ECA Sustainable Cities Initiative Social Sustainability Assessmenti2ud.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ECA-final-project... · 2013-10-15 · ECA Sustainable Cities Initiative Social

ECA Sustainable Cities Initiative

Social Sustainability Assessment

Final Reflections

March 31, 2013

Report Prepared for the World Bank (Contract 7164128)



Study Team

Co- Plan Institute for Habitat

Development

Institute for International

Urban Development Local Experts

Dritan Shutina

Co-Project Manager

Aida Ciro

Strategic Communication and

Research Expert

Darina Kokona

Participatory approaches specialist

John Driscoll

Co-Project Manager

Carolina Morgan

Research Associate

Skopje:

Sonja Damchevska

Coalition for Sustainable

Development - CSD

Prishtina:

Florina Jerliu

Archis Intervention Prishtina

Banja Luka and Sarajevo:

Elma Demir and Nenad Galić

US Alumni Association in Bosnia

and Herzegovina

This Final Reflections Report puts forward a methodology for a city-specific assessment of social

accountability and social inclusion in urban service delivery. The report is part of a Social Sustainability

Assessment carried out by the Institute for International Urban Development (www.i2ud.org) and the Co-

PLAN Institute for Habitat Development (www.co-plan.org). A summary of findings of the desk and field

research that included focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and a participatory workshop is also

available in a separate City Notes and City Synthesis Reports. This Reflections Report is part of the

World Bank’s Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Sustainable Cities Initiative and the WB-Austria Urban

Partnership Program (UPP) for Strengthening Local Governments in South-Eastern-Europe, funded by

the UPP and managed by the ECA Social Development and ECA Urban Development departments and

the World Bank Institute. For more information, please refer to the ECA Sustainable Cities Website and

www.seecities.eu. The analysis, results, and views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone

and do not represent the position of the World Bank or any of its member countries.

http://www.i2ud.org/

http://www.co-plan.org/

http://bit.ly/XWFMCG

http://www.seecities.eu/



Contents

Reflections on the Process ............................................................................................................................ 1

General Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 4

The Social Accountability Index................................................................................................................... 9

Transferability ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Annex 1 – Social Sustainability Index--Tabulation of Results ................................................................... 15

Annex 2 – Key Study Activities and Outputs ............................................................................................. 17

Social Sustainability Assessment Reflections Report Page 1

Reflections on the Process The Institute for International Urban Development (I2UD) in Cambridge, MA and Co-PLAN Institute for

Habitat Development in Tirana, Albania jointly carried out a Social Sustainability Assessment in five

cities in South Eastern Europe -- Skopje, Macedonia; Durres, Albania; Prishtina, Kosovo; and Sarajevo

and Banja Luka, Bosnia Herzegovina1. Throughout the process the team worked closely with the World

Bank’s Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Social Development and Urban Development Departments and

the World Bank Institute.

This assessment, developed as a pilot project for the World Bank’s ECA Sustainability Initiative, set out

to identify a methodology for a city-specific assessment of social accountability and social inclusion in

urban service delivery. The study also explored the potential role of information and communication

technologies to support social accountability initiatives. The study was organized around a participatory

process that brought together representatives of vulnerable groups, local authorities and the NGO sector

in each city. To undertake this locally focused process, I2UD and Co-PLAN recruited local expert teams

in each city to lead the research and field activities.

This organization, illustrated in Figure 1: Study Team Organization, resulted in an assessment that

captures the nuances of each city's unique characteristics and circumstances that should be considered in a

social sustainability assessment. The organization also provided an opportunity to compare challenges,

opportunities and cross-learning experiences among the five cities and with the ECA region and identify

relevant regional and international best practices in social accountability.

Figure 1: Study Team Organization

1 This assessment was part of the World Bank’s Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Sustainable Cities Initiative

financed by the Austria Partnership Program for Strengthening Local Governments in South-Eastern-Europe

countries.

