The Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program Midterm Performance Evaluation By Margarita Corral, Ph.D. Georgina Pizzolitto, M.A. Mitchell A. Seligson, Ph.D. Scientific Coordinator and Editor The Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) Vanderbilt University This study was carried out with support from the Program in Democracy and Governance of the United States Agency for International Development. The opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of the United States Agency for International Development. September 2016 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 2 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 3 Contents List of acronyms and abbreviations ....................................................................................... 5 List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 6 Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 7 Understanding the Figures in this Study .......................................................................... 10 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 11 Background .......................................................................................................................... 12 Data Sources ........................................................................................................................ 14 Sources Data Used in this Performance Evaluation ......................................................... 14 Qualitative component ..................................................................................................... 16 Questionnaire Design ....................................................................................................... 17 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 18 I. Prepared Citizens for Climate Change ...................................................................... 18 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 27 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 28 II. Addressing People with Disabilities Needs .......................................................... 28 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 33 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 34 III. Strengthening citizen participation ........................................................................ 35 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 52 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 54 IV. Fiscal Transparency ............................................................................................... 55 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 62 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 62 References ............................................................................................................................ 64 Annexes................................................................................................................................ 65 Annex 1: Fieldwork Dates................................................................................................ 65 Annex 2: Training, Pretest and Fieldwork Pictures ......................................................... 66 Annex 3: Letter of Informed Consent .............................................................................. 67 Annex 4: Questionnaires .................................................................................................. 68 Annex 5: Graphs by Demographic Characteristics ........................................................ 116 Annex 6: Statistical Compendium .................................................................................. 138 Annex 7: Responses to Specific Questions Asked by USAID/ Nicaragua ................... 178 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 4 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 5 List of acronyms and abbreviations CC Climate Change Component CPC Consejo del Poder Ciudadano CPCSOCP Citizen Participation and Civil Society’s Organizational Capacity Program CDM Municipal Development Committees DPO Disabled Peoples Organizations FTP Fiscal Transparency Program LAPOP Latin American Public Opinion Project NMGP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program MGP Municipal Governance Program RACCS Southern Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region USAID United States Agency for International Development Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Incumbent Government Works to Confront Climate Change .............................. 19 Figure 2. Environmental Protection and Seriousness of Climate Change, 2015 ................. 20 Figure 3. Sources of Family’s Income ................................................................................. 22 Figure 4. Actions Taken to Confront Climate Change, 2015 .............................................. 24 Figure 5. Participation in Municipality-sponsored climate change activities by demographic characteristics, 2015 ............................................................................................................. 24 Figure 6. Government should spend more Money to Fight Climate Change ...................... 25 Figure 7. Government Protects the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Approval of them Running for Office ...................................................................................................... 29 Figure 8. Institution that Should Ensure Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. .............................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 9. Attitudes towards Persons with Disabilities ......................................................... 33 Figure 10. Participation in Different Types of Organizations ............................................. 36 Figure 11. Participation in Council/Municipal meetings across the Americas .................... 37 Figure 12. Participation in Community Meetings ................................................................ 39 Figure 13. Participation in Community Meetings by gender ............................................... 39 Figure 14. Participation in Different Types of Organizations II .......................................... 41 Figure 15. Participation in Different Types of Organizations III ........................................ 42 Figure 16. Participation in Groups of Women ..................................................................... 43 Figure 17. Knowledge of Different Types of Organizations ............................................... 44 Figure 18. Knowledge of Municipal Development Committees by demographic characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 19. Mayor’s interest in people’s participation and knowledge of CPCs .................. 46 Figure 20. CPC’s Main Role ................................................................................................ 