. Agriculture and
Rural Development Oromia Bako Tibe
47 Dejene Megersa Dept. Head Health Office Oromia Bako Tibe 48 Dejene Shuma Dadihi Water Supply Technician Oromia Jimma Horo 49 Melkamu Taddese Head, Health Office Oromia Jimma Horo 50 Bikila Yadeta D/Head, Education Office Oromia Jimma Horo
51 Fekadu Tulu Wake D/Head Agriculture & Rural
Development Office Oromia Jimma Horo
52 Wakgari Zewdie Alemayehu
Head, Rural Roads Office Oromia Jimma Horo
53 Gemetchu Kecha Biftu MCH Coordinator Oromia Sude 54 Hasen Jemal Ismael Engineer Oromia Sude
55 Arebe Seboka Segne Head, Planning and Project
Dept Oromia Sude
56 Dejene Tolcha Geleta Planner in Agricultural Office Oromia Kulla, Sude
57 Fanos Umer Adem D/Water, Mineral & Energy
Office Oromia Sude
58 Girum Tegegnework Mekonen
Head, Planning and Monitoring Dept.
Oromia Babille
59 Wondwesen Gosaye Education, Expert Oromia Babille
93 / 119
# Name Position Region Woreda
60 Berissa Abrahim Ahmed Engineer Oromia Babille
61 Tadele Amenu Mamo Planning and Monitoring
Expert Oromia Jimma Rare
62 Fereja Geremew Wakwoya Head, Education Office Oromia Jimma Rare 63 Taddese Guddisa Degefa Head, Health Centre Oromia Jimma Rare 64 Birhanu Chala Sabata Dept Head, Water Resource Oromia Jima Rare
65 Fekadu Neme Redo D/Head, Rural Roads
Authority Oromia Jima Rare
66 Mesfin Siyoum Mekuria Pre-Production Expert Oromia Lume 67 Debebe Haile Dingide Team Leader, Irrigation Oromia Lume 68 Zewdie Leli Ada Sociologist Oromia Lume 69 Jeleta Dinka CRC Supervisor Oromia Lume 70 Adem Abdi Mohammed Health Officer Somali Kebri Beyah 71 Belay Belew Expert, Extension Services Somali Kebri Beyah 72 Ali Omer Abdi Manager, Kebele Somali Kebre Beyah
73 Abdela Ibrahim Ahmed Head, Health Office Benishanguel
Gumuz Guba
74 Mohamed Ibrahim Said Head, Finance & Economic
Dev. Office Benshaguel Gumuz
Guba
75 Shitu Mustefa Zegofe Head, Capacity Building and
Education Office Benshaguel Gumuz
Guba
76 Mulugojam Alemu Kassa Manager, Kebele Benshaguel
Gumuz Guba
77 Mussie Fetenko Head, Human Resources SNNPR Gorche
78 Setotaw Kenbata Head, Agriculture and Rural
Development Office SNNPR Gorche
79 Tessema Abera Emado Manager, Kebele SNNPR Gorche 80 Girma Yetura Sodo MCH Coordinator SNPPR Gorche 81 Desalegne Manager, Kebele SNNPR Gorche
82 Brehanu Negash Head, Water Resource Office SNNPR Misha,
Morsito
83 Kassahun Erkocho Head, Agriculture & Rural
Dev. SNNPR Misha,
Morsito
84 Zekios Mulugeta G/Selassie Education Sector Dev.
Planner SNNPR Misha,
Morsito
85 Tarekgne Lilo Mugro Planning and Monitoring
Epert SNNPR Misha,
Morsito
86 Degefa Habte Eramo Dept Head, Health SNNPR Misha,
Morsito 87 Getu Wolde G/Yohanes D/Head, Education Office SNNPR Shebedion 88 Lacha Lgese Walso Head, Agriculture Office SNNPR Shebedion
89 Abera Lteso Dana Community Road
Coordinator SNNPR Kacha Bira
90 Dawit Tefera Dinkineh Dept. Head, Water Resource
Office SNNPR Kacha Bira
91 Desta Dadicho Arficho A/Head, Education Office SNNPR Kacha Bira 92 Tadele Temesgen Molsebo Head, Health Office SNNPR Kacha Bira
93 Mekaku Adeno Wakiso Dept. Head, Agriculture
Office SNNPR Kacha Bira
94 / 119
# Name Position Region Woreda
94 Obang Ojusato Ojulu Head, Education and
Capacity Building Office Gambella Gambella
Zuria
95 Owar Omod Ojulu Head, Water and Mine &
Energy Office Gambella Gambella
Zuria
96 Opie Opiew Dept. Head, Health Office Gambella Gambella
Town
97 Ujelo Asrat Haile Dept. head Rural Roads Gambella Gambella
Town
98 Wondimeneh Getachew Acting Head, Kebele Health
Office Gambella Gambella
Town
99 Ojulu Omod Head, Agriculture& Rural
Dev. Office Gambella Gambella
Town
100
Girma Alemu Information Service Head in Agriculture & Rural Dev. Office
Gambella Gambella Town
101 James Pat juel Deputy Manager, Rural
Roads Authority Gambella Gambella
Town
102 As Romo Head, Water and Sewerage
Office Gambella Gambella
Town 103 Daniel Tibebe Eshete Supervisor, Education Office Harari Sofi
104 Mohame Hussein Mohamed
Expert, Kebele Office Harari Sofi