I2UD

Literature review, support

methodology development,

SA Index development,

harmonize field research,

draft recommendations and

city notes

World Bank Team

Co-PLAN

Coordinate/direct field teams, lead survey development, conduct

institutional reviews, support drafting of city notes

Field Team

Durrës

(Co-PLAN)

Field Team

BiH

(Ms. Elma

Demir and

Mr. Nenad

Galić)

Field Team

Skopje

(Coalition for

Sustainable

Develop-

ment)

Field Team

Prishtina

(Archis

Interven-

tions/

Prishtina)


Figure 2: Project Workflow illustrates how the methodology for the assessment actively linked key

ACTIVITES, ANALYSIS and OUTPUTS. Each of the key activities such as the development of a City

Background Report, the Focus Group Discussions, the Participatory Scenario Development Workshops

and the Regional Dissemination Workshop in Skopje, Macedonia, were supported by research and

analysis and led to outputs that both recorded and reflected on results. The outputs generated from the

activities and the analyses at each step were reviewed with the World Bank team ensuring the

harmonization of ideas and goals at each step of the project.

Figure 2: Project Workflow

Starting with the inception phase, which set the context for the assessment and refined the objectives of

the study, the I2UD-CoPLAN team developed a Research Template (1) to guide the drafting of a City

Profile (2) by the respective city teams. Drawing on existing resources and data, the City Profile provided

an integrated snapshot of each city including an overview of key issues and development challenges in

regards to governance, social and economic development, the environment and spatial development. This

was also an important step for the identification and selection of the vulnerable groups in each city and

the key issues to be addressed in the focus group discussions and interviews in the next phase.

Focus groups were organized with members of the identified vulnerable groups, as well as in-depth

interviews with other stakeholders including representatives of national, regional and local government,

NGOs and the business sector. Given the lack of data at both the municipal and community levels, this

activity gave the city teams an opportunity to listen to the perspective of residents and also gain the views

of those involved in delivering services. These focus groups and interviews revealed the current service

provision levels and social accountability levels in the cities with respect to vulnerable groups, and

provided an assessment of the use and availability of information and communication technologies

(ICTs).

2 1 3 4 5 6


From these findings (3) I2UD, Co-PLAN and the World Bank team developed a framework of social

accountability based on the three pillars of Participation, Transparency and Feedback/Monitoring. For

each pillar, the study team defined an overarching issue relevant to the five cities (4). These three issues

were used as the basis for the Participatory Scenario Development Workshops where all stakeholders

came together to envision improved scenarios of social accountability that addressed the issues reflecting

the three pillars (5).

A City Synthesis Report and City Note were drafted summarizing key findings of each step of the process

and presenting the three proposed scenarios. Upon reflection of these scenarios, each city's local experts

brought the stakeholders together to choose one proposal and develop an action plan (6). The final city

outcomes including the action plan were presented and discussed at a Regional Dissemination Workshop,

giving the city teams the opportunity to learn and be inspired by other cities and revise their proposals.

While the methodology applied across all five cities was the same, the findings reflect distinct local

features, owing to the extensive local knowledge and networks of the city teams. From an early stage in

the project, the local city teams involved various interest groups in the city. The municipalities were

involved from the initial research phase, and various interest groups, vulnerable communities and

representatives from the civil society were engaged during the focus groups and the participatory scenario

development workshops. In Durrës for example, a broad range of interest groups cooperated with the

research team, and the municipality expressed a strong interest in becoming part of the assessment

process given that it coincided with the preparation of their ‘City Development Strategy’.

The assessment process created a neutral platform where communities, NGOs and municipal officials

could come together to propose scenarios and solutions to commonly agreed upon issues. In addition to

the city specific analysis and proposed projects, the assessment process offers an adaptable methodology

for municipalities to analyze different aspects of social accountability and develop programs to address

key issues that arise as part of the assessment.

Annex 2 summarizes the key activities and outputs in a table.


General Findings The vulnerable groups in each of the municipalities were identified according to various factors, including

demographic, social and economic characteristics and in accordance with prevailing national and local

legal and policy documents. In addition, data obtained from the municipal officials, service providers,

civil society representatives and publications served to confirm and expand the findings to those groups

who may not be legally recognized as vulnerable but are in practice. Table 1 notes the final selection of

vulnerable groups in each city.