47 Figure 21. Opinions and Attitudes towards Women I ......................................................... 48 Figure 22. Opinions and Attitudes towards Women II ........................................................ 49 Figure 23. Beliefs Regarding Which Political Leaders are More Corrupt .......................... 50 Figure 24 . Attitudes towards Homosexuals ........................................................................ 51 Figure 25. Opinions about the General Budget of the Republic .......................................... 55 Figure 26. Social Audits and Municipal Accountability ..................................................... 57 Figure 27. How citizens ask for information to the municipality ........................................ 58 Figure 28. Requested help from the municipality ................................................................ 59 Figure 29. Getting information from the municipality ........................................................ 60 Figure 30. Municipal Budget ............................................................................................... 61 Figure 31. Trust in the Local Government ........................................................................... 61 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 7 Executive summary In 2011 USAID/Nicaragua started implementing the Municipal Governance Program (MGP) in selected municipalities located in the North and South Corridors of Nicaragua. The goal of the program was to strengthen citizen participation and the capacity of civil society organizations at the local level to enable them to engage and influence decision makers in order to improve local governance and development. Since 2011, the program changed its area of implementation as well as its design. As new components were added to the program, USAID/Nicaragua began implementation in new municipalities. It also ceased implementation in some of the municipalities that were originally selected and were part of the baseline study conducted by the Latin American Public Opinion Program (LAPOP). As of 2015, the Municipal Governance Program has three components that focus on different aspects of local governance and development: (1) Local Governance (that includes Citizens Participation and Organizational Development), (2) Prepared Citizens for Climate Change and (3) Fiscal Transparency. The results presented in this report evaluate the performance of the interventions implemented in selected Nicaraguan municipalities, covering all of the four components mentioned above. In 2015, the USAID Mission in Nicaragua, asked LAPOP to conduct a performance evaluation of the MGP. To conduct this evaluation, and take into consideration the changes in the program made by USAID, LAPOP re-visited four of the municipalities surveyed in a 2011 baseline study, and added four additional municipalities (all located in the RACCN region of Nicaragua) in which USAID had begun implementing the MGP after 2011.1 In an attempt to accommodate the USAID Missions’ priorities (i.e., including the newly added municipalities) within the limited resources available, made it impossible to include in the 2015 round of surveys the control municipalities that had been surveyed in the 2011 baseline. Not having a control group prevents us from ruling out the impact of other influences on the outcomes even though we can compare the “before and after” impact of the program for the subset of the treated municipalities for which we have data. Specifically, not having the control group of municipalities prevents us from using impact evaluation methodologies like as was planned in the original design. Without the control group of municipalities, we are not able know how the municipalities that did not receive the program performed compared to those that did receive treatment. However, we are able to follow the 2011 treatment municipalities and the new 2015 municipalities over time. The data from the latter will presumably be compared with future rounds of surveys to measure program implementation performance.2 The mid-evaluation results presented in this report includes 1 It is important to highlight that no baseline data are available for these municipalities added after LAPOP conducted the original baseline. This absence imposes another limitation on this evaluation since we cannot assess differences before and after the programs were implemented. 2 Although this evaluation strategy can provide important results, it is important to highlight its limitations. It might be the case that the results reported in this performance evaluation may be underestimated since the true achievements, if any, may have occurred prior to the baseline year. If, for example, the initial treatment raised the mean value of certain indicators, all or most of the gains may have occurred during that period and then leveled off. In that case, over time, the program may simply be retaining that initial achievement. In other words, if the evaluation finds no difference in the indicators between the baseline round of surveys and the next one, that should not be taken to mean that the counter-factual (the removal of the program) would mean levels Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 8 the data from quantitative face-to-face interviews as well as focus groups and in-depth interviews with stakeholders. When possible all selected indicators are compare with the country’s national average. In general terms, the program has thus far had a noticeable impact in several key outcome indicators even though the constraints enumerated above3 . One of the limitations of this evaluation, imposed by constraints on the program and not a limitation imposed by the LAPOP analysis, is that we do not have baseline data for all the treated municipalities, and therefore we cannot assess differences before and after the programs were implemented. We also are missing data on control municipalities, as explained above. We have been able to carry out this over-time comparison only for the municipalities in the South. For many of the indicators we can only compare the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean municipalities in 2015 without over-time data. There is a moderate agreement among respondents that the incumbent government deals with climate change in both the South-Center and Southern Caribbean municipalities. However, fewer than 50% of respondents in both regions believe that environmental protection should be a priority over economic growth. At the same time, respondents recognized that climate change is a very serious problem and poses a threat to citizens’ wellbeing. Respondents believe that climate change is going to have a big impact on their future economic situation if no actions are taken to reduce it. Quantitative and qualitative data support the idea that public institutions and the central government should keep allocating resources and increase its efforts to adapt and mitigate climate