K:\IAC\AGreer\SHARE\6901-LGA Task Orders\To_008 Armenia LGA\Products\LG Resource Manual\LG Household Survey_02\06901-008-FINAL 2003 LGA
HH.rpt.doc
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PROJECT
USAID CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
IN NINE PILOT CITIES:
REPORT ON 2002 SECOND
FOLLOW-UP HOUSEHOLD
SURVEY FINDINGS
Prepared for
Prepared by
Sam Coxson
Chief of Party
The Urban Institute/Armenia
Armenia Local Government Program
United States Agency for International Development
Contract No. EEU-I-00-99-00015-00, Task Order No. 807
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 833-7200
www.urban.org
May 2003
UI Project 06901-008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................................1
Findings.....................................................................................................................................................................1
Levels of Interest and Satisfaction with City Hall.......................................................................................................2
Levels of Information and Sources Accessed ...........................................................................................................3
Accessing Information from City Hall ........................................................................................................................4
Attitudes Toward Local Government Affairs and Services ........................................................................................4
Knowledge about Local Government Affairs .............................................................................................................5
Willingness to Pay for Services .................................................................................................................................6
New Measures on the National Assembly.................................................................................................................6
Demographic Measures ............................................................................................................................................6
Summary of Major Findings ......................................................................................................................................7
TABLES
Table 1: Number of interviews conducted by city................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Dwelling type by city................................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 3: Level of interest in the work of City Hall ................................................................................................................... 9
Table 4: Means and breakdowns for level of interest in the work of City Hall by city (sorted by means)............................ 10
Table 5: Information source accessed about City Hall ......................................................................................................... 10
Table 6: Information source accessed about City Hall by city.............................................................................................. 11
Table 7: Accuracy of information source accessed.............................................................................................................. 12
Table 8: Means and breakdowns for accuracy of information source accessed by city (sorted by means)......................... 12
Table 9a: Television source when accessed........................................................................................................................ 12
Table 9b: Newspaper source when accessed...................................................................................................................... 13
Table 9c: Radio source when accessed............................................................................................................................... 13
Table 10: Level of how well informed about City Hall........................................................................................................... 13
Table 11: Means and breakdowns for level of how well informed about City Hall by city (sorted by means) ...................... 13
Table 12: Level of satisfaction with information about City Hall ........................................................................................... 14
Table 13: Means and breakdowns for level satisfaction with information about City Hall by city (sorted by means)........... 14
Table 14: Levels of satisfaction with work of City Hall.......................................................................................................... 15
Table 15: Means and breakdowns for level of satisfaction with work of City Hall by city (Sorted by means) ...................... 15
Table 16: The work of City Hall is better, the same or worse than last year ........................................................................ 15
Table 17: Means and breakdowns for differences in the work of City Hall between years (Sorted by means).................... 16
Table 18: Have tried to obtain information from City Hall.................................................................................................... 16
Table 19: Have tried to obtain information from City Hall by city......................................................................................... 16
Table 20: Where/why appealed to in city government ......................................................................................................... 17
Table 21: Where/why appealed to in city government by city .............................................................................................. 17
Table 22: Problems in obtaining the requested information ................................................................................................. 18
Table 23: Problems in obtaining the requested information by city...................................................................................... 18
Table 24: Types of problems encountered when trying to obtain information from city government ................................... 19
Table 25: Types of problems encountered when trying to obtain information from city government by city ........................ 19
Table 26a: Central government in Yerevan is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think .. 20
Table 26b: The Marzpet is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think ................................ 20
Table 26c: City Hall is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think ....................................... 20
Table 26d: If I had a problem and needed help from City Hall, I would know whom to contact .......................................... 20
Table 26e: I am pleased with water and sewage services ................................................................................................... 21
Table 26f: City Hall does a good job in solving the city’s problems...................................................................................... 21
Table 26g: City Hall does better job this year than last year in solving the city’s problems ................................................. 21
Table 26h: I have more information about City Hall activities this year than last year ......................................................... 22
Table 26i: I would be more active in local politics if I had more information about City Hall activities ................................. 22
Table 26j: If I had more information about the budget, I would be more active in following City Hall decisions .................. 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Table 27: Means for attitude measures in Tables 26a through 26j ...................................................................................... 23
Table 28: Means by city for attitudes toward City Hall solving problems this year better than last year .............................. 23
Table 29: Means by city for attitude toward having more information this year than last year about the activities of
City Hall ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 30a: Name of the Mayor............................................................................................................................................. 24
Table 30b: Mayor elected or appointed................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 30c: Marzpet elected or appointed ............................................................................................................................. 25
Table 30d: When City Council meetings take place............................................................................................................. 25
Table 30e: Name a member of the City Council .................................................................................................................. 25
Table 30f: When city budget is approved ............................................................................................................................. 25
Table 30g: Who decides land/property tax.......................................................................................................................... 25
Table 30h: If problem with income tax, where would go ...................................................................................................... 26
Table 30hh: Incorrect answers given ................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 30i: If problem with water/sewage, where would go................................................................................................... 26
Table 30ii: Incorrect answers given...................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 32a: Willingness to pay for waste collection.............................................................................................................. 27
Table 32b: Willingness to pay for streetlights....................................................................................................................... 28
Table 32c: Willingness to pay for landscaping streets ......................................................................................................... 28
Table 32d: Willingness to pay for control of street dogs and cats ........................................................................................ 28
Table 32e: Willingness to pay for centralized heating .......................................................................................................... 28
Table 32f: Willingness to pay for public transportation......................................................................................................... 29
Table 32g: Willingness to pay for maintenance of roads...................................................................................................... 29
Table 32h: Willingness to pay for nursery schools ............................................................................................................... 29
Table 32i: Willingness to pay for music and arts schools..................................................................................................... 29
Table 32j: Willingness to pay for sports schools .................................................................................................................. 30
Table 32k: Willingness to pay for libraries........................................................................................................................... 30
Table 32l: Willingness to pay for maintenance of city monuments....................................................................................... 30
Table 32m: Willingness to pay for maintenance of apartment buildings .............................................................................. 30
Table 32n: Willingness to pay for maintenance of cemeteries ............................................................................................. 31
Table 33: Table of means for willingness to pay measures in Table 32a through 32n by city ............................................ 31
Table 34: Name of the Chairman of the National Assembly ................................................................................................ 31
Table 35: Breakdowns by cities name of the Chairman of the National Assembly .............................................................. 32
Table 36: Name of the Deputy from this district in the National Assembly........................................................................... 32
Table 37: Breakdowns by cities the name of the Deputy from this district in the National Assembly .................................. 32
Table 38: Age ....................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 39: Gender by city ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 40: Highest level of education obtained ..................................................................................................................... 34
Table 41: Any one in household with full or part time job and/or self-employment .............................................................. 34
Table 42: If apartment, membership in condominium association ....................................................................................... 34
Table 43: Income sources (multiple responses permitted)................................................................................................... 35
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT
USAID CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROGRAM IN NINE PILOT CITIES:
REPORT ON 2002 SECOND FOLLOW-UP HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINDINGS
BACKGROUND
Sponsored by USAID, the Urban Institute (UI) is providing technical assistance to the Government
of the Republic of Armenia (ROA) through the Local Government Assistance Program. UI has asked the
Center for Policy Analysis (CPA) at the American University of Armenia (AUA) to participate in the research
component of the Citizens Participation Program. The objectives of this program are to reinforce the rights
of citizens to participate in local government activities, to increase citizen access to public information, and
to enhance opportunities for citizens to play a meaningful role in local government decision-making and the
formulation of local government policies.
The Program is being carried out through work in nine pilot cities: Alaverdi, Gyumri, Ijevan, Jermuk,
Kapan, Sevan, Sisian, Vanadzor, and Yeghegnadzor.
This report presents the findings of one of the tasks constituting the Citizens Participation Program,
a second follow-up household survey in the nine cities. A baseline household survey was conducted in the
nine pilot cities in 2000 in order to determine citizen access to and participation in local government, to
assess levels of information about local government, to assess attitudes and levels of satisfaction toward
local government, and to collect data on information sources used by citizens. A follow-up survey was
conducted in 2001 in order to determine changes since the baseline survey.