Table 1: Vulnerable Groups and maps

Sko

pje

Youth (children

without parents and

parental care)

Ethnic minorities -

Roma Community

Unemployed

The elderly

Persons with

disabilities

Women P

rish

tin

a

Youth (15-25)

Ethnic minorities

Unemployed

Employed, low-income

Employed, middle-income

The elderly

Ban

ja L

uka

Youth (18-26)

Ethnic minority

Unemployed

Employed, low

income

Persons with

disabilities

Sar

ajev

o

Youth (18-26)

Ethnic minority

Unemployed

Employed, low income

Persons with disabilities

Not available

Du

rrës

Youth (15-25);

The Elderly;

Unemployed

(including Roma*2)

Employed low-

income (Këneta

Informal

Settlement);

Employed middle-

income;

2 The unemployed status overtakes the ethnic origin.


Drawing upon a considerable amount of literature and practice, the study team developed a framework of

Social Accountability illustrated in Figure 3. The diagram captures the importance of the core

relationships among citizens and local authorities and the importance of intermediaries such as NGOs,

community based organizations and universities in supporting and informing this dialogue. The three key

pillars of social accountability strongly influence the strength and effectiveness of these relationships:

Participation: Implementing mechanisms that enable citizens to become part of the decision-

making process.

Transparency: Making city stakeholder information and operations publicly available, timely

and useful.

Feedback/Monitoring. Ensuring citizen-government communication and that expressed citizen

needs are matched with responsive action.

Figure 3: The Framework for Social Accountability

Focus Groups-Interviews and Participatory Development Workshops

The focus groups together with the individual interviews were an instrumental part of the social

accountability assessment; together these two activities provided the opportunity to gather complementary

and opposing viewpoints of the level and quality of services for the various vulnerable groups in the city.

The results of the focus group discussions were analyzed according to the framework for social

accountability. In addition to the interesting findings unique to each city, common challenges emerged

across the cities and vulnerable groups.3 These challenges were categorized according to the three pillars,

within the following overarching themes:

1. Transparency: addressing information asymmetry among various groups – including the

challenge presented by complex bureaucracies and citizens being unsure about who or where to

address specific issues.

3 The problems faced by vulnerable groups in terms of social accountability are covered in more detail the ICT note

and specifically in each city's City Note.


2. Participation: introducing participation opportunities specifically tailored to the needs of

vulnerable groups - as one FGD participant noted, “one of the main obstacles to social

accountability is the ‘generalization of problems’”.

3. Feedback: increasing the effectiveness of citizen feedback and grievance redress mechanisms –

changing the perception of local authorities as “detached” and “unapproachable”.

During the Participatory Scenario Development Workshops (PSD), participants were organized into

groups reflecting the three pillars and asked to develop scenarios that drew upon the considerable amount

of information generated during previous phases of the study. The groups discussed related problems and

solutions and arrived at a commonly agreed upon proposal for each of the themes. Workshop participants

noted that the format of the PSD workshops, which included summary presentations on the key issues

identified through the city profile, the focus groups and interviews, had the advantage of helping them to

move more quickly towards scenarios focused on solutions. In essence, rather than spending a

considerable amount of time on discussions of the ‘problems’ the participants were able to focus on

developing solutions to problems that were identified and agreed upon through the previous assessment

activities.

Special attention was given to solutions that involve Information and Communication Technologies

(ICTs). Examples of such initiatives, such as System 48 in Indija4, were researched by the study team and

presented at the PSD workshop and the Regional Dissemination Workshop. Participants were encouraged

to think about scenarios that utilize ICTs as tools for social inclusion and how ICTs can create

opportunities for reaching more people than ever before and eliminate some of the time and space

constraints that can be a barrier for municipal residents engaging with local government.

A key ICT issue raised during the Skopje Regional Workshop by both participants and guest speakers

presenting best practices on ICT was that of the digital divide. Some workshop participants were skeptical

about ICT’s potential to reach out to vulnerable groups and cautioned that technology can further

marginalize these groups rather than bring them together. The guest speakers recognized the challenge in

ensuring that no group is left out of innovative practices. Indeed, results from the FGDs specifically

showed where some of the opportunities may lie given the level of access and use of technology among

the vulnerable groups consulted. For example, it was found that the youth are more tech-ready, and that

community resources such as information centers can address the lack of individual access. The

presentation of ICT programs in different cities to enhance social accountability proved useful for the

participating cities as many of the final proposals incorporated technology components.

The proposals developed by each city team during the PSD workshops address the dimensions where the

cities face the greatest challenges in social accountability and reflect the emerging findings from the

assessment activities. For example, the improvement of city websites is a major focus of the proposals

across the cities and include: making websites more interactive and easier to use with the updated content;

developing monitoring systems and a required response time to citizen inquiries; and on-line calendars of

activities to provide information in advance of meetings and decision making actions.