change effects. There was a general consent among focus group participants that the programs promoted by USAID represent almost the only systematic initiative that offered practical solutions. These solutions can be applied in the communities and are based on technical and comprehensive design. Levels of perceived discrimination against people with disabilities are high in both regions. There is high support for the idea that the disabled should participate in Cabildos or municipal meetings to defend their rights. Although levels of support are higher in the South￾Center municipalities than in the Southern Caribbean. Focus group participants highlighted the important role that non-governmental organization are playing in supporting and promoting the equality of opportunities and the rights of persons with disabilities. The support given to persons with disabilities and disabled people organization was recognized to go beyond the training and programmed activities under this component. Members of the various organizations that participated in a focus group noted that in addition to the training activities, having participated in the program helped them to expand their incidence in the communities and in the public sector agenda by increasing their visibility in society. Citizens’ participation in city council meetings or Cabildos is low in both regions. Civil society participation in referendums is around 10%. In the Southern Caribbean municipalities would have stayed the same, since the main effect of the program could have occurred in its initial phase, for which we do not have data. 3 As mentioned before these limitations have to do with the lack of baseline data in some municipalities, a control group and the impossibility of using an impact evaluation methodology like the difference in difference method. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 9 is more prevalence the participation in Asambleas de Pobladores than in the South-Center municipalities, which in the period 2011- 2015 have not experience a significant change. Civil society participation in other types of meetings have increased in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015, going from 14.20% to 28.53%. In the Southern Caribbean, the percentage in 2015 is similar to that in the South-Center (30.29%). Citizens organization and participation, is especially significant in the process of public consultation, elaboration of local development plans, activities organized at the neighborhood level showing citizens awareness of the importance of social dialogue over conflict and confrontation as a catalyst for community development. Focus group participants agreed that the participation in Cabildos and the Municipal Development Committees (CDM) are among the most effective mechanisms that civil society has to express their opinion and needs. In general, focus groups participants and respondents showed high levels of knowledge of the national budget, what it is, how it is approved, why it is important, etc. At the same time they recognize that in general there is a lack of knowledge among Nicaraguans about the national budget. While there are legal norms and procedures for civil society consultations and participation in the development of the national budget, these mechanisms are not employed and sometimes unknown. Limitations remain for citizens or civil society organizations to obtain accurate and timely information about the budget’s definitions and components. Participants agreed that government authorities do not seem to have any interest in providing adequate information on the budget. The information that is available is said to be very limited and related to those programs that can generate more political advantages for the government. These opinions are also highlighted in regards to the budget at the municipal level. General recommendations for program implementation includes the extension of the program’s scope and coverage to other areas and communities in the region; improve the coordination with municipal government institutions and authorities; improve coordination and cooperation with the National Government. Improve the targeting of the training and program related activities to reach more vulnerable groups (less educated, women, poor population) and minorities (LGTB, Afro descendants and Indigenous populations.). Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 10 Understanding the Figures in this Study It is important for the reader to understand that each data point has a confidence interval, expressed in terms of a range surrounding that point. Most graphs in this study show a 95% confidence interval that takes into account the fact that this sample is “complex” (i.e., stratified and clustered per standard practices in survey sample design). In bar charts this confidence interval appears as a grey block. The dot in the center of a confidence interval depicts the estimated mean. The numbers next to each bar in the bar charts represent the values of the dots. When the superior limit of one bar crosses the estimated points of another bar, the difference between the two values is usually not statistically significant at p<0.05, meaning that where there is substantial overlap in confidence intervals (grey blocks), the reader should assume that the differences between two estimates are not reliably distinguishable from an estimate of no difference. Please note that there are two typical measures presented in graphs: percentages and means. The former reflect the percent of the sample or sub-group with a particular reported behavior, attitude, or evaluation. The latter represent a mean (average) level on a variable that is scaled from 0 to 100 (per the LAPOP standard, all scales are recoded via a linear transformation to a 0 to 100 scale for ease of comparison); the mean on the 0-100 scale can be understood as the degree to which (i.e., how many points out of 100) the sample or sub￾group possesses that reported behavior, attitude, or evaluation. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 11 Introduction The National Academy of Sciences4 has pointed out the need for an increase in the number of scientifically rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of democracy and governance interventions. Other foreign assistance organizations and government policymakers have similarly recognized the importance of program evaluations (Sherman et al 1998; Bamberger et al 2010). USAID currently has in place a formal policy5 of requiring these rigorous program evaluations for their key programs in each Mission. The USAID Municipal Governance Program (MGP) offers an opportunity for carrying out such a study. USAID Nicaragua has asked LAPOP at Vanderbilt University, which has more than 20 years of experience in conducting policy-relevant surveys in Latina America, to design and carry out a midterm performance evaluation of each of the four components of the Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program (MGP). This report presents the research used to complete such a task as well as the main results and recommendations. The objective of the USAID MGP is to strengthen citizen participation and civil society’s organizational capacity to influence decision-makers for the purpose of improving local governance and development. The Program’s geographical coverage is focused on the country’s southeast corridor, in the departments of Chontales, Rio San Juan and the South Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region (RACCS). To evaluate the effectiveness of USAID MGP, LAPOP collected a baseline survey in 2011 in 37 municipalities in the North and South corridors of Nicaragua. 