A second study was conducted in 2001 focusing on the knowledge and attitudes of various key
participants toward citizen participation and outreach efforts, and these findings were presented in a
separate report. Various recommendations on methods for increasing citizen knowledge and participation
in local government were made in this second report. The summary findings and tables of the this report
and the findings of the baseline household survey along with the recommendations were translated into
Armenian and meetings were held with city hall and city council officials in each of the nine cities to discuss
the findings and recommendations and how the recommendations might be implemented given the needs
and resources of each city. UI followed up with training and in implementing recommendations in the nine
cities.
The second follow-up household survey reported here was conducted in order to determine
changes during the past year in citizen access to and participation in local government, to assess changes
in levels of information about local government, to assess changes in attitudes and levels of satisfaction
toward local government, and to assess changes in information sources used by citizens.
Findings
In December 2002, the Center for Policy Analysis at the American University of Armenia conducted
1,012 interviews in the nine pilot cities (See Table 1). Random sampling was conducted in selected
neighborhoods within each city, and an effort was made to include representative proportions based on
dwelling type (See Table 2) and to select samples from the same neighborhoods selected in the original
2
Armenia
Local Governance Program
2000 baseline survey. Demographic data for the three sets of random samples for 2000, 2001, and 2002
were similar except for employment rates, which have increased steadily over the three surveys (See
below). In order to conduct comparisons across years, the questionnaire used measures exactly as worded
in the 2000 and 2001 surveys. Qualitative data were recoded and all data were input in SPSS for analysis.
Levels of Interest and Satisfaction with City Hall
Of all respondents combined, 52.1 percent reported that they are interested in the work of City Hall
(See Table 3). This finding represents a statistically significant increase of 10.5 percentage points from the
2001 survey. (There were no statistically significant differences found between 2000 and 2001 in the first
follow-up report last year.) The mean for all cities combined is 2.83 and the mode is 2, where 1 is very
interested and 4 is very uninterested (See Table 3). Table 4 displays the means by city with Sisian
respondents indicating the highest levels of interest and Yeghegnadzor respondents indicating the lowest
levels of interest in the work of City Hall.
When asked about their satisfaction with the work of City Hall, 67 percent responded that they
were at least somewhat satisfied (See Table 14). This finding represents a statistically significant increase
of 15.7 percentage points from the 2001 survey. (There were no statistically significant differences found
between 2000 and 2001 in the first follow-up report last year.) The mean for this measure is 2.48 and the
mode is 2, where 1 equals very satisfied and 4 equals very unsatisfied. In the 2001 survey, the most
satisfied respondents were Jermuk, Gyumri, and Ijevan, and overall in five of the nine cities more than half
of the respondents indicated they were dissatisfied. Table 15 displays the means by city for the 2002
survey and in all cities more than half of the respondents are satisfied with the work of City Hall, with
Jermuk, Ijevan, and Gyumri being the most satisfied.
When asked if the work of City Hall is better, the same, or worse than last year, 53.8 percent
reported that things are better which is a statistically significant increase of 17.4 percentage points from the
2001 survey. (See Table 16.) (There were no statistically significant differences found between 2000 and
2001 in the first follow-up report last year.) Only 5 percent reported that the work of City Hall is worse than
in 2001; 17.3 percent had reported in the 2001 survey that the work of City Hall was worse than in 2000.
Table 17 provides breakdowns by city, and it indicates that respondents in all 9 pilot cities believe the work
of City Hall is better or the same as in 2001.
About 62 percent of the respondents agreed that they would be more active in local government
affairs if they had more information about City Hall activities (See Table 26i), representing a steady
decrease from 67 percent in 2001 and 70.8 percent in 2000. About 56 percent said that they would follow
local decisions more closely if they had more information about the local budget (See Table 26j), again
representing a steady decrease from 63 percent in 2001 and 69.1 percent in 2000. Although the respective
figures in the 2000 and 2001 survey were higher, the 2002 figures are still quite high and may indicate that
respondents feel less need for such information. It is also important to remember that respondents in 2002
were more satisfied, which could lead to a sense that personal involvement is not needed.
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
3
Levels of Information and Sources Accessed
Of all respondents, 54.5 percent indicated that they were at least somewhat informed about the
activities of City Hall, with a mean of 2.79 and a mode of 2 where 1 equals very well informed and 4 equals
not at all informed (See Table 10). This finding represents a statistically significant increase of 11.3 percent
from the 2001 survey. (There were no statistically significant differences found between 2000 and 2001 in
the first follow-up report last year.) Table 11 displays the differences by city and indicates that
Yeghegnadzor is the only city in which less than half of the respondents believe that they are not well
informed.
About 55.9 percent of all respondents combined reported that they are satisfied with the amount of
information they now have about City Hall (See Table 12) with an overall mean of 2.64 and a mode of 2.
This finding represents a statistically significant increase of 10 percentage points from the 2001 survey. The
differences between 2000 and 2001 also were statistically significant, which indicates a steady increase
over the three surveys. Table 13 displays these means by city and indicates that half or more of the
respondents in Jermuk, Alaverdi, Gyumri, Ijevan, Sevan, and Yeghegnadzor are satisfied.
Respondents were asked about the one main source used for information about City Hall in an
open-ended question. As in the 2001 survey, about 30 percent of the respondents indicated that they did
not have a source of information about City Hall (See Table 5), down from about 40 percent in 2000.
Changes in this percentage would be expected only if there had been changes over the past year in the
local media outlets to which respondents have access. Of those respondents who named a source, 23.4
percent rely on television, down from 27.6 percent in 2001. Newspapers and radio continue to play a
negligible role as information providers on local government affairs, with respondents reporting higher
levels of use of friends and families for such information, as they did in 2000 and 2001. However, when
television, radio, or newspapers are accessed for information about local affairs, they are overwhelmingly
local media (See Table 9a through 9c), as was found in the 2000 and 2001 surveys. Differences by city
can be found in Table 6. Differences by city in the use of a mass medium (television, newspapers, and
radio) as the primary source of information is related to whether or not the city has corresponding and
functioning local mass media outlets.
When asked to judge the accuracy of the sources named, 91.5 percent rated the source of
information used as accurate (See Table 7), about the same percentage found in the 2000 and 2001
surveys. Most of the respondents who indicated that they used television, radio, or even friends and family
members for information about City Hall rated these sources as accurate. Table 8 displays the means for
accuracy by city.
As in the 2000 and 2001 surveys, there is a statistically significant positive but weak correlation
between the ratings of the accuracy of the information source and levels of information about City Hall and
a higher positive correlation for the relationship between levels of information about City Hall and
satisfaction with information about City Hall.
4
Armenia
Local Governance Program
Accessing Information from City Hall
The questionnaire included a measure asking if the respondent had tried to obtain information from
City Hall during the past year, and 170 (16.8 percent) said yes (See Tables 18 and 19), which is very close
to the numbers reported the 2000 and 2001 surveys (17.6 percent and 16.9 percent, respectively). As in
2000 and 2001, most of these respondents had contacted City Hall for aid assistance or employment
inquiries (See Table 20).
The percentage of respondents who reported that they had problems getting the information they
needed upon contacting City Hall (28.2 percent) is a statistically significant decrease of 11.8 percentage
points from 2001; this percentage had increased in the 2001 follow-up. (See Table 22.) As in the previous
two annual surveys, most of these problems surrounded bureaucratic red tape and unresponsive public
officials (See Table 24). It should be noted that in many cases requests made to City Hall could be
considered inappropriate and that there were instances in which the request for information was still met.
Differences by city can be found in Tables 21, 23, and 25.
Attitudes Toward Local Government Affairs and Services
Respondents were asked for their agreement with several statements in order measure their
attitudes toward local government affairs (See Tables 26a through 26h). As in the 2000 and 2001 surveys,
most respondents continued to believe that the central and marz (regional) governments do not provide
proper levels of attention to their problems (See Tables 26a and 26b). About 32 percent of the respondents
agreed with the statement that “the central government in Yerevan is very interested in and pays proper
attention to what people like me think,” which is up from 24 percent in 2001. 39 percent agreed with a
similar statement regarding the marz government, which is up from 35.8 percent in 2001. Mean responses
by city can be found in Table 27.
However, 60.2 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement “City Hall is very interested in
and pays proper attention to what people like me think.” (See Table 26c.) This finding represents a
statistically significant increase of 19.2 percentage points from the 2001 survey and an increase of 22.2
percent from the 2000 survey.