4 These presentations (in the local language) are available for download at the I2UD website.

http://i2ud.org/2013/04/regional-workshop-on-local-social-accountability/


There were also proposals that reflect governance issues and links to city development activities, these

included for example: integrating social accountability practices into the on-going city development

strategy, more effective participatory budgeting practices; strengthening the potential role of local

neighborhood councils or administrative units to act as a link between communities and neighborhoods

and ‘city-hall’ and monitoring service improvements in transport for the elderly and disabled. Other

proposals included the establishment of Information Centers that either focus on employment

opportunities or local governance structures, rights, obligations and services. It is interesting to highlight

the different approaches taken by each city to address the same issues, reflecting the range of ICT and

Social Accountability possibilities. The table below summarizes each city's scenarios:

Table 2: Summary of City Scenarios

Banja Luka Prishtina Sarajevo Durres Skopje

Web and SMS

platform for

monitoring transport

services for

vulnerable groups

Upgrade City

Website

Information Center on

governance structures,

rights, obligations and

services.

Incorporating Social

Accountability in the

City Development

Strategy

Citizen Database

Information Desks

on employment

opportunities

Citizen Charter and

Calendar of

activities

Local Community

Councils Revitalization

Participatory Budget Representation for

Disability groups

Upgrade City

Website

Monitoring as part

of City Modus

Operandi

Public Fund for Social

Entrepreneurship

Upgrade City Website 48-hr response

requirement for citizen

queries

In many cases, the proposed scenarios aim to improve existing social accountability mechanism by

increasing the functionality and efficiency of current practices rather than introduce completely new

systems.

While the proposals suggested for each city are diverse and reflect the particular challenges and

opportunities in each municipality, when asked to describe key considerations that provide the enabling

environment for these proposals and social accountability in general, the local teams identified similar

conditions that need to be met. For example, they emphasized specific roles for each group of actors that

were the same across the cities:

• In general, the local teams and PSD workshop participants identified the City Administration as

the key implementing partner given the need for an overall institutional champion and a

coordinating framework to support and sustain the proposed initiatives;

• Citizens were seen as responsible for engaging actively with the local authorities to ensure the

realization of proposals.

Intermediaries should be active partners in the process through formal mechanisms such as

MoUs.


Additionally, other common threads focus on the need to institutionalize the components of social

accountability. In Durres, Skopje and Prishtina, the workshop participants noted that social accountability

and communication should be seen as an integral element of an overall city development strategy to

strengthen sustainability and reach into vulnerable communities. Furthermore, while there are examples

of ad-hoc monitoring of social accountability practices at a project level, all the teams emphasized the

need to introduce systematic monitoring of social accountability into each city's management practices.

For example, Sarajevo and Banja Luka both suggested that a system of community-level data collection,

analysis and management is the key to developing sustainable social accountability practices.

Participants--Focus Group Discussions and Participatory Scenario Development Workshop


The Social Accountability Index To gauge existing levels of social accountability in each city and to promote a dialogue on the key issues

that need to be addressed in each city, the research team developed a Social Accountability Index as part

of the study methodology that can be adapted to other assessments in the future. This index is organized

around the three key pillars of the framework for social accountability--participation, transparency and

feedback and monitoring—and is based on the following five dimensions:

Participation - engagement: Initiatives taken by citizens individually or collectively to take part

in civic life.

Participation - opportunities: Local government’s openness to citizen participation in decision

making.

Transparency - information availability: Disclosure of information related to local decisions.

Transparency - information access: the City’s readiness to make productive use of Open

Government Data.

Feedback: the effectiveness of 2-way communication between citizens and their local

governments.

This index, using yes or no responses to twenty-five questions (five for each dimension), provides an easy

to use measure of the effectiveness of existing social accountability practices and identifies areas that can

benefit from improvement. It is important to note that the index does not intend to measure each city

against an ideal. Rather, it was designed to compare cities with a common history and some shared

characteristics. The format allows for the index to grow as do the cities and their social accountably

practices. The concept behind the Social Accountability Index, also described in detail in the annex of

each City Synthesis report, is based on the following principles:

• The choices of questions to address within each of the five dimensions reflect the issues that

arose from the assessment across the five municipalities.

• Use of ICT is a cross-cutting theme.

• The possibility to integrate the development of the index into the assessment process and start

with a simple approach that can be made more complex and precise over time.

• A flexible set of questions within each dimension that can be revised to reflect different priorities.

• Capture as best as possible both the availability of Social Accountability mechanisms and their

effectiveness.