26 of those municipalities (i.e., the treated group) were going to receive the implementation of the programs, and the rest, 11, formed the control group. These municipalities in the control group had similar characteristics to those in the treatment group but would not receive the intervention. By looking at changes in the treatment municipalities and comparing them to changes in control municipalities we could have answered with greater certainty the question, “What would these municipalities have looked like had there not been a USAID program in operation?” This, then, would have been an impact evaluation. However, changes in the implementation of the program after this baseline was collected limited the scope of this evaluation, changing it from an impact evaluation to a performance evaluation, as there is no longer a control group. This means that change, or lack of change, might be attributable to some factor other than the program itself. For all we know, conditions in the original control municipalities could have deteriorated sharply since 2011, and steady state in the treatment municipalities would have been considered a success6 . In 2015, LAPOP collected data in 4 Southern municipalities with existing baseline information and also in 3 new municipalities and Managua for a midterm evaluation. In this midterm evaluation, we are only able to compare the “before and after” impact of the program for those 4 municipalities in the South-Center. Given that we do not have baseline data for the 4 National Research Council, Jack A. Goldstone, Larry Garber, John Gerring, Clark C. Gibson, Mitchell A. Seligson, and Jeremy Weinstein. 2008. Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press. 5 USAID Evaluation Policy, January, 2011. 6 It is recommended to include a control group of municipalities in the final evaluation of the program. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 12 municipalities in the Southern Caribbean, we can only make comparisons between those municipalities in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean in 2015. In other words, as we do not have control groups, the main question to answer is: Have there been any changes in certain outcomes in the treated communities between the time before the implementation of the MGP program and the conditions we observe at the midterm 2015 evaluation? In addition to the survey data collected in these municipalities, LAPOP conducted 5 focus groups and 25 in-depth interviews in the implementing municipalities. By interviewing key persons knowledgeable of the program and the municipalities, LAPOP gathered important qualitative information related to the programs and the situation in each municipality. The qualitative data collected is presented interactively in this report as a multi-methods strategy to enhance the quantitative findings. This mid-term performance evaluation seeks to provide USAID Nicaragua with relevant information on the program’s key outcome indicators and evaluate to what extent the program is contributing to improve the effectiveness of local governance. The policy and program implementation recommendations derived from this performance evaluation should serve as a guideline to make management and program implementation decisions of this and future USAID programs. Background The USAID Municipal Governance Program (MGP) is a six-year initiative being implemented by Global Communities (previously CHF) between 2010 and 2016. Its objective is to strengthen citizen participation and civil society’s organizational capacity to influence decision-makers for the purpose of improving local governance and development. The program has three components that focus on different aspects of local governance and development: (1) Local Governance (that includes Citizens Participation and Organizational Development), (2) Prepare Citizens for Climate Change and (3) Fiscal Transparency. The program is being implemented on the country’s southeast corridor, in the departments of Chontales, Rio San Juan and the South Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region (RACCS). The Program works in cooperation with Nicaraguan NGOs, universities and professional specialists to successfully implement the planned activities. The program actively seeks the involvement of youth, women, indigenous and Afro-descendant, people with disabilities (PwD) and other vulnerable groups, as well as with media to provide visibility to the development of its actions. The Climate Change component seeks to increase the resilience of the people and natural resources in the Southern Caribbean region of Nicaragua to mitigate long-term effects of climate change by promoting the participation of vulnerable populations in the adaptation￾planning process. Some of the activities included advocacy training for community leaders, communication and awareness campaigns, and the creation of a civil sector climate change coordinating coalition (e.g., a Community-Public Sector Dialogue on Climate Change). Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 13 Through the Local Governance component and the Citizen Participation and Organizational Development sub-components, citizens are learning how to engage local governments to influence decision making, provide effective oversight, and demand accountability of the municipal governments. This sub-component looks to strengthen disabled peoples’ organizations and empower people with disabilities in the indigenous and Afro-descendent communities of the Southern Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region (RACCS) to increase civic participation and advocate on behalf of their constituents to achieve equality of rights and opportunities for people with disabilities. Some of the activities included sign language courses to improve the communication capabilities of deaf individuals, training sessions on national and international legal frameworks that protect the rights of people with disabilities, regular meetings with women with disabilities, and the use of radio to promote the rights of people with disabilities. Finally, the Fiscal Transparency component the program fosters and supports citizens' demands for a more open, participatory and transparent budgeting process by enabling civil society organizations working at the national level to provide feedback to national budget decision makers and by encouraging advocacy for access to public fiscal information and budget oversight. In order to achieve these goals, several activities have been planned: a Virtual Observatory, "Our Budget"7 , use of traditional and social media to educate citizens on budget transparency, workshops to train journalists on budget transparency and public contracting, networking and collaboration with political leaders and other organizations. At the local level, activities under this component support citizen participation around local budget cycles including advocacy during budget consultation and demand for accountability of use of public resources. Table 1 presents a description of the program and summarizes the goals and objectives of each of the program components. 