About 67 percent of the respondents were pleased with their current water and sewage service
(See Table 26e), a statistically significant increase of 14.8 percentage points from 2001.
70 percent of the respondents indicated that City hall is doing a good job solving their city’s
problems (See Table 26f), a statistically significant increase of 20.8 percent from 2001.
About 68 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement “City Hall is doing a better job this
year than last year in solving the city’s problems.” (See Table 26g.) This finding represents a statistically
significant 20.1 percent increase from 2001. More than half of the respondents in each of the cities agreed
with the statement (See Table 28.)
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
5
About 44 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement, “I have more information about
City Hall activities this year than I did last year,” up from 36.2 percent in 2001. Table 29 provides the
breakdowns by city.
Knowledge about Local Government Affairs
9 separate open-ended measures were asked that tested knowledge about local government (See
Tables 30a through 30ii). As in the 2000 and 2001 surveys, almost all respondents (94.6 percent) were
able to correctly name the Mayor of their city (See Table 30a). Respondents in Kapan (88 percent) were
the least likely to be able to name their city’s mayor (See Table 31).
About 91 percent of the respondents knew that the Mayor is elected to his position (See Table
30b), a statistically significant increase of six percent from the 2001 survey.
As in the 2000 and 2001 surveys, a much lower percentage of respondents knew that the Marzpet
is an appointed position than the percentage with correct information about city Mayors. 61 percent of the
respondents correctly knew that the Marzpet is an appointed position (See Table 30c); the 2001 rate was
59.6 and the 2000 rate was 61.8.
Only 1.4 percent could correctly state when their City Councils meet (See Table 30d), showing no
statistically significant improvement over the 2000 and 2001 responses. About three percent could
correctly state when city budgets are approved (See Table 30f), showing no statistically significant
improvement from the 2000 and 2001 surveys.
About 47 percent of the respondents could name correctly at least one member of their City
Council, a statistically significant increase from 34 percent in 2000 and 28.3 percent in 2001 (See Table
30e). 50 percent or more of the respondents in the cities of Alaverdi, Jermuk, Sevan, and Sisian could
name a member of their City Councils (See Table 31). In 2000 and 2001, only the cities of Jermuk and
Sisian reached this level.
The percentage of respondents who were able to correctly answer a question about who decides
land/property taxes went down from 16.4 percent in 2000 to 11.6 percent in 2001 and decreased again in
2002 to 10.2 percent (See Table 30g).
About 17 percent of respondents were able to correctly answer a question about where they should
go if they had an income tax problem (See Table 30h), down from 20 percent in 2000 and 19 percent in
2001 (which are not statistically significant decreases). As in 2000 and 2001, most respondents who gave
incorrect answers believed that the Mayor’s Office or City Hall were the places to go for income tax
problems (See Table 30hh).
About 74 percent of the respondents gave correct answers about where they should go if they had
water or sewage problems (See Table 30i), a statistically insignificant decrease of one percent from 2001.
As in 2000 and 2001, most of those respondents who gave incorrect answers believe that they should
appeal to City Hall or the Mayor (See Table 30ii).
6
Armenia
Local Governance Program
When asked in a separate question, about 80 percent of the respondents believe that they know
which government office to contact if they have problems (See Table 26d), which is similar to the 2000 and
2001 survey findings.
Willingness to Pay for Services
Respondents were asked about their willingness to pay for fourteen different government services.
(See Tables 32a through 32n; breakdowns by city are displayed in Table 33.) The majority of respondents
(where 51 percent and above indicated that they were at least “somewhat willing”) stated that they were
willing to pay for all of the services listed. These findings represent statistically significant increases from
2001 in willingness to pay for each of the services listed. In 2001, the majority of respondents had indicated
they were not willing to pay for landscaping streets, control of street dogs and cats, maintenance of roads,
libraries, and maintenance of apartment buildings. The 2001 findings showed statistically significant
increases in willingness to pay from 2000 for all services except maintenance of apartment buildings.
New Measures on the National Assembly
The USAID Armenian Legislative Strengthening Program, implemented by Development
Associates, requested that three measures be included in the second follow-up survey to test knowledge
and attitudes toward the National Assembly in the nine pilot cities.
About 63 percent of the respondents could correctly name the Chairman of the National Assembly
(See Tables 34 and 35). About 37 percent of the respondents in 7 of the cities could correctly name the
Deputy from their city in the National Assembly (See Tables 36 and 37).
Respondents were asked in an open-ended question to state the one most important function of
the National Assembly besides the writing and passing of legislation. About 44 percent of the respondents
could not provide an answer or said that the National Assembly had no other function. Other answers
included responses that can be understood as the representative function (about 25 percent) and solving
economic problems (about 10 percent), and about 14 percent gave answers related to legislation.
Demographic Measures
Age, gender, and education were similar to the random samples created for the 2000 and 2001
surveys, with a 5 percent decrease from 2001 in male respondents. The mean age of respondents was 45
years (See Table 38), with most respondents being women (72.8 percent, See Table 39). Nearly 30
percent of the respondents had completed 10 years of schooling and another 61.4 percent had some
higher education (See Table 40).
About 58 percent of the respondents were employed in a full or part time job (See Table 41), up
from 56.1 percent in 2001 and 51.6 percent in 2000.
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
7
Of all households that were apartments, 20.3 percent belonged to a condominium association (See
Table 42), up with statistical significance from 19.7 in 2001. There was a statistically significant increase in
2001 from 2000 of 15.5 percent.
Income sources for the households were mostly pensions (46.8 percent) and government social
welfare programs (18.3 percent) however, pensions, government social welfare payments, and disability
payments decreased from 2001. (See Table 43.)
Summary of Major Findings
•
There is a 17 percent increase from the 2001 survey, to 54 percent, in the number of
respondents who say that the work of City Hall is better than in 2001. Only 5 percent say that
things are worse than in 2001, a 12 percent decrease from 2001.
•
There is a 20 percent increase from 2001, to 68 percent, in the number of respondents who
believe City Hall is doing a better job than last year in solving city problems.
•
There is a 21 percent increase from 2001, to 70 percent, in the number of respondents who
believe City Hall is doing a good job solving city problems.
•
There is a 16 percent increase from 2001, to 67 percent, in the number of respondents who
say they are satisfied with the work of City Hall. In all nine pilot cities, more than half of the
respondents are satisfied compared to only four cities that reached this threshold in 2001.
•
There is a 19 percent increase from 2001, to 60 percent, in the number of respondents who
agree that “City Hall is very interested in pays and proper attention” to citizens, indicating a
second year of increases.
•
There is a 10.5 percent increase from 2001, to 52 percent, in the number of respondents who
say they are interested in the work of City Hall.
•
There is an eight percent increase from 2001, to 44 percent, in the number of respondents who
say they have more information this year than last year about City Hall activities.
•
About six in ten respondents say that they would be more active in local government affairs if
they had more information about City Hall activities, indicating a small but steady decrease
from 2001 and 2000.
•
There is an 11 percent increase from 2001, to 54.5 percent, in the number of respondents who
say that they are informed about the activities of City Hall.
•
There is a 10 percent increase from 2001, to 56 percent, in the number of respondents who
say they are satisfied with the amount of information they have about City Hall, indicating a
steady increase from 2001 and 2000.
Armenia
Local Governance Program
8
•
Seven in ten respondents can name a source of information they used about City Hall, the
same percentage as in 2001. Local radio and newspapers continue to play negligible roles as
information sources.
•
About 17 percent of the respondents had tried to obtain information from City Hall during the
past year, similar to both 2001 and 2000, and again most of these inquiries were related to
financial aid or employment.
•
There is a 12 percent decrease from 2001, to 28 percent, in the number of respondents who
say they had problems getting information from City Hall, indicating a steady decrease from
2001 and 2000.
•
There is a 15 percent increase from 2001, to 67 percent, in the number of respondents who
are pleased with their current water and sewage service.
•
There is a 6 percent increase from 2001, to 91 percent, in the number of respondents who
know that the Mayor holds an elected position. As in the 2000 and 2001 almost all
respondents (94.6 percent) are able to correctly name the Mayor of their city.
•
As in 2001 and 2000, almost no respondents know when their City Council meets or when city
budgets are approved.
•
More respondents say they are willing to pay for city-provided services than in the 2001
survey.
•
Employment rates of respondents increased for the second year, to 58 percent.