An initial version of the index was tested with each city team during the preparation of the City Notes and

Reports and presented during the Regional Dissemination Workshop. This first use of the index validated

the overall structure of the index, as the preliminary results were in line with the findings from the

assessment's other components such as the focus groups. However, following feedback from the city

teams and in light of issues raised during the Region Dissemination Workshop, the questions were further

refined to better incorporate the major issues and the context of the pilot cities. The results are visualized

in Figure 4.


Figure 4: Revised Index Results

Averaging the index among the five cities shows some interesting trends that continue to reflect the

overall assessment findings. Participation as looked at through the two dimensions of engagement and

opportunities, is taking place in the five cities; the intensity and depth of this engagement varies

especially in regards to vulnerable communities. Secondly, transparency in terms of information access

and availability is also starting to gain ground. The dimension that requires the most attention in regards

to social accountability is the feedback mechanisms. Summary observations for each of five dimensions

are noted below, and Annex 1 presents the complete results for each indicator and city.

Participation - Opportunities: In general, most of the cities have formal processes for consultation such

as public meetings and budget presentation to neighborhoods. Although participation opportunities

specifically for vulnerable groups are lagging, strides are being made in most cities to reach out to these

groups by engaging with dedicated Civil Society Organizations.

Participation - Engagement: Results vary greatly among cities, and Durres stands out in this category.

For example, it has the representation of vulnerable communities in the city council although it is not

mandated by law. While NGOs seem to have a strong presence in all cities, neighborhood councils (or

similar structures) are not seen as effective in their role as intermediaries. Only two of the cities have

websites that are considered reliable sources of information.

Transparency - Information Availability: Giving sufficient notice about upcoming city council

meetings to the public is uncommon in most cities. However, municipal council meetings and budgets are

posted online despite the lack of an open data policy. Civil Society Organizations, on the other hand, are

required to have open data practices in three of the five cities.


Transparency - Information Access: In general, cities do not provide support for using ICT tools to

either citizens or public employees. Instead, cities provide information access through other means such

as information desks or use of public media. Sarajevo stands out in this category with the highest score.

Feedback/Monitoring: This remains the most challenging category. All cities with the exception of

Banja Luka have none or almost none of basic elements of effective feedback mechanisms measured.

Only Banja Luka shows a positive trend, with grievance response times that are abided by, regularly

updated websites, and an annual citizen satisfaction survey.

The present index can be a valuable tool throughout a social assessment process. Firstly, given the lack of

city and community-level data, this format provides an alternative way to assess social accountability

levels. Secondly, the specific indicators and definitions can be adapted to each city or target group and

used during the Focus Group Discussions and In-Depth Interviews and the responses averaged to gauge

the key social accountability issues. The results can then be used during the Scenario Development

Workshop as a diagnostic tool to help the participants identify opportunities and challenges. In this way,

the index becomes an integrated component of the Assessment process.

Furthermore, the index provides a monitoring tool that can be applied by a city’s stakeholders to regularly

evaluate progress over time. City authorities, or intermediaries such as universities, can potentially carry

out an annual update of the index independently, thus building a track record of the city’s work on social

accountability. All cities highlighted the need for monitoring social accountability activities. The yearly

index results can become a powerful tool in recognizing the efforts of city stakeholders every year and

motivating all actors to contribute to strengthening social accountability in their city.


Transferability The strength of the methodology developed for this social sustainability assessment lies in its ability to

bring together multiple actors and stakeholders--from within vulnerable communities, the city

administration and intermediaries--for a city-specific assessment and the development of

programs/projects that create a common commitment to implement proposed solutions. The process

creates an opportunity for:

Analysis of the key issues facing vulnerable communities;

Open discussions and feedback sessions; and

A method to address the lack of data at the municipal level when trying to identify the key issues

facing vulnerable communities.

The study team feels that the social assessment process outlined in this study can be adapted to other

municipalities, specific urban sectors such as transport or water, or a social accountability assessment of

specific neighborhoods or districts within a municipality or a greater metropolitan area. The methodology

offers a structure to bring together city officials, intermediary NGOs and vulnerable communities in an

open process of engagement. The use of focus groups and interviews provides the opportunity to gather

complementary and opposing views and bring these together through the use of participatory workshops

to develop solution-focused, action-oriented scenarios. The methodology also provided an opportunity to

tailor and introduce good practices in social accountability including new information and communication

technologies.