7 Our Budget is a user-friendly virtual Observatory with information about Nicaragua´s General Budget. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 14 Table 1: Program Description Data Sources This section describes the data and methods used in this report to carry out a program evaluation of USAID’s Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program. Sources Data Used in this Performance Evaluation In the year 2011, LAPOP conducted a baseline survey in municipalities that had been slated to become participants of the Municipal Governance Program (MGP) that the USAID Mission in Nicaragua was about to initiate. The survey also included a control group of municipalities, that is, municipalities that shared similar characteristic with the treatment Municipal Governance Program Component 1: Local Governance 1.1 Citizen participation Promote citizens’ rights and responsibilities in local governance and development through: - Awareness-building and education campaigns to inform and sensitize the public regarding its rights and responsibilities to participate in local development decisions; - Training of civil society organizations (CSOs) and the citizens to participate effectively with local governments; - Support to partner CSOs and the citizens in advocacy activities and citizen participation in local administration. - Empower PwD in the indigenous and afro-descendent communities of the RACCS to increase civic participation to advocate on behalf of their constituents to achieve equality of rights and opportunities for PwD. 1.2 Organizational development - Strengthen civil society’s organizational ability to conduct effective advocacy together with citizens and provide sustainability to those actions through the development of institutional capacities. - Promote local and community leadership with democratic values, independent criteria and social sensitivity. - Increase the effectiveness CSOs (including Disabled Persons Organizations) to mobilize their base, engage public and private actors, mobilize resources, execute projects and increase the effectiveness of communication plans and outreach to local and national stakeholders. Component 2: Fiscal Transparency Increase citizen awareness of and demand for fiscal transparency in Nicaragua and support citizen dialogue with local and national budget policy decision-makers. Component 3: Prepare Citizens for Climate Change Increase the resilience of the people and natural resources in the Caribbean region of Nicaragua to the long-term impacts of climate change by promoting the participation of vulnerable populations in the adaptation planning process. - Provide indigenous and Afro-descendant communities with the knowledge and tools to engage and participate in local adaptation planning processes. - Strengthen coordination, advocacy, citizen participation and dialogue between the communities and the communal, municipal and regional governments. - Create opportunities to identify, develop and implement options for local adaptation plans with the communities. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 15 municipalities but that were not part of the program. In the years after the baseline survey, the design and geographic location of the MGP was changed based upon USAID mission new priorities. As a consequence, not all of the municipalities that were selected to be part of the “treatment” ended up being part of the program. On the other hand, new municipalities were added to the project for which no baseline data had been collected by LAPOP. In 2015, LAPOP was asked to conduct a midterm performance evaluation on the municipalities where USAID is implementing the MGP. This evaluation includes the 5 municipalities that were surveyed in the 2011 baseline data collected by LAPOP and municipalities that were later incorporated in the program by USAID and for which no baseline data are available. The 2011 baseline survey was carried out between April and May of 2011 and the fieldwork was conducted by Borge y Asociados. The sample was representative of the voting-age population (16 and older). In total, the sample consisted of 26 treatment and 11 control municipalities. A total of 3,016 people were interviewed in the 37 municipalities. In 2015, data collection took place between December 2014 and January of 2015 and the fieldwork was again conducted by Borge y Asociados. From the 2011 survey, only the municipalities of San Pedro de Lovago, Santo Domingo, Muelle de los Bueyes and El Almendro were re-surveyed in 2015, the others having been eliminated from consideration by USAID. Among the municipalities added by USAID in the MGP that were included in the 2015 survey are: Laguna de Perlas, Bluefields, Corn Island and Managua. In the case of Managua, data were collected as part of a study that LAPOP conducted in the RACCN region8 that included Managua. A total of 387 interviews were conducted in Managua. LAPOP surveys follow a probability design (i.e., a “random” sample), improved via stratification by municipality in order to ensure that each of the selected municipalities is covered. The survey design follows a multi-stage stratified process. For this survey, the sampling points or census segments in each municipality in urban and rural areas were selected once the municipalities were selected. The first stage consisted of the selection of census segments within each stratum or municipality using the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) method. In the second stage, clusters of 8 households were randomly selected within each census segment. Finally, in the third stage of the sample design, a quota sample by gender and age was employed for selecting a respondent in each household. Throughout the report, data will be analyzed by regions: (1) Managua, (2) South-Center and (3) Southern Caribbean. The samples at the municipal level are generally too small to be analyzed with confidence. This survey sample design has a ±4.4% margin of error with a 95% confidence level, which in our opinion will provide sufficiently accurate mean estimates when municipalities are grouped at regional level. Table 2 presents the list of municipalities and sample sizes surveyed by LAPOP in 2011 and 2015 and tare part of this midterm performance evaluation. 