105 Gebru Bereka Head, Education Office Addia Ababa Lideta 05 106 Sr. Alweya Abrar Head, Health Office Addis Ababa Lideta 05 107 Kuma Bara Wakene Head, Health Office Addis Ababa Akaki Kaliti
108 Addis Ababa Akaki Kaliti
06
109 Slomon Eshetu Bisewer Dept. Head, Education Office Dire Dawa Dire Dawa
02
110 Haimanot Halu Ayanu Expert, Health Office Dire Dawa Dire Dawa
02
111 Solomon Fiseha Mekete Section Head, Water &
Sewerage Authority Dire Dawa Dire Dawa
02
112 Abduselam Bulbula Expert, MICRO & Small
Scale Office Dire Dawa Dire Dawa
02
113 Madanu Tessema Zewdie Education coordinator,
Education Office Dire Dawa Dire Dawa
02
114 Emebet Ayele Head, Health Coordination Dire Dawa Dire Dawa
02
95 / 119
4.3 List of FGD Participants
Name
Kacha Birra
1 Yohanes Kelbeso
2 Tagese Arfecho
3 Desta Yohannes
4 Tsehay Mubarek
5 Eshetu Abese
6 Ayelech Kassu
7 Habte Sedamo
8 Yohanes Gantamo
Misha
9 Aberash Wolde
10 Miaha Shafe
11 Mekebe Mugoro
12 Tesfaye Erenko
13 Lalgo Abebe
14 Ashenafi Tsegaye
15 Tesfaye Ashebo
16 Girma Abebe
17 Desta Yanso
Gambella Zuria
18 Priest Eshete Asmare
19 Marye Tegegne
20 Marye Tegegne
21 Bizabih Getaneh
22 Andamlak Kebede
23 Achale Abera
24 Omoud Ebong
25 Yohanes Bayou
Mekele, Tahtay Haya
26 Mebrat Haftu
27 Haftamu Hagos
28 Mulu Hailu
29 Fetal Nuri Jafer
96 / 119
30 Azmera Hisboya
31 Hafed Misguin
32 Negus Abraha
Mekele, Handinet
33 Kiros Ayalew
34 Mekonen G/Manuel
35 Hanna Hdera
36 Haftom H/Selassie
37 Selam T/Gaber
38 Mekonen G/Meskel
Debre Sina, Tarma Ber
39 Sr. Eyerusalem Belete
40 G/Hiwot Negese
41 Taddese Alemu
42 Seifu Abebe
43 Yeshi Taye
44 Misaye Eshete
45 Semegne Shewakena
46 Belete Mekonen
Kalu, Kombolcha
47 Hussien Endris
48 Hussien Mohamed
49 Hussein Endris Ali
50 Abdu Hussein
51 Sheik Awel Husein
52 Zebura
53 Seida Ali
Jimma Horro
54 Gudeta Gerba
55 Bikila Yadeta
56 Chawake Lmesa
57 Gete Hatzu
58 Desalegne Gudeta
59 Wakjera Zewdie
60 Dejene Shumma
97 / 119
61 Fekadu Kinate
62 Melkamu Taddese
63 Bedilu Hunegaw
Babille
64 Tigest Tamre
65 Hoden Mohamed
66 Amin Ahmed
67 Ali nur Abdulahi
68 Birhanu Fekade
69 Ahmenuer Mohamed
70 Kimija Mohamed
71 Seada Abdulla
72 Alija Yusuf
Guba
73 Sheik Mohamed Kassa
74 Fantahun Temesgen
75 Hamedan Rejin
76 Priest Abel Emelew
77 Senawya Seid
78 Nahid Kumsare
79 Beshir Bistore
Debre Tabor
80 Asres Bogale
81 Almaz Bezabih
82 Setegne Alemu
83 Asfaw Damte
84 Kasahun Muche
85 Melke Shiferaw
86 Abebech Gebeyehu
Debre Markos
87 Sele Mariam Zewdie
88 Amelework Menberu
89 Yalew Lesu
90 Abebe Bedasa
91 Teka Mekonen
98 / 119
92 Father Wolde Tensai Mekonen
93 Yitayesh Hule
Sude
94 Awel Mohammed
95 Seifu Aman
96 Weyis Ahmed
97 Tiki Alemu
98 Aliyi Dasiyo
99 Nura Aman
100 Samrawit Alemu
Dire Dawa
101 Kemal Jara
102 Freihiwot Bekele
103 Hamelmal Kebede
104 Like Temesgen
105 Ahmedin
Kebri Biyah
106 Abdi Mohamed
107 Ali Teyib Sherif
108 Hussien Abdullahi
109 Ahmed Ousman
110 Ahmed Meste
111 Ali Oumar
112 Furdoza Tahir
113 Halima Hassen
114 Temet Abdi
Sofi
115 Remedan Abdulahi
116 Daniel Tibebe
117 Hassen Bedel
118 Abdi Ibro Areb
119 Mohammed Sabit
120 Dehabo Adem
121 Mohamed Usman
122 Mohammed Sai
99 / 119
Assayita
123 Sedik Dulla
124 Ibrahim Mahi
125 Oumar Ahmed
126 Alula Werku
127 Indris Awel
128 Aur Mohammed
129 Ahmed Ali
130 Nur Yisak
131 Ibrahim Mohammed
132 Dawed Abdulkadir
133 Taddese Asfaw
134 Tesfaye Ayalew
Awash 7 (Awash Fentale, Afar)
135 Conbe Mamo
136 Dnahina Abdu
137 Bekele Sersa
138 Lishan Birke
139 Sheik Muktar Seid
140 Getu Setgne
141 Aba Melake Tsehay T/Haimanot
Shebedino
142 Agso Beriri Shenbolo
143 Manaye Amiso Naram
144 Muidin gulamo Simano
145 Sanjalidbo Fereso
146 Melkias Kiam
147 Bekele Salma Rebisa
148 Aster Kiya Kanke
149 Mohamed Lenjeso
Gambella Zuria
150 Amed Umed Tata
151 Ubenkib Amabtit
152 Lam Kuwat Ukun
153 Okung Okado Alang
100 / 119
154 Ojulu Okuny
155 Agere Said
156 Kuwat ukel
157 Obonj Nisygow
158 Tilahun Leta
159 Birtukan Amare
Jimma Rare
160 Ashenafi Etichz
161 Abebe Giduma
162 Fekadu Neme
163 Miressa Fikedu
164 Misgna Dula
165 Takele Gamul
166 Tesfaye Fufa