The Regional Dissemination Workshop created an opportunity for exchange that was very welcomed by

all the city teams. The possibility to hear about other cities’ challenges and best practices in addressing

social accountability led to new ideas and approaches, as well as a sense of comradeship resulting from

the conclusion that others face similar obstacles. Participants pointed out that the workshop encouraged

an appreciation for the existing opportunities and progress within each city. The two-day event also

provided the city teams an opportunity to further refine their selected projects. Holding similar events

with the pilot cities as well as other municipalities on an annual basis can provide a consistent forum to

promote social accountability within urban projects.


Photos from the Regional Dissemination Workshop

WBI team Durres city team presenting

Break-out groups working Workshop Participants

This study has shown that there is a keen interest among municipalities, vulnerable communities and

intermediaries such as NGOs, community based organizations and universities in learning about and

adapting social accountability practices into city-specific urban programs and management practices.

The city team leaders highlighted the fact that the process of this city-specific assessment made social

accountability part of the discussion for the first time within their respective municipalities. As part of this

study some of the municipalities are now considering extending the social accountability assessment into

ongoing activities such as the updating of their city development strategy.

There is also a better understanding of the need to incorporate and account for the issues faced by

vulnerable communities when promoting social accountability practices. For example, ICT practices can

improve social accountability in service delivery but may not be addressing the needs of residents living

in informal neighborhoods.

The study and the presentations by the city teams at the regional workshop showed the potential of

applying social accountability practices to the issues related to urban service delivery for vulnerable


communities. The real potential of this link will occur when social accountability becomes part of the

accepted management language and practices of local authorities when they are formulating urban

programs and delivering services.

Taken together, the various components of the social accountability assessment led to the achievement of

the stated goals of this pilot and the experience offers an approach that can be used by others. Each

element and actor contributed to the strong results and promising proposals for change within each city.

To conclude, the project’s successes can be summarized as follows:

Capturing the differences among cities while still being able to compare them and draw

regional conclusions, by:

o Engaging local experts to lead activities, make the necessary connections and motivate

participants;

o Ensuring the engagement of multiple local stakeholders throughout the process; and

o Developing a social accountability framework to guide the process and outputs across all

cities and an index linked to the social accountability model.

Overcoming the lack of data at the city and community level, by:

o Recognizing the qualitative nature of a social accountability study;

o Using focus group discussions and interviews as a key research method;

o Validating findings through continuous consultation with city stakeholders; and

o Developing a Social Accountability Index with carefully-defined yes/no questions.

Targeting vulnerable and marginalized groups, by:

o Focusing on spatially defined marginalized communities such as informal settlements and

their specific needs;

o Also incorporating vulnerable populations spread throughout the city such as people with

disabilities;

o Relying on focus group discussions to obtain the point of view of these groups rather than the

limited secondary sources; and

o Emphasizing ICT tools to promote social inclusion.

Focusing on solutions rather than problems, by:

o Carrying out scenario development workshops where the key issues are previously identified

so as to move immediately into devising solutions;

o Exploring best practices on social accountability and ICTs;

o Drafting proposals with attainable action plans; and

o Developing an assessment methodology that can be adapted to other cities or sectors.

Instilling the sense of ownership of proposed solutions, by:

o Emphasizing the role of 3 key actors (citizens, local authorities, and intermediaries), and

recognizing each group’s responsibilities.

o Ensuring that the scenarios are conceptualized by the city stakeholders themselves; and

o Bringing cities together in a regional workshop to promote and display commitment to

outcomes and commonly agreed-upon proposals at the city level.


Annex 1 – Social Sustainability Index--Tabulation of Results

Note on the Sarajevo results: Because of its complex governance system, some questions received both a” yes” and

a “no” to account for variations among Municipalities and the fact that the City Administration does not have real

jurisdictions on most policy issues. For the purposes of the analysis, these cases with both 0 and 1 values were given

a score of 0.5.In the future, the two administrative units, Sarajevo (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and East

Sarajevo (Republika Srpska) can be scored separately.

Participation -Opportunities Banja

Luka Sarajevo Durres Skopje Prishtina Total

1. Does the city hold consultation meetings

with the public? 1 1 1 1 1 5

2. Are there elected neighborhood councils

or equivalent structures? 1 1 0 0 1 3

3. Does the city administration present

municipal budgets to neighborhoods as part of the

formal fiscal preparation cycle?

1 1 1 0 1 4

4. Are vulnerable groups consulted when

devising strategic policy documents? 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Does the city have a program to engage

with CSOs when reaching out to vulnerable

groups?