8 For more information see Rodriguez M. and Donoso J.C. (2016) “Survey Study of Citizen Security in the Northern Caribbean-Center Coast in Nicaragua and Targeted Municipalities of the Northern and Southern Borders”, LAPOP, Vanderbilt University. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 16 Table 2: Sample Distribution by Region Due to Mission budget constraints, the control group of municipalities surveyed in the 2011 baseline were not surveyed again in 2015. This means that while we can compare the “before and after” impact of the program (Round 1 [2011] vs. Round 2 [2015]) for the treated municipalities, we do not have a control group that enables us to rule out the impact of other influences on the outcome. Specifically, not having the control group of municipalities does not allow us to use the difference-in-difference methodology to measure the program’s impact. Without the control group of municipalities, we are not able to know how the municipalities that did not receive the program performed compare to those that did receive treatment. However, we are able to follow the treated municipalities over time and compare indicators over time. In the case of the municipalities that were added to the program after the baseline, our objective is to collect information that can be later used to evaluate the over￾time performance of the program in these municipalities. Qualitative component As part of this performance evaluation, LAPOP conducted a total of 9 focus groups and 25 in-depth interviews. The objective of these interviews were to gather qualitative information by interviewing key persons knowledgeable of the program and the municipality. The questionnaires used in the qualitative interviews are provided in Appendix 5. The profile of stakeholders and focus groups participants was determined by LAPOP in collaboration with the USAID Mission in Nicaragua. Focus groups and in-depth interviews took place in November 2015, as detailed in Annex 1 of this report. Table 3, presents a brief description of the focus groups and in-depth interviews conducted in each municipality. 2011 2015 Managua Managua - 387 387 San Pedro de Lovago 72 72 144 Santo Domingo 72 72 144 Muelle de Los Bueyes 96 96 192 El Almendro 80 80 160 Laguna de Perlas - 48 48 Bluefields - 304 304 Corn Island - 32 32 Total 320 1211 1531 Region Municipality Year Total South Caribbean Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 17 Table 3: Focus Groups and In-depth Interviews While stakeholders and focus group participants were not selected on a probability basis and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the municipality as a whole, the information gathered in the interviews provides critical insights into the perceptions of selected members regarding each of the components of the Municipal Governance Program. The rationale of having this qualitative component in this performance evaluation is to enhance the quantitative findings, providing a richer and more comprehensive analysis. Questionnaire Design For comparability purposes, the questionnaire to be used in 2015 is similar to the questionnaire used in the 2011 baseline survey. The 2015 questionnaire includes a new set of questions about disability, climate change and fiscal transparency to evaluate the new components of the program. Of course, we do not have baseline data from 2011 for components of the program that were added later. LAPOP, in conjunction with the USAID mission in Nicaragua reviewed the 2011 questionnaire, identified any necessary changes and discussed the additional questions. Municipality Focus Groups In-Depth interviews 3 students + 2 Civil Society Organization + 1 National Assembly Deputies + 2 Journalists + 1 Program implementer partners TOTAL 9 interviews 3 stakeholders (NGO, women, Youth, Municipal Councils, etc.) + 1 Program implementer partners TOTAL 4 interviews Disability Program 3 per program (NGOs, Youth, Municipal Councils, etc.) + 3 Program implementer partners Civil Society Participation Climate Change TOTAL 12 interviews Total 5 Focus groups 25 in-depth interviews Managua Fiscal Transparency Chontales Civil Society Participation Bluefields Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 18 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations In this section, we present the main results for a wide range of measures that evaluate the effectiveness of USAID’s Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program comparing the two samples conducted in selected municipalities located in the South-Center corridor and the Southern Caribbean of Nicaragua in 2011 and 2015. These measures tap into the four topics addressed by each component and sub-component within the MGP: Prepared Citizens for Climate Change component, Addressing Persons with Disabilities needs component, Citizen Participation component and Fiscal Transparency component. In addition to the survey data, we also report on the qualitative data from of in-depth interviews with community stakeholders and focus groups. We present some of the qualitative findings to help explain and understand the quantitative findings. After describing each indicator, and presenting the results of the different comparisons over time and/or between the north and south corridors, we review some of the conclusions and offer recommendations. I. Prepared Citizens for Climate Change In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Climate Change component, LAPOP included several questions in the 2015 sample to assess Nicaraguans’ opinions and evaluations about climate change, mainly about the importance of climate change, how the government and they personally are dealing with this issue, and the impact that climate change can have on their lives and in the future development of their country. Given that these questions were only asked in 2015, we present a comparison between the municipalities in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean. The first question on this topic asks citizens for their opinion about the extent to which they think that the current administration is working to confront climate change. Respondents used a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all and 7 means a lot. However, to more easily and interpret the data, we transformed this variable into a 0-100 scale: NICCLI1. Cambiando de tema ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual trabaja para enfrentar el cambio climático? Figure 1 shows the results comparing the averages obtained in each of the two corridors. The grey areas represent the 95% confidence intervals and the “dot” the estimated mean. When two estimated points have confidence intervals that overlap, it means that the difference between those two