Table 1: Number of interviews conducted by city
City
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
Frequency
114
116
111
115
108
117
111
115
105
1,012
Percent
11.3
11.5
11.0
11.4
10.7
11.6
11.0
11.4
10.4
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
9
Table 2: Dwelling type by city
City
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent in all cities
Private house
26
22.8
47
40.5
66
59.5
20
18.5
59
50.4
54
48.6
25
21.7
59
56.2
356
35.2
Apartment
88
77.2
45
38.8
45
40.5
115
100.0
88
81.5
58
49.6
57
51.4
90
78.3
46
43.8
632
62.5
Domic
24
20.7
24
2.4
Total
114
100.0
116
100.0
111
100.0
115
100.0
108
100.0
117
100.0
111
100.0
115
100.0
105
100.0
1,012
100.0
Table 3: Level of interest in the work of City Hall
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Somewhat uninterested
Very uninterested
Don’t know/can’t say
Total
Frequency
Percent
81
443
49
433
6
1,012
8.0
43.8
4.8
42.8
0.6
100.0
Valid Percent**
8.1
44.0
4.9
43.0
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.83 (1=Very interested and 4=Very uninterested; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
**Valid percent is percentage without don’t know/can’t say
Cumulative Percent
8.1
52.1
57.0
100.0
Armenia
Local Governance Program
10
Table 4: Means and breakdowns for level of interest in the work of City Hall by city (sorted by means)
Very
interested
Mean
Sisian
2.70
Gyumri
2.71
Kapan
2.75
Sevan
2.75
Alaverdi
2.78
Jermuk
2.84
Ijevan
2.85
Vanadzor
2.97
Yeghegnadzor
3.14
Total
2.83
Count
Percent Within city
Count
Percent Within city
Count
Percent Within city
Count
Percent Within city
Count
Percent Within city
Count
Percent Within city
Count
Percent Within city
Count
Percent Within city
Count
Percent Within city
Count
Percent in all cities
Somewhat
interested
15
13.5
11
9.5
11
10.3
7
6.0
6
5.3
10
8.9
9
8.2
9
7.8
3
2.9
81
8.1
Somewhat
uninterested
48
43.2
55
47.4
49
45.8
57
49.1
58
50.9
45
40.2
48
43.6
45
39.1
38
36.2
443
44.0
3
2.7
7
6.0
5
4.7
10
8.6
5
4.4
10
8.9
3
2.7
1
0.9
5
4.8
49
4.9
Very
uninterested
45
40.5
43
37.1
42
39.3
42
36.2
45
39.5
47
42.0
50
45.5
60
52.2
59
56.2
433
43.0
Total
111
100.0
116
100.0
107
100.0
116
100.0
114
100.0
112
100.0
110
100.0
115
100.0
105
100.0
1,006
100.0
(1=Very interested and 4=Very uninterested; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 5: Information source accessed about City Hall
Source
Television
Newspapers
Radio
Family, Friends, Neighbors, Workplace
City Hall, Other local government
Other
None
Don't know/Can't say
Total
Frequency
237
14
42
344
37
16
299
23
101
Percent
23.4
1.4
4.1
34.0
3.7
1.6
29.5
2.3
100.0
Cumulative Percent
23.4
24.8
28.9
62.9
66.6
68.2
97.7
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
11
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
51
44.7
71
61.2
5
4.5
3
2.6
21
19.4
22
18.8
28
25.2
35
30.4
1
1.0
237
23.4
2
1.8
1
0.9
1
0.9
13
11.3
9
8.3
1
0.9
6
5.4
3
2.6
14
1.4
6
5.4
5
4.3
4
3.8
42
4.2
22
19.3
20
17.2
53
47.7
53
46.1
35
32.4
56
47.9
35
31.5
28
24.3
42
40.0
344
34.0
5
4.4
1
0.9
3
2.7
4
3.5
4
3.7
6
5.1
4
3.6
3
2.6
7
6.7
37
3.7
2
1.8
30
26.3
18
15.5
43
38.7
32
27.8
34
31.5
30
25.6
29
26.1
35
30.4
48
45.7
299
29.5
1
0.9
5
4.3
1
0.9
1
0.9
1
0.9
4
3.5
1
1.0
16
1.7
Don't know/
Can't say
City
Hall/other
local
government
Family/
Friends/
Neighbors/
Workplace
Radio
2
1.8
3
2.6
None
Gyumri
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent in all cities
Other
Alaverdi
Newspapers
Television
Table 6: Information source accessed about City Hall by city
2
1.7
5
4.5
5
4.3
4
3.7
1
0.9
2
1.8
2
1.7
2
1.9
23
2.3
Armenia
Local Governance Program
12
Table 7: Accuracy of information source accessed
Source
Accurate
Somewhat accurate
Inaccurate
Don’t know/can’t say
Total
Frequency
Percent
249
351
56
34
690
36.1
50.9
8.1
4.9
100.0
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
38.0
53.5
8.5
100.0
38.0
91.5
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=1.71 (1=accurate and 3=inaccurate; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 8: Means and breakdowns for accuracy of information source accessed by city (sorted by means)
Mean
Sisian
1.61
Jermuk
1.64
Sevan
1.67
Ijevan
1.68
Alaverdi
1.69
Gyumri
1.72
Kapan
1.73
Yeghegnadzor
1.78
Vanadzor
1.85
Total
1.71
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent in all cities
Accurate
Somewhat
accurate
Inaccurate
35
46.7
34
44.7
29
35.8
23
39.0
31
38.8
34
36.6
22
34.4
17
31.5
24
32.4
249
38.0
34
45.3
35
46.1
50
61.7
32
54.2
43
53.8
51
54.8
37
57.8
32
59.3
37
50.0
351
53.5
6
8.0
7
9.2
2
2.5
4
6.8
6
7.5
8
8.6
5
7.8
5
9.3
13
17.6
56
8.5
Total
75
100.0
76
100.0
81
100.0
59
100.0
80
100.0
93
100.0
64
100.0
54
100.0
74
100.0
656
100.0
(1=accurate and 3=inaccurate; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 9a: Television source when accessed
Frequency
Armenian National Channel 1
Other Yerevan TV channel
Local TV
Don’t know
Total
6
8
222
1
237
Percent
2.5
3.4
93.7
0.4
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
13
Table 9b: Newspaper source when accessed
Frequency
Percent
14
14
100.0
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Local newspaper
Total
Table 9c: Radio source when accessed
Local radio
Total
42
42
100.0
100.0
Table 10: Level of how well informed about City Hall
Frequency
Very well informed
Somewhat informed
Somewhat not informed
Not at all well informed
Don’t know/ can't say
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
5.1
49.3
6.5
38.9
0.1
100.0
5.1
49.4
6.5
39.0
100.0
52
499
66
394
1
1,012
Cumulative
Percent
5.1
54.5
61.0
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.79 (1=very well informed and 4=not at all informed; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 11: Means and breakdowns for level of how well informed about City Hall by city (sorted by means)
Mean
Gyumri
2.62
Alaverdi
2.65
Jermuk
2.74
Sisian
2.74
Kapan
2.81
Vanadzor
2.84
Ijevan
2.87
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Very
well
informed
4
3.4
9
7.9
7
6.1
9
8.1
3
2.8
4
3.5
6
5.4
Somewhat
informed
69
59.5
61
53.5
57
49.6
53
47.7
57
52.8
59
51.3
51
45.9
Somewhat
not
informed
10
8.6
5
4.4
10
8.7
7
6.3
5
4.6
3
2.6
5
4.5
Not at all
well
informed
33
28.4
39
34.2
41
35.7
42
37.8
43
39.8
49
42.6
49
44.1
Total
116
100.0
114
100.0
115
100.0
111
100.0
108
100.0
115
100.0
111
100.0
Armenia
Local Governance Program
14
Mean
Sevan
2.89
Yeghegnadzor
2.99
Total
2.79
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent in all cities
Very
well
informed
4
3.4
6
5.7
52
5.1
Somewhat
informed
54
46.6
38
36.2
499
49.4
Somewhat
not
informed
9
7.8
12
11.4
66
6.5
Not at all
well
informed
49
42.2
49
46.7
394
39.0
Total
116
100.0
105
100.0
1,011
100.0
(1=very well informed and 4=not at all informed; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 12: Level of satisfaction with information about City Hall
Frequency
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat unsatisfied
Very unsatisfied
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
Percent
103
436
134
292
47
1,012
Valid Percent
10.2
43.1
13.2
28.9
4.6
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
10.7
45.2
13.9
30.3
100.0
10.7
55.9
69.7
100.0
Mode=2 Mean= 2.64 (1=very satisfied and 4=very unsatisfied; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 13: Means and breakdowns for level satisfaction with information about City Hall by city (sorted by means)
Mean
Jermuk
2.39
Alaverdi
2.50
Gyumri
2.52
Ijevan
2.52
Sevan
2.64
Yeghegnadzor
2.71
Kapan
2.78
Vanadzor
2.84
Sisian
2.85
