3. The Relationship between Public Trust and Indicators
3.2 How Do Local Public Agencies Deal with Citizen
and Requests?
The procedure of dealing with requests and com-plaints is divided into the following major steps: re-ceiving; referring; resolving/responding; and receiving feedback. Inadequate and low quality treatment at any step can be read as an abuse. Citizens’ satisfaction with responsiveness, as well as with the quality of treatment received, speaks volumes about how abusive a given procedure is.
Filing a complaint or request for information or a service often represents the only direct contact that exists between local government agencies and citizens.
As Hatry, et al., suggest, “as a result, such contacts frequently become the primary basis for citizen perceptions of government efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness” (1992, 147). Thus, how well a government handles complaints and requests is an extremely important factor in the shaping of public opinion toward local agencies.
The willingness and ability of citizens to make their complaints known to their government depends on the ease with which a citizen can file a complaint. As noted, this ease itself depends on citizens’ ability to access in-formation on complaint-handling mechanisms—how and where to register a complaint, hours of operation, telephone numbers, procedures, and so on. In other words, access to information requires clarity in proce-dures used to identify and reach a person or office that can help with a request or complaint.
In this regard, this study examined citizens who: a) filed a request, or b) did not file a request. In Figure 5, this data is presented as the percentage of respondents who found it difficult or impossible to request service and requests that were disposed of satisfactorily/unsat-isfactorily (as judged by complainants).
For the purposes of this report, “unreported com-plaints” refers to those cases in which unsatisfied clients do not make their potential complaints known to a government through official filing procedures. Data on unreported complaints and related reasons for not reporting provide clues as to how a local government handles complaints and requests, and encourages or discourages citizen reporting.
100 [%]
Tbilisi Gori Zestaponi Mtskheta
0 20 40 60 80
93 94 96
Have filed a compliant Have not filed a compliant
93
Figure 5.
Reported and Unreported Complaints (as Percentage of Respondents Not Satisfied with Provided Services)
The study revealed that, although almost all re-spondents (90 percent in Mtskheta, 92 percent in Gori, and 100 percent in Zestaponi and Tbilisi) are unhappy with services provided by local government entities, only 4 percent in Mtskheta, 6 percent in Gori, 7 percent in Zestaponi, and Tbilisi had filed an administrative complaint to: the boss of a specific employee; an insti-tution itself; a local executive branch; a local council;
or a court. The study also found that the majority of complaints are submitted to local executive branches and local councils.
Based on the above data, the level of unreported complaints is extremely high (Figure 5). Despite dissat-isfaction with received services, 96 percent in Mtskheta, 94 percent in Gori, 93 percent in Zestaponi, and 93 percent in Tbilisi never made their potential complaints known to any responsible agency or official.
What are the reasons for this striking tendency?
The data suggests that the inaccessibility and inefficien-cy of complaint-handling and processing mechanisms play a significant role in deterring citizens from voicing complaints (Figure 6).
Most respondents contended that “it does not make sense to file a complaint” to local authorities. Specifical-ly, respondents suggested that filing a complaint would not produce any meaningful outcome. This suggests a pervasive sense of powerlessness among the Georgian population. Many respondents also found that filing a complaint to be “difficult and time-consuming process.”
This directly reflects the complicated (and discouraging) structure and procedures of the current complaint-filing mechanism. Finally, some respondents simply do not
know how to file a complaint. In Tbilisi, this might be explained by the size of the city. There are only a couple of agencies and offices in small towns, which simpli-fies the process for citizens. Tbilisi’s population is close to quarter of the country’s population; therefore, the number of public and local institutions and agencies is high. This likely contributes to confusion about how to approach the right institution with specific requests or complaints.
The Administrative Code provides that citizen re-quests for information or service should be answered in written form by the receiving (responsible) jurisdiction within 10 days, unless the request calls for special re-search that requires additional time. According to survey results, the median response time for each type of serv-ice request received, or for the resolution of justifiable complaints, varied between three days to two months.
However, interviews with officials revealed that, due to the lack of citizen awareness, complaints are often filed inappropriately. For example, many complaints about local issues are submitted to central agencies and are either re-submitted at the local level to a responsible agency or simply filed away and ignored.
This study was performed with the assumption that the improved accessibility of complaint-filing mecha-nisms will likely result in an increase in the number of complaints. In addition, improved accessibility (con-venience of intake of citizen requests, quality treatment, and speedy disposition) will serve to positively affect the image of local government and facilitate citizen-local government contact and partnership.
Tbilisi Gori Zestaponi Mtskheta
[%]
100
0 20 40 60 80
Reporting procedures did not make sense
Found reporting process difficult and time-consuming Did not know how to file a complaint
Other reasons
Figure 6.
Reasons for Failing to File a Complaint
3.2.1 Client Satisfaction with the Quality of Treatment
In order to survey citizen satisfaction with treatment by a local government (when requesting information and services, or filing a complaint), this study used the following criteria to address public “happiness” with the jobs local government institutions provide:
a) speed of information provision;
b) simplicity of administrative procedures;
c) fairness of personnel;
d) quality of service;
e) responsiveness of personnel; and f ) professionalism of personnel.
Based on the above criteria, in all four localities, it appears as though the local population was extremely unhappy with local government performance. The most dramatic results were observed in Tbilisi, where 100 percent of respondents voiced dissatisfaction with all above-mentioned criteria. Figure 7.1 through 7.6 show the results of this research. Finally, it is impor-tant to note that during in-depth interviews, people frequently complained about: the readiness of officials to accept or demand a present, bribe, or favor; their unprofessional and incompetent approach; and their unhelpfulness (such as sending people from one office to another).
Figure 7.1
Dissatisfied with Speed of Service Provision [%]
Figure 7.2
Dissatisfied with Administrative Procedures [%]
100 [%]
Tbilisi Gori Zestaponi Mtskheta
0 20 40 60 80
100
65
82
Unhappy with speed of service provision
75
100 [%]
Tbilisi Gori Zestaponi Mtskheta
0 20 40 60 80
100
82 89
Unhappy with complicated administrative procedures
70
Figure 7.3.
Dissatisfied with Level of Fairness in Treatment by Personnel [%]
100 [%]
Tbilisi Gori Zestaponi Mtskheta
0 20 40 60 80
100
72
90
Unhappy with the fairness in treatment by personnel
70
Figure 7.4.
Dissatisfied with Service Quality [%]
100 [%]
Tbilisi Gori Zestaponi Mtskheta
0 20 40 60 80
100
74
85
Unhappy with the quality of service
81
Figure 7.5.
Dissatisfied with Responsiveness of Personnel [%]
100 [%]
Tbilisi Gori Zestaponi Mtskheta
0 20 40 60 80
100
65
98
Unhappy with unresponsiveness of personnel
80
3.2.2 Satisfaction with Response to Complaint as Judged by Complainant
In all surveyed cities, a significant number of filed complaints had not been solved satisfactorily (as judged by complainants): 60 percent of filed com-plaints in Mtskheta, 92 percent in Gori, 60 percent in Zestaponi, and 88 percent in Tbilisi (Figure 8).
The study did not seek specifics on the topics of complaints; rather, details on where complaints were filed or requested. Data suggests that the highest number of complaints was filed with executive offices and local councils. In addition, research revealed that the highest number of satisfactorily solved complaints (as judged by complainants) were accommodated by local executive offices.
3.3 Relationship among Availability