167 Shashitu Gonfa
168 Ketema Admassu
169 Guddatwa Tomsa
Bako Tibe
170 Getachew Saketa
171 Demelash Dufera
172 Temesgen Dabba
173 Mirresa Dagabsa
174 Luchesa Olana
175 Dasu Abdissa
176 Gosa Ketema
177 Getachew Insaru
178 Negeri Gutema
179 Dinkinesh Kasahun
180 Tesfaye Bogale
Jimma Horro (Horro)
181 Desalegne Gudeta
182 Fekadu Korb
183 Wakjera Zewdu
184 Dejen Shuma
185 Bekele Yadeta
101 / 119
186 Gudeta Gerba
187 Gete HtaSta
188 Chewake Lemesa
189 Melkamu Taddese
Lume
190 Lomita Bekele
192 Alemnesh Dechasa
193 Tsgie Lemma
194 Teshome Gurmu
195 Eshetu Gurmu
196 Tabo Rabi
197 Desta Hawas
198 Abera Alemu
102 / 119
5. Citizens interviewed during the survey
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
1 Haliayu Redaie Samuiel 1 1 1 +251 924,212,822
1 26
2 Hagos Aseffa Lemma 1 1 1
1 46
3 Adhanu Baba Hagos 1 1 1 +251 914,254,826
2 38
4 Birihanu Dagnew Hibu 1 1 1
1 60
5 Endiafti Kiris Reda 1 1 1
2 45
6 Liul Haftu Tsigaye 1 1 1 +251 914,859,534
1 20
7 Birhanu Ede Halemome Adhano 1 1 1
+251 914,239,348 1 41
8 Gidey Mangesha 1 1 1
1 44
9 Kalelu Kahisay 1 1 1
1 23
10 Fithale Nure Diafar 1 1 1
2 45
11 W/R Letemikayel G/ Ananiya
1 2 2 +251911,400,462 2 29
12 Goitom Mebratu Beru 1 2 2 +251 911,475,579
1 25
13 Mehari Tewelde Medhin Alemayhu 1 2 2
+251,927,823,795 1 22
14 W/ro Tsihayneshe G/Michel G/Mariyam 1 2 2
2 60
15 Nibab Kiros Hailu 1 2 2 +251,914,012,131
2 51
16 W/ro tisre Gidey W/Amanuel 1 2 2
2 75
17 Ayte Woldemichel Mariyae Eshetie 1 2 2
+251,914,696,174 1 80
18 Asmelashi Arefinie Sinisu 1 2 2 +251,914,725,709
1 48
19 W/ro Lemlem Berehi Tella 1 2 2
+251,914,260,514 2 60
20 Seniet Amoha Tehle 1 2 2 +251,914,735,201
2 36
21 Kidane W/Kiros Tesfaye 1 2 3
1 22
22 Asefa W/Aregay 1 2 3
1 35
23 Kes Berehi Abera 1 2 3
1 60
24 W/ro Fergalem Goftom 1 2 3
2 30
25 Askual Negash 1 2 3
2 30
26 Hilemariam Kahisay G/Michael 1 2 3
+251 914,440,216 1 45
27 Hagos Takele G/Egziabihaer 1 2 3
+251,191,402,407 1 42
28 W/Brehan Fisum H/Silassea 1 2 3
1 39
103 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
29 Etminasbo Asenadom 1 2 3
1 25
30 Yeshi Ayaliew 1 2 3
2 30
31 Hadera Tsion 1 2 4 +251,914,108,193
1 31
32 Salayo Kiros 1 2 4 +251,914,433,655
1 44
33 Mamo Tareke 1 2 4 +251,914,867,377
1 42
34 H/G/Hiwot G/Meskel Tesfaye 1 3 4
1 55
35 Silas Mebratu 1 3 4
2 37
36 Tadesse W/yessus Yassin 1 3 4 +251 914,122,787
1 28
37 G/Medhin G/Egziabihir 1 3 4 +251,914,754,541
1 40
38 Gibrigorgis Hagos 1 3 4
1 45
39 Tsega Zeabe Gebru 1 3 4 +251 914,093,934
1 45
40 Tsedhds G/Egziabhier 1 3 4 +251 914,374,786
2 25
41 Belaynesh Workeneh G/ Hato 1 3 5
2 45
42 Etsemitay G/Egziabiher G/Mariam 1 3 5
2 45
43 Assefa Gessessew G/Egziabiher 1 3 5
1 39
44 Gol Girmay W/Micheal Desta 1 3 5
1 50
45 Abrehet Tsegay Kahassay 1 3 5
2 19
46 Gibre Abera Asresu 1 3 5 +251 914,097,662
1 26
47 G/Kiros Gidy Desta 1 3 5
1 55
48 Aser Aleka Tesfaye G/Meskel Yesebiyu 1 3 5
+251 923,213,477 1 38
49 G/Micheal Tensea G/Chekol 1 3 5
1 52
50 Birhan G/Aregay Merissa 1 3 5 +251 914,562,607
1 23
51 Aminna Abedu Yesuf 2 4 6
2 17
52 Ahimed Umer Mohamed 2 4 6
1 23
53 Hassena Hassen Mohamed 2 4 6
2 18
54 Bitha Umer Ali 2 4 6
1 40
55 Indiris Hussen Ali 2 4 6
1 22
56 Hassen Abate Yesuf 2 4 6
1 22
57 umer Mohamed Umer 2 4 6
1 42
58 Mohamde Abdu Yesuf 2 4 6
1 28
104 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
59 Mohamde Abdu umer 2 4 6 +251 934,247,204
1 15
60 Medinna Abdu Igane 2 4 6
2 40
61 W/ro Asia Mohamed Shirif 2 4 7
+251 912,873,236 2 29
62 Sintayhu Diemise W/Silassea 2 4 7
+251 920,548,456 2 28
63 Ali Humed Asume 2 4 7 +251 910,912,204
1 52
64 Sirad Jimal Ahemed 2 4 7 +251 911,782,327
1 32
65 Alias Adilla Abi 2 4 7 +251 911,081,980
1 40
66 Kamilla Hagayu Kamile 2 4 7 +251 927,074,696
1 36
67 Abubeker hullay Husen 2 4 7 +251 910,747,626
1 23
68 Humer Gebabbo Umer 2 4 7 +251 921,227,080
1 23
69 Arum Innaniea Mohamed 2 4 7
1 57
70 Sophia Banti 2 4 7 +251 912,264,809
2 24
71 Abdu Ali Sied 2 5 8
1 25
72 Fatuma yayu Uteban 2 5 8
2 45
73 Lubaba Mohammed Sied 2 5 8
2 36