values is not statistically significant. Results show that citizens in both the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean share similar views regarding the extent to which the incumbent government confronts climate change. On a 0-100 scale, these averages fall around 60 points, which indicates moderate levels of government work fighting climate change. Participants in the in-depth interviews acknowledge the existence of national programs to prepare for climate change, as one of the respondents from Bluefields said: Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 19 “….ya hay un plan Nacional de adaptación contra el cambio climático… El gobierno ya está tomando acciones, ya está tomando medidas si te das cuenta hay una estrategia de cambio climático, hay fondos asignados para la explotación de los recursos naturales y la explotación pero de una forma sostenible”. However, another participant pointed out some of the limitations of the national programs mainly because of the lack of regulations and guidelines, in her own words: “El Gobierno Central tiene una política, pero se queda en política porque no hay un reglamento no hay una regulación que te diga o que te obligue a que en cada lugar se elabore un plan de adaptación, por ejemplo un plan mitigación y adaptación, se queda en política que el cambio climático nos está afectando, que hay que tomar medidas de esto y de lo otro digamos como líneas de dirección pero no hay nada más concreto a eso.” Figure 1. Incumbent Government Works to Confront Climate Change A series of questions was designed to capture Nicaraguans’ opinions about the environment in general and the extent to which climate change is a serious problem for the country, for their well-being, and for their own economic situation. Figure 2 depicts the results of the following four questions: ENV1. En su opinión, ¿a qué debe darse más prioridad: proteger el medio ambiente o promover el crecimiento económico? (1) Proteger el medio ambiente (2) Promover el crecimiento económico (3) [No leer] Ambas (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP ENV2. Si no se toman acciones para reducir el cambio climático en el futuro, ¿Qué tan serio sería esto para Nicaragua? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Muy serio (2) Algo serio (3) Poco serio (4) Nada serio (88) NS (89) NR 60.67 59.75 0 20 40 60 80 Government works to confront climate change South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 20 ENV5. ¿Cree usted que el cambio climático representa un riesgo para su bienestar y el de su familia? (1) Si (2) No (88) No sabe (98) No responde ENV3. Pensando ahora en su situación económica. Si no se toman acciones para reducir el cambio climático en el futuro, ¿Qué tan serio sería esto para su situación económica en el futuro? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1)Muy serio (2) Algo serio (3) Poco serio (4) Nada serio (88) NS (89) NR The upper left graph of Figure 2 shows that a little less than half of the respondents in both the Southern municipalities (49.06%) and the Southern Caribbean municipalities (46.53%) believe that environmental protection should be a priority over economic growth. The difference between those two percentages is not statistically significant. When talking about climate change and its level of seriousness and the impact it might have, we also observe similar views between these two groups of municipalities. On a 0-100 scale, respondents in the South-Center (92.14) and in the Southern Caribbean (90.71), think, on average, that climate change is a very serious issue. Also, Nicaraguans in these two regions perceive climate change as a problem that poses a threat to their own wellbeing and that of their families. In this case, there is a statistically significant difference between the South￾Center (95.61%) and the Southern Caribbean (89.32%). Finally, the graph on the bottom left shows that, on average and at similar levels, Nicaraguans in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean (88.01 and 85.90 points, respectively) believe that climate change is going to have a big impact on their future economic situation if nobody takes the steps to reduce climate change. Figure 2. Environmental Protection and Seriousness of Climate Change, 2015 49.06% 46.53% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Prioritize environmental protection South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 92.14 90.71 0 20 40 60 80 100 Serious problem if no measures are taken South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95.61% 89.32% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Climate change is a risk for my family's well-being South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 88.01 85.90 0 20 40 60 80 100 Serious for my economy if no measures are taken South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 21 Participants in some of the in-depth interviews agree that climate change is impacting communities and families’ economies. Several respondents in Bluefields pointed out that climate change is generating droughts at the community level: (“Si, definitivamente vivimos en un sitio costero las sequias están siendo cada vez más fuerte y las inundaciones”), impacting the stability of infrastructures (“… ha habido una inestabilidad en cuanto a estas afectaciones principalmente en infraestructura han sido bastante dañadas y eminentemente ha habido un riesgo a la seguridad de la personal”), crops, decreasing capture fisheries, which can lead to more diseases and more vulnerable families. As another respondent says: “Si de hecho que si podría tener un impacto por lo mismo que le decía independientemente que nosotros estemos fortaleciendo la capacidad de los productores pero biológicamente va a ver un impacto en el cual los patrones climatológicos vienen cambiando entonces ya cambia el periodo de cosecha adicionalmente acordémonos que la cuestión de cambio climático también nos traen enfermedades que son más mortales todavía para las plantas y esto conlleva que haya una disminución en la producción que tenemos acá en la Región…Si hablamos de campo urbano te comentaba que el pequeño tornado que hubo hace como quince días destruyo las viviendas, estas personas quedaron sin hogar digámoslo así otras personas perdieron sus pertenecías al ser evacuados y movilizados, vamos a que también pierden ingresos económicos en estas eventualidades porque es un costo que no lo teníamos presupuestado y si nos vamos a la zona rural muchos de los productores pierden sus cultivos, sus cosechas entonces ya no hay una buena producción.” Another participant points out that: “Claro que si ha reducido un poco la producción agrícola hemos visto nosotros que es en base a los patrones climatológicos es decir en los periodos en cuanto lo que es inviernos y lo que es verano han cambiado un poco y en base a eso la actividad en la agricultura tiene que ir meramente planificada para la gestación que