Total
2.64
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent in all cities
Very
satisfied
11
10.3
12
10.7
13
11.6
14
13.3
10
8.7
11
11.2
10
10.2
14
12.4
8
7.6
103
10.7
(1=very satisfied and 4=very unsatisfied; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Somewhat
satisfied
63
58.9
58
51.8
54
48.2
52
49.5
54
47.0
38
38.8
38
38.8
37
32.7
42
40.0
436
45.2
Somewhat
unsatisfied
13
12.1
16
14.3
19
17.0
9
8.6
18
15.7
17
17.3
14
14.3
15
13.3
13
12.4
134
13.9
Very
unsatisfied
20
18.7
26
23.2
26
23.2
30
28.6
33
28.7
32
32.7
36
36.7
47
41.6
42
40.0
292
30.3
Total
107
100.0
112
100.0
112
100.0
105
100.0
115
100.0
98
100.0
98
100.0
113
100.0
105
100.0
965
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
15
Table 14: Levels of satisfaction with work of City Hall
Frequency
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat unsatisfied
Very unsatisfied
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
105
535
62
253
57
1,012
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
10.4
52.9
6.1
25.0
5.6
100.0
11.0
56.0
6.5
26.5
100.0
11.0
67.0
73.5
100.0
Mode=2 Mean= 2.48 (1=Very satisfied and 4=Very unsatisfied; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 15: Means and breakdowns for level of satisfaction with work of City Hall by city (Sorted by means)
Very
satisfied
Mean
Jermuk
2.19
Ijevan
2.36
Gyumri
2.39
Alaverdi
2.46
Kapan
2.53
Yeghegnadzor
2.54
Sisian
2.55
Sevan
2.58
Vanadzor
2.77
Total
2.48
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent in all cities
23
20.9
14
13.1
14
12.3
11
10.5
6
6.1
8
8.2
11
10.3
8
7.5
10
9.1
105
11.0
Somewhat
satisfied
62
56.4
65
60.7
64
56.1
60
57.1
62
63.3
56
57.7
57
53.3
60
56.1
49
44.5
535
56.0
Somewhat
unsatisfied
6
5.5
3
2.8
13
11.4
9
8.6
2
2.0
6
6.2
8
7.5
8
7.5
7
6.4
62
6.5
Very
unsatisfied
19
17.3
25
23.4
23
20.2
25
23.8
28
28.6
27
27.8
31
29.0
31
29.0
44
40.0
253
26.5
Total
110
100.0
107
100.0
114
100.0
105
100.0
98
100.0
97
100.0
107
100.0
107
100.0
110
100.0
955
100.0
(1=Very satisfied and 4=Very unsatisfied; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 16: The work of City Hall is better, the same or worse than last year
Better
Same
Worse
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
499
382
46
85
1,012
49.3
37.7
4.5
8.4
100.0
53.8
41.2
5.0
100.0
53.8
95.0
100.0
Mode=1 Mean= 1.51 (1=Better, 2-Same and 3=worse; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Armenia
Local Governance Program
16
Table 17: Means and breakdowns for differences in the work of City Hall between years (Sorted by means)
Mean
Gyumri
1.37
Ijevan
1.40
Kapan
1.40
Alaverdi
1.45
Vanadzor
1.47
Jermuk
1.57
Sisian
1.62
Sevan
1.66
Yeghegnadzor
1.68
Total
1.51
Better
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent in all cities
71
67.0
69
63.9
60
63.2
61
57.0
65
59.1
51
49.5
44
44.0
43
41.3
35
37.2
499
53.8
Same
31
29.2
35
32.4
32
33.7
44
41.1
38
34.5
45
43.7
50
50.0
53
51.0
54
57.4
382
41.2
Worse
Total
4
3.8
4
3.7
3
3.2
2
1.9
7
6.4
7
6.8
6
6.0
8
7.7
5
5.3
46
5.0
106
100.0
108
100.0
95
100.0
107
100.0
110
100.0
103
100.0
100
100.0
104
100.0
94
100.0
927
100.0
(1=Better, 2-Same and 3=worse; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 18: Have tried to obtain information from City Hall
Frequency
170
842
1,012
Yes
No
Total
Percent
16.8
83.2
100.0
Table 19: Have tried to obtain information from City Hall by city
City
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Frequency
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Percent
16
14.0
20
17.2
14
12.6
25
21.7
11
10.2
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
City
Sevan
17
Frequency
Percent
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent all cities
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
22
18.8
21
18.9
18
15.7
23
21.9
170
16.8
Table 20: Where/why appealed to in city government
City Hall/City Council–employment inquiry
City Hall/ City Council–land/housing problem
City Hall/ City Council–various documents
City Hall/ City Council–property privatization
City Hall/ City Council–city services
City Hall/ City Council–aid assistance
City Hall/ City Council–other problems
Refused to answer
Total
Frequency
Percent
30
29
31
12
17
32
17
2
170
17.6
17.1
18.2
7.1
10.0
18.8
10.0
1.2
100.0
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
5
45.5
17.2
2
12.5
11.8
3
18.8
9.4
3
15.0
9.4
1
6.3
5.9
1
6.3
50.0
3
21.4
17.6
2
8.0
11.8
3
12.0
9.4
3
27.3
9.4
2
14.3
11.8
2
8.0
11.8
2
18.2
11.8
Totals
Refused to
answer
2
10.0
16.7
1
7.1
8.3
Other
problems
1
6.3
3.2
1
5.0
3.2
5
35.7
16.1
3
52.0
41.9
Aid
assistance
4
25.0
13.8
8
40.0
27.6
2
14.3
6.9
City services
4
25.0
13.3
6
30.0
20.0
1
7.1
3.3
5
20.0
16.7
1
9.1
3.3
Property
privatization
Various
documents
Gyumri
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Land/housin
g problem
Alaverdi
Employment
inquiry
Table 21: Where/why appealed to in city government by city
16
100.0
9.4
20
100.0
11.8
14
100.0
8.2
25
100.0
14.7
11
100.0
6.5
5
22.7
29.4
2
9.5
11.8
1
5.6
5.9
2
8.7
11.8
17
10.0
100.0
1
5.6
3.2
9
39.1
29.0
31
18.2
100.0
4
18.2
12.5
5
23.8
15.6
3
16.7
9.4
8
34.8
25.0
32
18.8
100.0
3
13.6
17.6
3
14.3
17.6
3
16.7
17.6
1
4.3
5.9
17
10.0
100.0
1
4.8
50.0
2
1.2
100.0
Table 22: Problems in obtaining the requested information
Frequency
Percent
Yes
49
28.8
No
121
71.2
Total
170
100.0
Table 23: Problems in obtaining the requested information by city
City
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Frequency
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Percent
4
25.0
8
40.0
2
14.3
1
4.0
7
63.6
9
40.9
6
28.6
5
27.8
Totals
2
9.1
16.7
3
14.3
25.0
3
16.7
25.0
1
4.3
8.3
12
7.1
100.0
Refused to
answer
1
4.5
3.2
Other
problems
City services
Total
1
4.5
3.4
4
19.0
13.8
4
22.2
13.8
1
4.3
3.4
29
17.1
100.0
Property
privatization
Yeghegnadzor
6
27.3
20.0
3
14.3
10.0
3
16.7
10.0
1
4.3
3.3
30
17.6
100.0
Various
documents
Vanadzor
Land/housin
g problem
Sisian
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Count
Percent within city
Percent within question
Employment
inquiry
Sevan
Aid
assistance
Armenia
Local Governance Program
18
22
100.0
12.9
21
100.0
12.4
18
100.0
10.6
23
100.0
13.5
170
100.0
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
City
Yeghegnadzor
19
Frequency
Percent
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Total
7
30.4
49
28.8
Table 24: Types of problems encountered when trying to obtain information from city government
Frequency
Problems obtaining necessary documents
Officials promise but respondents never see results
Bureaucratic red tape
Official rejected respondent’s requests
Total
Percent
4
12
16
17
49
8.2
24.5
32.7
34.7
100.0
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
1
25.0
1
12.5
1
100.0
1
14.3
1
50.0
3
33.3
4
66.7
1
20.0
4
8.2
3
42.9
12
24.5
1
25.0
5
62.5
1
50.0
2
50.0
2
25.0
3
42.9
2
22.2
1
16.7
3
60.0
3
42.9
4
44.4
1
16.7
1
20.0
4
57.1
17
34.7
16
32.7
Total
Officials
reject
requests
Bureaucrati
c red tape
Officials
promise but
no results
City
Problems
obtaining
necessary
documents
Table 25: Types of problems encountered when trying to obtain information from city government by city
4
100.0
8
100.0
2
100.0
1
100.0
7
100.0
9
100.0
6
100.0
5
100.0
7
100.0
49
100.0
Armenia
Local Governance Program
20
Table 26a: Central government in Yerevan is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
20
276
360
276
80
1,012
Percent
Valid Percent
2.0
27.3
35.6
27.3
7.9
100.0
Cumulative Percent
2.1
29.6
38.6
29.6
100.0
2.1
31.8
70.4
100.0