74 Mohammed Yasin Abdu 2 5 8
1 52
75 Dulle Ayifirahe 2 5 8
1 51
76 Fatuma yasin Ali 2 5 8
2 35
77 Wellio Dimma Hassen 2 5 8
1 40
78 Hawa Sied Ahimed 2 5 8
2 37
79 Husen Ahimed Gurra 2 5 8
1 25
80 Ali Hayder Mohamed 2 5 8
1 32
81 Sied Ahimed Yesuf 2 5 9 +251 932,358,739
1 55
82 Ayla Mersha Temesgene 2 5 9
2 38
83 Yayu Hammed Liffo 2 5 9
1 75
84 Daniel Taddese Degefu 2 5 9 +251,910,628,975
1 30
85 Sadik Dulla Hamferi 2 5 9 +251,932,358,941
1 20
86 Deribe Ambaye Tiku 2 5 9 +251,921,233,528
1 48
87 Tesfaye W/Tinsae Demise 2 5 9
1 30
88 Kassaye Mesfin Haile 2 5 9 +251,910,307,428
1 30
89 Kulle Melaku Terefe 2 5 9 +251,920,198,949
2 37
105 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
90 Alemu Darge Tebeje 2 5 9 +251,919,947,364
1 48
91 Almaz W/Giorgis Woreda 3 9 10
2 54
92 Rahel Yeshitila Deressie 3 9 10
2 20
93 Eimebet Demeke G/Kidan 3 9 10
+251,911,762,814 2 37
94 Midanit G/Selassa Yerga 3 9 10 +251,913,136,928
2 27
95 Tesfaye Gizaw Atilaw 3 9 10
1 36
96 Asrat Mengistu G/Mariyam 3 9 10
+251920,014,850 2 30
97 Missaya Eshetei Tessema 3 9 10
2 35
98 Almaz H/Mariam Admassie 3 9 10
2 50
99 Kilemi Kebede Tekeli 3 9 10 +251912,742,174
2 50
100 Tesfa Habtu Amare 3 9 10 +251913907,565
2 38
101 W/ro Fatuma Abedu 3 8 11
2 40
102 Ahimed Yimer Ali 3 8 11 +251 927,395,362
1 52
103 Kedija Yimam Ahimed 3 8 11
2 50
104 Emeyet Said Mohamed 3 8 11 +251 914,668,508
2 15
105 Zihara Husin Ibrahim 3 8 11 +251 933,803,600
2 18
106 Muzien Ahemed Husin 3 8 11
2 35
107 Indiris Kibrie Adeim 3 8 11
1 56
108 Mohamed Indiris 3 8 11 +251,922,931,887
1 29
109 Asen Suliman Yassin 3 8 11
1 80
110 Aminato Husin Muhi 3 8 11
2 29
111 Anisha Mohamed 3 8 12 +251,923,435,870
2 60
112 Seid Ali 3 8 12
1 45
113 kidja Hussain 3 8 12
2 44
114 Hussman Said 3 8 12
1 16
115 Ahmed Seid 3 8 12
1 38
116 Mohamed Ahmed 3 8 12 +251910,602,498
1 50
117 Fatumma Husien 3 8 12
2 26
118 Emiyat Yemir 3 8 12 +251923,410,872
2 50
119 Ebrahim Yasin 3 8 12
1 29
120 Ahmed Sheid 3 8 12
1 21
106 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
121 Ginet Mekonen Adal 3 6 14 +251 587,713,692
2 63
122 Enatinesh Diresse Taye 3 6 14 +251 687,716,729
2 43
123 Kassahun Moges Azallu 3 6 14 +251 913,351,665
1 70
124 Mitekae Mekonnen Tsega 3 6 14 +251 910,360,302
2 25
125 Amare Aweke Gellaye 3 6 14 +251 922,372,205
1 21
126 Webayhu Ascahle Adinew 3 6 14 +251 912,029,069
2 26
127 Deresse Atnafu Beyene 3 6 14 +251 918,514,355
1 49
128 Himanot Tewelde Kidnae 3 6 14 +251 587,713,740
2 25
129 Nitseu Taye Gembrae 3 6 14 +251 587,713,383
2 42
130 Eniyew Kessete Abejae 3 6 14 +251 920,512,636
1 22
131 Eimunesh Gashu Zegeye 3 6 13
2 50
132 Tangut Tirunhe Eneyew 3 6 13
2 60
133 yitayishe Hullie 3 6 13
2 43
134 Abunehailu Zemikayel 3 6 13
1 99
135 Wibrest Atnafu Fentie 3 6 13
2 28
136 Asmarech Getahun Gelgay 3 6 13
2 40
137 Amelwork Menberu Antneh 3 6 13
+251,918,591,552 2 23
138 Ayalew Alemu Workie 3 6 13 +251 910,106,626
1 23
139 Agerie Mekonen Desta 3 6 13 +251 923,232,801
2 30
140 Yetayew Melaku Cherie 3 6 13 +251 931,897,896
1 52
141 Bezabihe Hailu Gubenna 3 7 16
1 80
142 Mulu Asefa Ayenew 3 7 16 +251 928,543,370
2 50
143 Birtukan Mulu Admasie 3 7 16
2 20
144 Merim Fereja Hassen 3 7 16 +251 925,989,831
2 35
145 Ismail Yibra Abduruman 3 7 16
1 84
146 Melkia Shiferaw Biyadella 3 7 16 +251 924,267,652
2 60
147 Bossina Kassie Wondemagegne 3 7 16
+251 918,053,097 2 48
148 Mikonnent Biyadgne Bayew 3 7 16
+251 918,220,335 1 24
149 Beza Melese Tekuneh 3 7 16
1 60
107 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
150 Birka Tefera Chekol 3 7 16 +251 921,578,098
2 25
151 Sisay Getahun yemer 3 7 15 +251,932,808,972
1 40
152 Fiseha Yimer Gub 3 7 15 +251 927,610,644
1 58
153 W/ro Tinsea Tiru Zegeye 3 7 15
2 27
154 Honne Damte Tebegne 3 7 15
1 45
155 Mikonnent Misha Nigatu 3 7 15
1 81
156 Gitu Hunne Damtie 3 7 15 +2,51,918,321,252
1 22
157 Aberu Asmare Gellaw 3 7 15 +2,51,927,614,322
2 43
158 W/ro Mebrat Webenhe Aweke 3 7 15
2 38
159 Abebawe Bayu Gellaw 3 7 15
1 50
160 W/ro Awekeche Walla Fikadu 3 7 15