0 1 1 1 1 4

Participation -Opportunities TOTAL 3 3 3 2 4 15

Participation -Engagement Banja


1. Are minority or vulnerable communities

represented in the current city council? 0 0 1 0 1 2

2. Are NGOs actively engaged in representing

the interest of vulnerable groups? 1 0.5 1 1 1 5

3. Are neighborhood councils (or similar

structures) effectively linking the citizens to the

city (or municipality)?

0 0 0 0 1 1

4. Are there youth-based outreach programs for

civic engagement? 1 0.5 1 0 0 3

5. Is the website considered to be a reliable

source of information? 0 0 1 1 0 2

Participation - Engagement TOTAL 2 1 4 2 3 12

Transparency - Information Availability Banja


1. Are citizens given sufficient notice about

upcoming city council meetings? 1 0.5 0 0 0 2

2. Are municipal council decisions posted

online in a timely matter? 1 0.5 1 1 1 5

3. Are city budgets available online? 1 0.5 1 1 1 5

4. Does the municipality have an open data

policy? 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Are CSOs required to have open data

practices? 0 0 1 1 1 3

Transparency - Information Availability

TOTAL 3 2 3 3 3 14


Transparency - Information Access Banja


1. Is there an active information desk

available for citizen information? 0 1 0 0 1 2

2. Is there a document (charter) outlining the

responsibilities of both government and citizens

that is publicly accessible?

0 1 0 0 0 1

3. Does the municipality provide support to

citizens regarding access or navigation of its ICT

tools?

0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Are there ICT training opportunities for

public employees? 1 1 0 0 1 3

5. Does the city utilize the various forms of

media to disseminate information? 1 0 1 1 0 3

Transparency - Information Access TOTAL 2 3 1 1 2 9

Feedback Banja


Feedback/Monitoring

1. Is the time limit for grievance response abided

by?

1 0 0 0 1 2

2. Do grievance/ complaint systems use

multiple types of technology? 0 0 0 1 0 1

3. Is there a system for tracking the

responsiveness to grievances of various

departments/service providers?

0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Is there an annual citizen service

satisfaction survey? 1 0 0 0 0 1

5. Is the city website updated regularly? 1 0 0 0 0 1

Feedback TOTAL 3 0 0 1 1 5


Annex 2 – Key Study Activities and Outputs

Reports/Events Purpose

Inception Report Explore and consolidate initial concepts and study

objectives among World Bank Team and I2UD/Co-

Plan and City Teams. Present desk review findings.

Research Template Guide city teams in preparation of City Profile to

identify key issues and vulnerable

groups/communities. Draws to the extent possible

on existing sources of information rather than

undertaking primary research.

City Profiles Synopsis of key development challenges and

opportunities, identification of existing social

accountability practices and vulnerable

communities. Summary of the legal basis for

defining and providing services to vulnerable

communities.

Focus Groups and Individual Interviews Based on drafting and analysis of city profiles,

focus groups identified and questions and issues

identified for each group. In each city 6 focus

groups were held.

Individual interviews held with city officials and

other stakeholders.

Summaries of focus groups and interviews drafted

and reviewed by study team to identify key issues

and link to existing social accountability good

practices.

Development of Concept Notes for: Social

Accountability Framework; Information and

Communication Technology; and Social

Accountability Index.

Three concept notes developed to guide the next

stages of the study:

1. How to frame social accountability issues

emerging from each city within a shared

framework for development of scenarios;

2. An analysis of potential uses of ICT to promote

and enhance social accountability;

3. A concept note on the an alternative method of


Reports/Events Purpose

creating a city specific Social Accountability index

The index focuses on social accountability issues

raised during the assessment and offers an

alternative to an index based data that is generally

not available at the city level.

Scenario Development Workshops Provides an opportunity to bring together

participants from focus groups and individual

interviews to develop specific scenarios to address

key issues identified in previous stages. The city

teams developed three projects to address three key

issues from the social accountability framework.

City Reports and City Notes. Detailed and Summary reports from each city

based on research findings and scenario

development workshops.

Regional Dissemination Workshop Exchange of experience, case studies on regional

ICT experience, presentation of social

accountability issues and one key project for

consideration.

ECA Sustainable Cities Initiative Social Sustainability Assessmenti2ud.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ECA-final-project... · 2013-10-15 · ECA Sustainable Cities Initiative Social

Documents