Mode= 3 Mean=2.96 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 26b: The Marzpet is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
Frequency
Percent
28
311
309
221
143
1,012
2.8
30.7
30.5
21.8
14.1
100.0
Valid Percent
3.2
35.8
35.6
25.4
100.0
Cumulative Percent
3.2
39.0
74.6
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.83 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 26c: City Hall is very interested in and pays proper attention to what people like me think
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
Frequency
Percent
83
470
227
139
93
1,012
8.2
46.4
22.4
13.7
9.2
100.0
Valid Percent
9.0
51.1
24.7
15.1
100.0
Cumulative Percent
9.0
60.2
84.9
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.46 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 26d: If I had a problem and needed help from City Hall, I would know whom to contact
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
Frequency
Percent
231
533
169
25
54
1,012
22.8
52.7
16.7
2.5
5.3
100.0
Valid Percent
24.1
55.6
17.6
2.6
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=1.99 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Cumulative Percent
24.1
79.7
97.4
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
21
Table 26e: I am pleased with water and sewage services
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
164
511
173
161
3
1,012
Percent
Valid Percent
16.2
50.5
17.1
15.9
0.3
100.0
16.3
50.6
17.1
16.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
16.3
66.9
84.0
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.33 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 26f: City Hall does a good job in solving the city’s problems
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
80
546
218
51
117
1,012
Percent
7.9
54.0
21.5
5.0
11.6
100.0
Valid Percent
8.9
61.0
24.4
5.7
100.0
Cumulative Percent
8.9
69.9
94.3
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.27 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 26g: City Hall does better job this year than last year in solving the city’s problems
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
83
506
243
45
135
1,012
Percent
Valid Percent
8.2
50.0
24.0
4.4
13.3
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.29 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
9.5
57.7
27.7
5.1
100.0
Cumulative Percent
9.5
67.2
94.9
100.0
Armenia
Local Governance Program
22
Table 26h: I have more information about City Hall activities this year than last year
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
28
384
469
58
73
1,012
Percent
Valid Percent
2.8
37.9
46.3
5.7
7.2
100.0
Cumulative Percent
3.0
40.9
49.9
6.2
100.0
3.0
43.9
93.8
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.59 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 26i: I would be more active in local politics if I had more information about City Hall activities
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
142
447
309
49
65
1,012
Percent
Valid Percent
14.0
44.2
30.5
4.8
6.4
100.0
Cumulative Percent
15.0
47.2
32.6
5.2
100.0
15.0
62.2
94.8
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.28 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 26j: If I had more information about the budget, I would be more active in following City Hall decisions
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/ can’t say
Total
135
394
352
57
74
1,012
Percent
13.3
38.9
34.8
5.6
7.3
100.0
Valid Percent
14.4
42.0
37.5
6.1
100.0
Mode=2 Mean=2.35 (1=strongly agree and 4=strongly disagree; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Cumulative Percent
14.4
56.4
93.9
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
23
1.77
2.18
1.88
1.77
2.03
2.00
2.07
2.18
2.03
2.52
2.17
1.94
1.88
2.21
3.24
2.34
2.16
2.47
2.25
2.16
2.15
2.01
2.34
2.48
2.40
2.27
2.41
2.25
2.22
2.15
2.11
2.24
2.43
2.48
2.29
2.41
2.54
2.50
2.50
2.51
2.63
2.66
2.69
2.60
2.72
More active
re: budget if
more info
2.38
2.44
2.26
2.29
2.43
2.48
2.65
2.64
2.54
City Hall
does good
job solving
problems
y
does better
job this year
than last
More info
this year
than last
year
More active
re: City Hall
if more info
2.77
3.11
2.59
2.86
2.78
3.11
2.85
2.79
2.61
Pleased with
water/
sewage
City Hall
interested
3.08
3.07
2.72
2.91
2.97
3.13
2.93
2.94
2.84
Know whom
to contact
when
problem
Marzpet
interested
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Central
Government
interested
Table 27: Means for attitude measures in Tables 26a through 26j
(Bold indicates highest agreement with statement within city)
2.30
2.55
2.34
2.31
2.10
2.25
2.21
2.23
2.22
2.32
2.51
2.39
2.44
2.22
2.35
2.29
2.78
2.37
Table 28: Means by city for attitudes toward City Hall solving problems this year better than last year
Strongly
Agree
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
9
8.9
11
10.4
13
12.5
19
19.4
5
6.0
7
7.7
4
3.8
12
12.0
3
3.3
83
9.5
Agree
61
60.4
68
64.2
68
65.4
54
55.1
58
69.9
43
47.3
51
49.0
51
51.0
52
57.8
506
57.7
Disagree
28
27.7
20
18.9
17
16.3
20
20.4
15
18.1
36
39.6
44
42.3
33
33.0
30
33.3
243
27.7
Strongly
Agree
3
3.0
7
6.6
6
5.8
5
5.1
5
6.0
5
5.5
5
4.8
4
4.0
5
5.6
45
5.1
Total
101
100.0
106
100.0
104
100.0
98
100.0
83
100.0
91
100.0
104
100.0
100
100.0
90
100.0
877
100.0
Armenia
Local Governance Program
24
Table 29: Means by city for attitude toward having more information this year than last year about the activities of City Hall
Strongly
Agree
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
1
1.0
4
3.7
4
3.8
8
7.6
2
2.1
1
0.9
2
1.9
5
4.5
1
1.1
28
3.0
Agree
47
44.8
52
47.7
53
50.5
41
39.0
40
41.7
41
37.6
37
34.9
42
37.8
31
33.3
384
40.9
Disagree
56
53.3
48
44.0
39
37.1
50
47.6
46
47.9
61
56.0
59
55.7
56
50.5
54
58.1
469
49.9
Strongly Agree
1
1.0
5
4.6
9
8.6
6
5.7
8
8.3
6
5.5
8
7.5
8
7.2
7
7.5
58
6.2
105
100.0
109
100.0
105
100.0
105
100.0
96
100.0
109
100.0
106
100.0
111
100.0
93
100.0
939
100.0
Table 30a: Name of the Mayor
Frequency
Correct answer
Incorrect answer
Don't know
Total
957
21
34
1,012
Percent
94.6
2.1
3.4
100.0
Table 30b: Mayor elected or appointed
Frequency
Elected (correct answer)
Appointed
Don’t know
Total
923
57
32
1,012
Total
Percent
91.2
5.6
3.2
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
25
Table 30c: Marzpet elected or appointed
Frequency
Appointed (correct answer)
Elected
Don't know
Total
616
270
126
1,012
Percent
60.9
26.7
12.5
100.0
Table 30d: When City Council meetings take place
Correct answer
Incorrect answer
Don’t know
Total
Frequency
Percent
14
78
920
1,012
1.4
7.7
90.9
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Table 30e: Name a member of the City Council
Correct answer
Incorrect answer
Don't know
Total
479
122
411
1,012
47.3
12.1
40.6
100.0
Table 30f: When city budget is approved
Frequency
Correct answer
Incorrect answer
Don’t know
Total
26
97
889
1,012
Percent
2.6
9.6
87.8
100.0
Table 30g: Who decides land/property tax
Frequency
Correct answer (tax inspectorate)
Incorrect answer
Don't know
Total
103
293
616
1,012
Percent
10.2
29.0
60.9
100.0
Armenia
Local Governance Program
26
Table 30h: If problem with income tax, where would go
Frequency
Correct answer (tax inspectorate)
Incorrect answer
Nowhere/no one
Don’t know/can’t say
Total
Percent
171
452
51
338
1,012
16.9
44.7
5.0
33.4
100.0
Table 30hh: Incorrect answers given
Frequency
City Hall/Mayor
Marzpetaran/Marzpet
Offices of the Village leader
Offices of the Neighborhood leader
Offices of the Community leader
Workplace
Court
Cadastre
BShD
Other (National Assembly, Ministry, etc.)