2 51
161 Tofik 4 10 17
1 30
162 Bahiru Antenhe 4 10 17
1 26
163 Lingereshe Ketemma 4 10 17 +251 933,595,647
2 36
164 Biftu Haile Woldeyes 4 10 17 +251 922,755,893
1 49
165 Tatek Tesfaye Boku 4 10 17 +251 926,138,246
1 28
166 Mikiyas 4 10 17 +251 910,406,551
1 46
167 Emebiet Yerdu Lummie 4 10 17 +251 922,305,479
2 32
168 Tamirat W/Aregay W/Sadik 4 10 17
+251 916,125,748 1 52
169 Ginet Endiris Kora 4 10 17 +251 926,923,359
2 23
170 Azeze Molla 4 10 17 +251 924,439,691
1 55
171 W/ro Aman Abib Kabeto 4 10 18 +251,912,194,414
2 24
172 Demeke sahile W/Medihin 4 10 18
+251,927,329,923 1 59
173 W/ro Tirunesh Zergaw Hirpa 4 10 18
2 52
174 W/ro Wlfenesh Teka Boko 4 10 18
+251,926,656,873 2 41
175 Girma Legessa Metaferia 4 10 18 +251,919,594,456
1 47
176 W/ro Asefashe Adugna Alemu 4 10 18
+251,921,094,678 2 38
177 Uma Abo Gudetta 4 10 18 +251,921,470,578
1 28
108 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
178 Solomon Werkiya Wondimu 4 10 18
+251,910,987,141 1 26
179 W/ro Zenebech Tilahun Mamo 4 10 18
+251,919,597,678 2
180 W/ro burie Mechisso Gerammu 4 10 18
2 65
181 Zerfe Geleta Lebeta 4 11 19 +251,097,071,024
2 30
182 W/ro Bekelu Gutemma Firdissa 4 11 19
+251922,183,368 2 30
183 Merissa Degabas Negari 4 11 19 +251913,530,914
1 35
184 Getachew Afashu Hayilee 4 11 19
1 75
185 W/ro Dapitu Dakessa 4 11 19
2 55
186 W/ro Tefash Gutu Moleja 4 11 19
2 55
187 W/ro Bagetu Gurmissa Guyassa 4 11 19
2 55
188 W/ro Shumie Gemechu Durissa 4 11 19
2 35
189 Gudima Negari Chimmad 4 11 19
1 65
190 Mamo Wadijo Gemechu 4 11 19
1 58
191 Adane Mohamed Yasin 4 11 20
1 54
192 Merissa Badessa Hunduma 4 11 20
1 21
193 Likitu Gumeral Bashera 4 11 20
2 45
194 Makia Ahmed yimer 4 11 20 +251 922,182,331
2 20
195 hawa Wedage Feleke 4 11 20
2 25
196 Derebai Melesse Debassa 4 11 20
2 38
197 Geletta Sikassa Feyera 4 11 20 +251 917,44,189
1 32
198 Tolossa Gerbaba Weyissa 4 11 20
1 80
199 Amebe Bushira Lemmessa 4 11 20
2 25
200 Ketema Guttata Suffeai 4 11 20 +251 917,850,839
1 30
201 Boja Ayana Fiyissa 4 12 21
2 40
202 Diriba Germu Fiyissa 4 12 21
1 21
203 Tiruneshe Negessa Gelleta 4 12 21
2 38
204 Durie Bezabihe Hiripa 4 12 21
2 40
205 Hinsonna Enissa weyissa 4 12 21
2 32
206 Fekadu Gimedda Kuyissa 4 12 21
1 65
207 Beyene Duggassa Sebetta 4 12 21
1 69
208 Dessie Abatie Woldie 4 12 21 +251,928,643,130
2 25
109 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
209 Aljirra Hunduma Negeri 4 12 21 2
1 75
210 Gete Adem Hedeta 4 12 21 +251,925,821,780
2 28
211 Mizannea Wogar Erggi 4 12 22 2
2 34
212 Shiferaw Worku Alemmie 4 12 22 +251,934,022,882
1 29
213 Ababau Gelleta Huredoffa 4 12 22
2 35
214 Tenna Gechilia Rundassa 4 12 22 +251,917,636,805
1 30
215 Wakumma Arinna Aiba 4 12 22 +251,917,082,456
1 66
216 Aduigna Mekonen Galetta 4 12 22
+251934,390,475 1 28
217 Derija Teshale Tollera 4 12 22 +251,927,468,279
1 25
218 Gizachew Duba Eticha 4 12 22 +251,917,363,035
1 21
219 Dinekessa Gibat Yaditta 4 12 22 +251,923,462,576
1 42
220 Teshome Regassa Hiripa 4 12 22 +251,913,909,429
1 60
221 Girma Legessa 4 13 24
1 62
222 Mohmmed Dbro Jilo 4 13 24 +251,910,767,419
1 43
223 Teshome Mamo Haile 4 13 24
1 78
224 Lemma Hundia 4 13 24 +251 932,111,094
1 71
225 Gizahgne Haile Belayneh 4 13 24 +251 910,950,354
1 65
226 Tekele Shiferaw 4 13 24 +251 921,713,713
1 42
227 Sisay Beru Neggawo 4 13 24 +251 913,331,473
1 39
228 Habtamu Zewidie 4 13 24 +251 917,273,113
1 28
229 Bezuayew Tekele 4 13 24 +25121,084,702
1 34
230 Negussie H/Wolde 4 13 24 +251 910,771,057
1 28
231 Shalo Tesome Kuma 4 13 23
2 32
232 Adem Husen Gelaw 4 13 23
1 55
233 Mufti Hasen Weyesso 4 13 23
1 25
234 Shimeles Mamo Bekele 4 13 23 +251 910,267,742
1 48
235 Ifa Bulcha Beniya 4 13 23
1 65
236 Kider Derssa Hullei 4 13 23
1 28
237 Roza Kebede Lemma 4 13 23
2 28
110 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
238 Abate Mekonnen Teshome 4 13 23
1 57
239 kidija Mohammed Mamo 4 13 24
2 25
240 kefiyalew Kassa Zelleke 4 13 23
1 45
241 Zekaia Bakar Adem 4 13 25-1
1 40
242 Hindu Mahamad Muja 4 14 25-1
1 16
243 Hussen Abdula Ali 4 14 25-1 +251,931,343,239
1 25
244 Abdi Ahmed Mumied 4 14 25-1 +251,923,964,199
1 31
245 Uso Hassane Mumma 4 14 25-1
1 30
246 Adem Yuiya Abdulla 4 14 25-1
1 40
247 Amin Abdi Mumed 4 14 25-1 +251,920,893,770
1 19
248 Mohamed Mume Xahir 4 14 25-1 +251,921,946,690
1 44
249 mohamed musa Husem 4 14 25-1
1 55
250 Sakinna Usman Mumad 4 14 25-1
2 45
251 Mohamad Shawas Juami 4 14 25-2 +251,927,911,422
1 44
252 Abdi Nasir Abdulla 4 14 25-2 +251,912,797,677
1 23
253 Amin Adem Ibrushee 4 14 25-2 +251,913,893,689
1 21
254 Umer Abegaz Yusuf 4 14 25-2 +251,935,621,693
1 44
255 Firii Kebede 4 14 25-2
2 26
256 Ruqiya Shlyusuf Abdulla 4 14 25-2
2 70
257 Ali Shanqo Usman 4 14 25-2
1 67
258 Hussen Ahmed Umer 4 14 25-2
1 70
259 Shamshiyaa Xahaa Ali 4 14 25-2
2 29
260 Safiya yaikob jibril 4 14 25-2
2 45
261 Gellecha Wayemma Mijanna 4 15 26
+251 921,569,569 1 68
262 Dissessitu Ayele Gurammu 4 15 26
2 65
263 Wayissa Siwari Abo 4 15 26
1 47
264 Gitta Gurimessa 4 15 26
2 26
265 Burra Getero Guttata 4 15 26 +251,917,738,153
1 27
266 Birache Seddese Fiyessa 4 15 26
1 70
267 Bashu Eibessa Bayissa 4 15 26
1 19
268 Dirabuu Bekilla dibba 4 15 26
2 36
269 Shashi Chayessa 4 15 26
2 32
111 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
270 Ebissa Mamo Tariku 4 15 26
2 20
271 Mohamed Shasho Abakar 4 15 27
1 26
272 Adam Siraji Hobo 4 15 27 +251 921,172,803
1 19
273 Ibrahim Nagasa Galata 4 15 27
1 40
274 Bayan Abaker Sadik 4 15 27
1 70
275 Zara kadir said 4 15 27
2 42
276 Regassa Fuja Winassa 4 15 27
1 83
277 Habo Dangul Sadu 4 15 27
1 77
278 Dinke Adugna Garaba 4 15 27 +251 917,079,464
2 24
279 Sidise Jirata Dare 4 15 27
2 26
280 Yeshi Fite Ragassa 4 15 27
2 27
281 Hilu Workenh Tafese 4 16 28 +251 927,264,725
1 22
282 Almaz Negashe 4 16 28 +251 923,506,640
2 19
283 Lomi Dadie Andarsa 4 16 28 +251 912,312,374
2 40
284 Alemnesh Shura Biru 4 16 28 +251 912,236,023
2 32
285 Askale Dabale Gurmu 4 16 28 +251 932,169,091
2 40
286 Addis Aychilum Mojo 4 16 28 +251 910,053,313
1 23
287 lata Sanbata Roba 4 16 28
1 77
288 Shiferaw damisie 4 16 28 +251 912,161,948
1 23
289 Mota Aychilu 4 16 28
2 15
290 Tabo Robi Negad 4 16 28
1 70
291 Addisu Seifu W/Mariyam 4 16 29 +251 915,799,719
1 28
292 Bushina Gurmo Degaga 4 16 29
2 29
293 Debela Ashenafi 4 16 29
1 30
294 Killoo Daadhii Waaqayyoo 4 16 29
+251 918,103,624 1 59
295 Wube Asanafi 4 16 29
2 40
296 Kecha Rago Maskale 4 16 29 +251 910,740,423
1 60
297 Asnakech Megra Gulmu 4 16 29 +251 912,288,353
2 46
298 Astear Dibaba Meskele 4 16 29 +251 927,573,429
2 40
299 Leta kogna Jagan 4 16 29 +251 915,796,558
1 25
300 Managistu Biru 4 16 29
1 35
112 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
301 Kedra Ibrahim Sheik 5 17 31
2 35
302 Mohamed Abdulahi 5 17 31
1 46
303 Aden Mahamud 5 17 31 +251,915,226,361
1 29
304 Sherif Areb 5 17 31 +251,915,091,521
1 60
305 Mohamed Abdi 5 17 31 +2519,422,486
1 40
306 Abdi Mohamed Jama 5 17 31
1 40
307 Temed Abdi Hassen 5 17 31 +251,915,188,547
2 22
308 Hwsien Iman Mohamed 5 17 31 +251,933,767,933
1 42
309 Halimo Mohamed 5 17 31
2 25
310 Teme Abdi 5 17 31
1 36
311 Nura Salah Mohamednur 6 18 32 +251 917,424,785
2 30
312 Asferaw Tamiru 6 18 32
1 45
313 Asey Tigabu Gebeyhu 6 18 32
2 32
314 Jemaneshe Adem Sirur 6 18 32 +251 920,060,185
2 40
315 Alehare Mohamed Nure 6 18 32 +251 917,180,746
1 55
316 Fiseha W/Giorgis W/Tikelae 6 18 32
+251 918,745,142 1 68
317 Moges Gitae Woldae 6 18 32
1 50
318 Usman Megletef Mohamed 6 18 32
1 50
319 Ahmedin Mohamed Guadae 6 18 32
1 21
320 Simegne Bogalle Gudina 6 18 32 +251 917,176,640
2 28
321 Desta Debello Lebengo 7 22 33 +251,926,336,545
1 26
322 Admas Angillo Anisebo 7 22 33
1 60
323 Meri Wachamo Hadebino 7 22 33
1 20
324 Mercha Gezahegne Hirgo 7 22 33
2 41
325 Hilemariyam Wanorie Wabeto 7 22 33
+251,926,336,798 1 58
326 Zekarias Irigecho Selletto 7 22 33
1 28
327 Aberash Yohanes Sellelo 7 22 33
2 38
328 Amarech letebo Sehibo 7 22 33
2 43
329 Woldie Wenasso Yabago 7 22 33
1 65