Total
Percent
370
13
15
2
6
6
5
4
18
13
452
81.9
2.9
3.3
0.4
1.3
1.3
1.1
0.9
4.0
2.9
100.0
Table 30i: If problem with water/sewage, where would go
Frequency
Correct answer (water/sewage supply enterprise or zheck)
Incorrect answer
Nowhere/no one
Don’t know/can’t say
Total
745
161
74
32
1,012
Percent
73.6
15.9
7.3
3.2
100.0
Table 30ii: Incorrect answers given
Frequency
City Hall/Mayor
Marzpetaran/Marzpet
Offices of the Village leader
Offices of the Neighborhood leader
Offices of the Community leader
Other (National Assembly, Ministry, etc.)
Total
132
2
13
1
7
6
161
Percent
82.0
1.2
8.1
.6
4.3
3.7
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
27
Total within Question
100.0
68.1
12.8
32.8
7.9
1.7
7.7
13.8
15.5
22.4
15.2
81.0
12.6
100.0
96.4
11.6
70.3
12.7
34.2
7.9
3.6
15.4
4.5
4.9
13.58.8
64.09.5
100.0
95.7
11.5
92.2
11.5
56.5
10.6
1.7
14.3
62.6
15.0
2.6
11.5
8.7
9.7
12.2
8.2
65.2
10.1
100.0
88.0
9.9
85.2
10.0
72.2
12.7
0.9
7.1
38.0
8.6
0.9
3.8
12.0
12.6
22.2
14.0
75.0
10.9
100.0
98.3
12.0
95.7
12.1
57.3
10.9
5.1
42.9
60.7
14.8
2.6
11.5
11.1
12.6
11.1
7.6
61.5
9.7
100.0
97.3
11.3
87.4
10.5
57.7
10.4
1.8
14.3
50.5
11.7
6.3
26.9
18.9
20.4
30.6
19.9
80.2
11.9
100.0
89.6
10.8
88.7
11.1
56.5
10.6
35.7
8.6
2.6
11.5
7.0
7.8
16.5
11.1
91.3
14.1
100.0
94.3
10.3
95.2
10.8
67.6
11.5
44.8
9.8
1.9
7.7
7.6
7.8
8.6
5.3
62.9
8.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.3
11.9
91.4
11.5
94.6
11.0
2.6
21.4
100.0
for income
tax
problems
80.7
12.3
43.0
8.0
When city
budget
approved
Who
decides
your
land/propert
Wheret to go
14.9
9.9
88.6
10.9
Name
member of
City Council
7.9
8.7
94.7
11.3
When City
Council
meets
Total within
city
Sisian
Percent within city
Percent within question
Vanadzor
Percent within city
Percent within question
Yeghegnadzor
Percent within city
Percent within question
0.9
3.8
Marzpet
appointed
Gyumr
Percent within city
Percent within question
Ijevan
Percent within city
Percent within question
Jermuk
Percent within city
Percent within question
Kapan
Percent within city
Percent within question
Sevan
Percent within city
Percent within question
65.8
15.7
Mayor
elected
Alaverdi
Percent within city
Percent within question
Where to go
for
water/sewag
e problem
Name Mayor
Table 31: Correct answers to knowledge questions in Tables 28a through 28i by city
(Bold indicates highest correct answer percentage within city)
Table 32a: Willingness to pay for waste collection
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
518
374
118
2
1,012
Percent
Valid Percent
51.2
37.0
11.7
0.2
100.0
Mean=1.60 Mode=1 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
51.3
37.0
11.7
100.0
Cumulative Percent
51.3
88.3
100.0
Armenia
Local Governance Program
28
Table 32b: Willingness to pay for streetlights
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
Frequency
Percent
319
401
275
17
1,012
31.5
39.6
27.2
1.7
100.0
Valid
Percent
32.1
40.3
27.6
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
32.1
72.4
100.0
Valid
Percent
23.6
41.8
34.6
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
23.6
65.4
100.0
Valid
Percent
38.7
29.4
31.9
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
38.7
68.1
100.0
Valid
Percent
56.1
22.6
21.3
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
56.1
78.7
100.0
Mean=1.96 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 32c: Willingness to pay for landscaping streets
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
234
415
343
20
1,012
Percent
23.1
41.0
33.9
2.0
100.0
Mean=2.11 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 32d: Willingness to pay for control of street dogs and cats
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
381
289
314
28
1,012
Percent
37.6
28.6
31.0
2.8
100.0
Mean=1.93 Mode=1 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 32e: Willingness to pay for centralized heating
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
561
226
213
12
1,012
Percent
55.4
22.3
21.0
1.2
100.0
Mean=1.65 Mode=1 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
29
Table 32f: Willingness to pay for public transportation
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
Percent
361
407
224
20
1,012
35.7
40.2
22.1
2.0
100.0
Valid
Percent
36.4
41.0
22.6
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
36.4
77.4
100.0
Valid
Percent
28.2
37.9
33.9
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
28.2
66.1
100.0
Valid
Percent
31.4
38.2
30.4
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
31.4
69.6
100.0
Mean=1.86 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 32g: Willingness to pay for maintenance of roads
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
Percent
279
374
335
24
1,012
27.6
37.0
33.1
2.4
100.0
Mean=2.06 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 32h: Willingness to pay for nursery schools
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
Frequency
Percent
308
374
298
32
1,012
30.4
37.0
29.4
3.2
100.0
Mean=1.99 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 32i: Willingness to pay for music and arts schools
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
304
362
314
32
1,012
Percent
30.0
35.8
31.0
3.2
100.0
Mean= 2.01 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Valid
Percent
31.0
36.9
32.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
31.0
68.0
100.0
Armenia
Local Governance Program
30
Table 32j: Willingness to pay for sports schools
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
284
369
328
31
1,012
Percent
28.1
36.5
32.4
3.1
100.0
Valid
Percent
29.0
37.6
33.4
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
29.0
66.6
100.0
Mean=2.04 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 32k: Willingness to pay for libraries
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
276
368
338
30
1,012
Percent
27.3
36.4
33.4
3.0
100.0
Valid
Percent
28.1
37.5
34.4
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
28.1
65.6
100.0
Mean=2.06 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 32l: Willingness to pay for maintenance of city monuments
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
247
431
320
14
1,012
Percent
24.4
42.6
31.6
1.4
100.0
Valid
Percent
24.7
43.2
32.1
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
24.7
67.9
100.0
Mean=2.07 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 32m: Willingness to pay for maintenance of apartment buildings
Frequency
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
268
409
321
14
1,012
Percent
26.5
40.4
31.7
1.4
100.0
Valid
Percent
26.9
41.0
32.2
100.0
Mean=2.05 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Cumulative
Percent
26.9
67.8
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
31
Table 32n: Willingness to pay for maintenance of cemeteries
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Not at all willing
Don't know/can't say
Total
Frequency
Percent
375
411
208
18
1,012
37.1
40.6
20.6
1.8
100.0
Valid
Percent
37.7
41.3
20.9
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
37.7
79.1
100.0
Mean=1.83 Mode=2 (1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
1.39
1.85
1.71
1.60
1.62
1.69
1.91
1.40
1.71
1.65
1.65
1.95
1.91
1.83
1.84
1.91
2.05
1.72
1.90
1.86
2.00
2.29
1.99
2.11
2.00
2.07
2.03
2.10
1.90
2.06
1.96