330 Abebebech Markos Hadro 7 22 33
2 40
331 Belaynesh Gichemo Medebo 7 22 34
2 49
113 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
332 meseret Markos Setebbo 7 22 34 +251,916,275,760
2 21
333 W/ro Abebech Tesema Wetango 7 22 34
2 52
334 Ayelech Tagesse Bunarro 7 22 34
2 54
335 Alemu Arisaddo Anawa 7 22 34
1 55
336 Tamirat Girma Eltammo 7 22 34 +251,920,136,094
1 22
337 Haile Didinna Denborrea 7 22 34 +251,924,743,567
1 28
338 Mitios Hjagello Erigicho 7 22 34 +251,916,576,385
1 50
339 Abebebech Tesfaye Shanko 7 22 34
2 45
340 yohanes Leimango Billeti 7 22 34 +251,916,550,239
1 41
341 Tesfaye W/Giorigis W/Lisibo 7 20 35
1 50
342 Tilahun Adenew 7 20 35
1 45
343 Alefe Meki 7 20 35 +251 926,487,104
1 35
344 Mikemo Einishibo Hirissa 7 20 35
1 30
345 Tirirro Toboto Sadibo 7 20 35
1 58
346 Mulugeta Abebe Abe 7 20 35
1 65
347 Tesfaye kilbessa 7 20 35
1 28
348 Botestta Gibru hachorea 7 20 35 +251 913,746,403
1 29
349 Tesfaye Hankobi Ali 7 20 35
1 40
350 Ayano Garkebo lechorie 7 20 35 +251 928,848,31
1 29
351 Seferew Arebano Kedisso 7 20 36
1 30
352 Tamirat Timdero Ulserie 7 20 36
1 40
353 Degiefa Degibo Nunie 7 20 36 +251 913,622,396
1 33
354 Demeke Ashibo Alako 7 20 36 +251 927,028,481
1 40
355 lemma Abunie Beddissa 7 20 36 +251 919,679,520
1 30
356 Eyob Oyato Fendassa 7 20 36
1 45
357 Sedro Dunarea Lellisso 7 20 36 +251 925,584,010
1 33
358 Debebe Wondemagegne Dagne 7 20 36
1 60
359 Tekalegne Abdi Gurbayo 7 20 36 +251 920,129,822
1 33
360 Desta Alero Aronchei 7 20 36 +251 926,554,949
1 32
114 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
361 yonas Yusae Lankamo 7 21 37 +251 910,450,228
1 20
362 W/ro Ayelech Tariku Hibro 7 21 37
2 27
363 Addisu Haro Degamo 7 21 37 +251 916,417,507
1 25
364 Dawit Desalegne Daba 7 21 37 +251 916,783,482
1 18
365 Thomas Gelededa Kamisso 7 21 37
+251 928,858,451 1 18
366 W/ro Mikdes Adissu Haro 7 21 37
+251 928,781,540 2 22
367 Misfin Manaye Mamo 7 21 37 +251 916,918,321
1 19
368 Roman Haro Degamo 7 21 37 +251 934,177,150
2 20
369 Matios Galdeda Kamisae 7 21 37 +251 916,970,848
1 22
370 Eyasu Hanash Bukora 7 21 37 +251 926,957,887
1 18
371 yawanka Gobaro Dubae 7 21 38
1 60
372 Markos Kurissa Banat 7 21 38 +251 927,081,133
1 26
373 Tadesse Barassa Chingae 7 21 38 +251 921,452,090
1 29
374 Buzuneh Butella Sasae 7 21 38 +251 916,039,211
1 28
375 Webalem Demissu G/Kidan 7 21 38
+251 925,596,380 2 24
376 Tsehay Gollela Goshu 7 21 38 +251 916,411,425
2 23
377 Mechal Eshetu Aboyae 7 21 38 +251 916,156,265
1 25
378 Mamo Yohanes Dotae 7 21 38 +251 916,778,575
1 29
379 Tsehay Hamaya Butta 7 21 38 +251 924,669,290
2 37
380 Markos Berssam Entako 7 21 38 +251 916,157,621
1 35
381 Meieinno Meressa Megenei 7 19 39
1 22
382 Eyasu Andato Harro 7 19 39
1 20
383 Angotich Hor Shele 7 19 39
1 50
384 Aster Meleka Mersa 7 19 39
2 24
385 W/ro Zeritu Hinkam Harro 7 19 39
2 38
386 Chunna Merassa Megane 7 19 39
1 25
387 yiekob Merassa Fenaga 7 19 39
1 32
388 Batrae Cheka Gesha 7 19 39
2 28
389 Merassa Megana Fenega 7 19 39
1 50
115 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
390 Legse Aregitta Shiribo 7 19 39
1 28
391 Diyou Dingisso Werrasso 7 19 40
1 50
392 Solomon Dinigesso Dubae 7 19 40
1 35
393 Daniel Guddiso Ataro 7 19 40
1 42
394 Petros Denbara Fitche 7 19 40
1 55
395 Tariku Dummo Amado 7 19 40
1 37
396 Tomas Bantta Bakae 7 19 40
1 35
397 Abera Shibiru Botae 7 19 40
1 25
398 Getta Yantalla Kukara 7 19 40
1 21
399 W/rt Ayelech Martos Mayim 7 19 40
2 19
400 Buzunesh Irmiyas Harisso 7 19 40
2 21
401 Ojulu Okello 7 19 41
1 37
402 Ebengo Eijellu 12 23 41
1 39
403 Getsefok Men 12 23 41
1 35
404 Ken Bote 12 23 41
1 38
405 Hubengo Utonge 12 23 41
1 27
406 Biwil Boch 12 23 41
1 28
407 Mellesu Muniae 12 23 41
2 31
408 Auriat Ugunssa 12 23 41
2 31
409 Ajellu umed 12 23 41
2 32
410 umade Ajellu 12 23 41
1 38
411 Okello Jhou 12 23 42
2 28
412 Shiwarkabish Asrat 12 23 42 +251 917,939,384
2 35
413 Bekelech Yaleta 12 23 42 +251,917,485,773
2 42
414 Asnakech Habtamu 12 23 42 +251 917,303,053
2 28
415 Wibayhu Tsegaye 12 23 42 +251,917,741,791
2 50
416 Addisu Tadese 12 23 42 +251,913,883,487
1 42
417 Hailu Imana 12 23 42 +251,931,537,524
1 50
418 G/Yesus Birhane 12 23 42 +251 920,289,539
1 48
419 Azmach Alemayhu 12 23 42
1 32
420 Eyayu Abera Mamo 12 23 42 +251 917,834,105
1 25
421 Etaferaw Gashaw Kassa 12 23 43 +251,932,020,506
2 27
116 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
422 W/ro Tewabech Girma Jimma 12 23 43
+251,923,430,182 2 23
423 Chemir Kebede Ejigu 12 23 43 +251,912,370,012
1 38
424 Tesfaye Gemechu Bora 12 23 43 +251 913,085,334
1 35
425 Oriat Gillo Euchalla 12 23 43
2 22
426 Ubonge Ubonna Autore 12 23 43 +251,925,851,015
1 35
427 Admasu Tesfaye Abebe 12 23 43 +251,925,953,923
1 24
428 Alemayhu Yasin Bulla 12 23 43 +251,923,098,254
1 25
429 Wineshet Asfaw Haile 12 23 43 +251,910,574,071
2 25
430 Kasech Legesse Ajerso 12 23 43 +251,913,611,083
2 25
431 Amina Hassen Ali 13 25 44
2 25
432 Rumane Yusuf Mume 13 25 44
2 40
433 Abdi Adem Abdule 13 25 44
1 26
434 Saida Yusuf Mumi 13 25 44
2 26
435 Aliyi Yusuf Abdi 13 25 44 +251,933,231,790
1 36
436 Ahmed Muktar Mussa 13 25 44 +251,921,852,232
1 30
437 Mahamar Abdulla Muman 13 25 44
1 40
438 Abdu Fatah Abdi Abbas 13 25 44
+251
25,128,158,45 1 16
439 Ardo Jibrael Illi 13 25 44
2 25
440 Kamila Amade Usmaile 13 25 44
2 30
441 Abel Negash Gitta 14 26 45 +251,913,832,518
1 20
442 W/ro Singut W/Tsadik 14 26 45 +251 910,010,295
2 38
443 W/ro Mulu W/Hana Minasae 14 26 45
+251 912,773,874 2 50
444 W/ro Biruk Nesh Degefae Wirigessa 14 26 45
+251 922,584,347 2 40
445 W/ro Sinkinesh Zilleke G/Mariam 14 26 45
+251 932,520,374 2 75
446 W/ro Jafarae Giyissa Fnanna 14 26 45
+251 919,820,880 2 71
447 W/ro Adaneche Lurae Mushuka 14 26 45
+251 913,572,343 2 35
448 Kassahun Tadesse G/Selassie 14 26 45
+251 921,567,541 1 73
449 Tadesse Zelleke Siyum 14 26 45 +251 115,536,562
1 70
117 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
450 Rehama Mohamed Mekibo 14 26 45
+251 920,650,060 2 22
451 W/ro Yemmata Kasahun Belay 14 26 46
+251 922,822,919 2 32
452 Bamlaku Tesfaye Bekallu 14 26 46 +251 921,018,986
1 65
453 Abebech Melles Mengesh 14 26 46 +251 910,465,319
2 25
454 W/ro Yirgedu Walle Wenannaw 14 26 46
+251 922,822,879 2 38
455 Hayatu Shimsu Ahimed 14 26 46 +251 919,189,583
1 24
456 Hilu Demisae Bedassa 14 26 46 +251 910,835,244
1 65
457 Aniwar Sani Reshid 14 26 46 +251 913,922,979
1 27
458 Eyesusneh Wiba Aynalem 14 26 46
1 71
459 W/ro Tigist Degu Bekele 14 26 46 +251 912,469,585
2 30
460 W/ro Aneley Ayalew Gitachew 14 26 46
+251 920,969,007 2 30
461 Teferi Nedi Aobo 14 27 47 +251912,059,077
1 34
462 Bekele Dechasa Luchesa 14 27 47 +251913,148,145
1 65
463 Aynalem Kasahun Yirgu 14 27 47 +251,925,354,375
2 18
464 Erukuya Sullala Baraeal 14 27 47 +251,912,725,744
2 38
465 Maharu Hagos Gibremariyam 14 27 47
+2510,911,342,616 2 46
466 Bizuwork seifu Taye 14 27 47 +251,911,880,833
2 32
467 Giza Kemal Umer 14 27 47 +251,923,938,568
2 18
468 Haregewion Sileshi G/Tsadik 14 27 47
+251 913,151,741 2 39
469 Kalkidan Hailu Alemu 14 27 47 +251114,408,638
2 16
470 Muletta Nedi Meskelae 14 27 47 +251 920,740,951
1 77
471 W/ro Seble W/Mariam T/Wolde 15 28 48
2 80
472 W/ro Hirut Tesfaya Abebe 15 28 48
+251933,170,131 2 50
473 kokebe Feyesa Balcha 15 28 48
2 38
474 Aselef Legese Ahmed 15 28 48
2 50
475 Abate G/Hiwot G/yohanes 15 28 48
1 75
476 Nunush Abera Abebe 15 28 48 +251912,145,891
2 35
477 Etaggne kidane Feleke 15 28 48
2 55
118 / 119
# Name Region Code
Woreda Code
Kebele Code
Telephone Sex Age
478 Fanaye bayu W/ Michel 15 28 48 +251920,907,09
2 60
479 Eden bekele Bushiso 15 28 48 +251 915,170,017
2 20
480 Aklilu Assefa 15 28 48
+2510,922,638,91
9 1 26
![Grant Agreement [TF099878] Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (ESAP2) 1 SAIPs Finance, Grant and Operation training Presentation.](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/56649edf5503460f94bef416/grant-agreement-tf099878-ethiopia-protection-of-basic-services-social-accountability.jpg)