2.21
1.98
1.92
1.97
2.03
2.04
1.91
1.87
1.99
1.99
2.25
1.97
1.93
2.11
2.09
1.96
1.85
1.93
2.01
2.02
2.28
2.06
1.97
2.06
2.10
2.06
1.89
1.95
2.04
2.03
2.30
2.12
2.01
2.05
2.12
2.06
1.90
1.97
2.06
32l:
monument
maintenance
32m:
apartment
maintenance
32n:
cemetery
maintenance
32k:
libraries
1.84
1.88
2.04
2.12
1.87
2.07
1.93
1.92
1.69
1.93
32j: sports
schools
2.07
2.19
2.13
2.10
2.07
2.11
2.22
2.15
1.93
2.11
32i: music
and arts
schools
1.81
2.00
2.05
2.08
1.91
2.02
1.97
1.97
1.78
1.96
32h: nursery
schools
1.55
1.66
1.65
1.71
1.49
1.71
1.55
1.59
1.50
1.60
32c:
landscaping
streets
32d: control
street
dogs/cats
32e:
centralized
heating
32f: public
transportati
on
32g:
maintenance
of roads
32b: street
lights
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
32a: waste
collection
Table 33: Table of means for willingness to pay measures in Table 32a through 32n by city
(Bold indicates service with highest percentage of willingness to pay within city)
2.02
2.29
2.03
2.07
1.98
2.12
2.00
2.17
1.96
2.07
(1=very willing and 3=not at all willing; don’t know/can’t say excluded)
Table 34: Name of the Chairman of the National Assembly
Frequency
Correct answer
Incorrect answer
Don't know
Total
642
94
276
1,012
Percent
63.4
9.3
27.3
100.0
1.98
2.19
2.10
1.93
2.00
2.17
2.08
1.98
2.03
2.05
1.84
1.83
1.75
1.95
1.79
1.88
1.84
1.80
1.81
1.83
Armenia
Local Governance Program
32
Table 35: Breakdowns by cities name of the Chairman of the National Assembly
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent all cities
Correct
Answer
84
73.7
72
62.1
60
54.1
70
60.9
67
62.0
82
70.1
65
58.6
69
60.0
73
69.5
642
63.4
Incorrect
Answer
8
7.0
12
10.3
10
9.0
11
9.6
12
11.1
11
9.4
11
9.9
8
7.0
11
10.5
94
9.3
Don’t know/
Can’t say
22
19.3
32
27.6
41
36.9
34
29.6
29
26.9
24
20.5
35
31.5
38
33.0
21
20.0
276
27.3
Total
114
100.0
116
100.0
111
100.0
115
100.0
108
100.0
117
100.0
111
100.0
115
100.0
105
100.0
1,012
100.0
Table 36: Name of the Deputy from this district in the National Assembly
Frequency
Correct answer
Incorrect answer
Don't know
Total
Percent
290
115
376
781
37.1
14.7
48.1
100.0
Gyumri and Vanadzor are excluded because they have more than one deputy
Table 37: Breakdowns by cities the name of the Deputy from this district in the National Assembly
Alaverdi
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Correct
Answer
71
62.3
21
18.9
14
12.2
Incorrect
Answer
4
3.5
9
8.1
18
15.7
52
48.1
Don’t know/
Can’t say
39
34.2
81
73.0
83
72.2
56
51.9
Total
114
100.0
111
100.0
115
100.0
108
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
Sevan
Sisian
Yeghegnadzor
Total
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent all cities
Correct
Answer
64
54.7
57
51.4
63
60.0
290
37.1
Incorrect
Answer
14
12.0
8
7.2
10
9.5
115
14.7
33
Don’t know/
Can’t say
39
33.3
46
41.4
32
30.5
376
48.1
Total
117
100.0
111
100.0
105
100.0
781
100.0
Table 38: Age
Demographic Measures
Median
44.00
Max
70
Mean
44.61
Min
18
Table 39: Gender by city
Male
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent in all cities
21
18.4
25
21.6
33
29.7
38
33.0
25
23.1
36
30.8
38
34.2
30
26.1
29
27.6
275
27.2
Female
93
81.6
91
78.4
78
70.3
77
67.0
83
76.9
81
69.2
73
65.8
85
73.9
76
72.4
737
72.8
Total
114
100.0
116
100.0
111
100.0
115
100.0
108
100.0
117
100.0
111
100.0
115
100.0
105
100.0
1,012
100.0
Armenia
Local Governance Program
34
Table 40: Highest level of education obtained
Frequency
Primary school (4 years)
Incomplete secondary school
Secondary school 8 years
Secondary school 10 years
University, college, technical school
Completed university degree (4 or 5 years)
Advanced graduate university degree
Total
Percent
12
24
56
299
434
186
1
1,012
1.2
2.4
5.5
29.5
42.9
18.4
0.1
100.0
Table 41: Anyone in household with full or part time job and/or self-employment
2002
Frequency
Yes
No
Total
589
423
1,012
2001
Percent
Frequency
58.2
41.8
100.0
2000
Percent
525
410
935
Frequency
56.1
43.9
100.0
502
471
937
Percent
51.6
48.4
100.0
Table 42: If apartment, membership in condominium association
Yes
Alaverdi
Gyumri
Ijevan
Jermuk
Kapan
Sevan
Sisian
Vanadzor
Yeghegnadzor
Total
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent within city
Count
Percent all cities
2
2.3
2
4.4
17
37.8
14
12.2
49
55.7
7
12.1
3
5.3
28
31.1
6
13.0
128
20.3
No
76
86.4
36
80.0
22
48.9
90
78.3
28
31.8
46
79.3
44
77.2
48
53.3
36
78.3
426
67.4
Don't know/
Can't say
10
11.4
7
15.6
6
13.3
11
9.6
11
12.5
5
8.6
10
17.5
14
15.6
4
8.7
78
12.3
Total
88
100.0
45
100.0
45
100.0
115
100.0
88
100.0
58
100.0
57
100.0
90
100.0
46
100.0
632
100.0
Local Government Assistance Program Technical Assistance Project
Report on 2002 Second Follow-up Household Survey Findings
35
Table 43: Income sources (multiple responses permitted)
2002
Frequency
Pensions
Paros or other
government social
welfare payments
Disability payments
Sale of personal
valuables
Money from
relatives/friends
outside Armenia
Loans
Child or single mother
support payments
Unemployment
payments
Money from
relatives/friends in
Armenia
Income from rental of
property
Money from charity
Income from interest
and dividends
Other
2001
Percent of
total (1,012)
Frequency
2000
Percent of
total (935)
Frequency
Percent of
total (973)
474
46.8
464
49.6
500
51.4
185
18.3
243
26.0
275
28.3
167
16.5
186
19.9
176
18.1
102
10.1
124
13.3
193
19.8
140
13.8
115
12.3
93
9.6
50
4.9
93
9.9
106
10.9
85
8.4
56
6.0
79
8.1
59
5.8
41
4.4
90
9.2
45
4.4
34
3.6
28
2.9
20
2.0
15
1.6
12
1.2
14
1.4
9
1.0
6
0.6
8
0.8
6
0.6
3
0.3
1
0.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
APPENDIX A
Responses to open-ended question asking for the one most important function of the
National Assembly besides writing and passing laws
Don’t know/can’t say
Nothing else
Take care of citizens
Implementation of laws
Have interest in citizens problems
Improve well being of the citizens
Represent the interests of the citizens
Control over the implementation of laws
To create workplaces
Think only about their own needs and fill their pockets
To solve the problems of the country
Fight with each other and do nothing
To discuss and approve budget
To fulfill their promises
To answer citizens' letters
To protect the law
Develop the constitution
To protect the constitution
Approval of the constitution
Provide live radio broadcast of the N/A sessions so that the people hear them
Reestablishment of people’s trust to the government
To implement stable prices because of privatization
Develop a law giving privatized factories to the workers
To restore the earthquake zone
Karabagh problem, political problems
To make arbitrations
Abolishment of illegality
To maintain discipline
To be accurate
Have normal behavior during the sessions
To raise questions about president's impeachment, questions about the constitution
Collaborate with and assist in the work of the government
Develop a code of conduct
Establish democracy
To come together and talk
Give back the money saved in banks during the soviet times
Make concrete decisions on how to solve problems of Armenia
Open factories, construct apartments buildings
To solve educational problems
To establish foreign relations
To make jokes
394
48
90
87
84
75
67
46
22
22
16
12
11
6
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1