se está viviendo entonces es ahí donde nosotros hemos visto cambios y disminución en lo que es la agricultura”. When asked about the tension between protecting the environment and economic growth, several respondents point out that both aspects should be taken into account. “Yo creo que eso es algo recíproco porque vamos a hablar de nosotros como Nicaragua, nuestra mayor economía está en base a la explotación sostenible que se le pueda dar a los recursos naturales, debemos de desarrollar primero acciones de conservación y protección pero que podamos hacer una explotación sostenible de los recursos naturales de igual forma generar fuentes de empleo también”. A focus group participant summarizes climate change impacts by saying: “…lo que más impacta, el cambio climático se refleja en lo siguiente: La irregularidad por ejemplo de las lluvias para las cosechas, nadie está seguro, ningún campesino está seguro cuando sembrar, porque no sabe cuándo va a llover y cuando va a sembrar, este los otros impactos son por ejemplo, los ríos por el despale que se ha dado, entonces se ha cambiado, de modo que ahora los ríos, el cauce se ha desviado.” Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 22 We now present the distribution of families’ income sources in the Southern and the Southern Caribbean municipalities. Figure 3 presents the percentages of respondents under each economic activity. The left side shows that, in the Southern municipalities, 23.1% of respondents said that their family’s income comes from livestock, followed by 21.9% from the provision of services, 20.6% from agriculture, and 20.9% indicates an undefined “other “category. When looking at the right side of Figure 3, we observe a similar pattern in the Southern Caribbean region; the only difference is that fishery is a common source of income for families there, with 18.5% of families identifying it as their income source. NICING1. ¿De qué actividad/rubro provienen los mayores ingresos de la familia? [LEER OPCIONES. MARCAR SOLO UNA OPCION] (1) Agricultura (2) Ganadería (3) Pesca (4) Forestación (5) Turismo (6) Comercio (7) Prestación de servicios (8) Industria (9) Otra actividad (88) NS (98) NR Figure 3. Sources of Family’s Income LAPOP asked respondents in these two regions the frequency with which they have taken actions to fight problems related to climate change. First, they were asked if they have taken any measures in general, and then if they have participated in activities to confront this problem in their communities and in their municipalities. Responses were recoded to a 0-100 scale where larger averages mean more frequent participation in these types of activities. Figure 4 shows average responses to these three questions. 20.6% 23.1% 0.6% 11.6% 21.9% 1.3% 20.9% 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 Percentage Agriculture Livestock Fishery Commerce Services Industry Other South-Center (2015) 18.5% 5.6% 18.5% 1.3% 12.2% 19.8% 2.4% 21.7% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percentage Agriculture Livestock Fishery Tourism Commerce Services Industry Other Southern Caribbean (2015) 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 23 Una vez a la semana Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca ENV6a. ¿En los últimos doce meses usted y su familia han tomado medidas o acciones para enfrentar problemas relacionados con el cambio climático? 1 2 3 4 ENV6b. ¿En los últimos doce meses ha participado usted de actividades o acciones para enfrentar problemas relacionados con el cambio climático en su comunidad? 1 2 3 4 ENV6c. ¿En los últimos doce meses ha participado de actividades o acciones para enfrentar problemas relacionados con el cambio climático en su municipio? 1 2 3 4 Overall, we observe that citizens in Nicaragua are not very involved in taking steps to confront climate change, and there are no statistically significant differences between the Southern and the Southern Caribbean regions. The upper right graph shows averages below 18 points on a 0-100 scale for actions taken by them or their families to combat climate change. These averages are even lower when we ask Nicaraguans about their participation in activities related to climate change in their communities and municipalities, with averages between 7.60 and 10.88 points on a 0-100 scale. Data from the qualitative interviews reveal that despite the acknowledgment of the importance of climate change, individuals are not that engaged nor doing much to confront it. As one of the respondents to an in-depth interview states: “… el mayor apoyo que hemos tenido es en cuanto a las denuncias que el mismo vecino pudiera hacer ante un daño que pudiera perjudicar al medio ambiente o que pudiera poner en riesgo la salud pública entonces ellos vienen hacen su denuncia y nosotros a través de los técnicos procedemos al llamado de esa denuncia de igual manera hemos visto más escasez a mediados de julio que se han iniciado ellos con ir mejorando la economía de patio porque hemos visto cultivos de tomate, de pepino y de otras especies que son súper importantes para la ingesta alimenticia como alimento y de igual forma te mejora la economía porque ya no tenés que sacarte ese dinero e ir al mercado hacer las compras”. Participation in climate change activities sponsored by the municipality is higher (although not statistically significant) among males in both regions. Also shown in Figure 5, those with no or primary education tend to participate less in these type of activities than respondents who have higher levels of education. This difference is statistically significant for those with only primary education in the South-Center municipalities. Finally, participation is also higher among the youth. Respondents between 16 and 25 years old reported more participation in municipality-sponsored activities or actions dealing with climate change over the past 12 months Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 24 Figure 4. Actions Taken to Confront Climate Change, 2015 Figure 5. Participation in Municipality-sponsored climate change activities by demographic characteristics, 2015 15.63 17.63 0 5 10 15 20 Family has taken steps to fight climate change Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 8.96 10.88 0 5 10 15 20 Participated in activities related to climate change Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 7.60 9.40 0 5 10 15 20 Participated in activities sponsored by the Municipality Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 8.70 10.94 6.50 7.85 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participated in Municipality-Sponsored Activities Related to Climate Change South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region Male Female Gender 8.93 11.59 7.54 10.24 6.90 5.78 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participated in Municipality-Sponsored Activities Related to Climate Chang South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 4.44 4.04 3.05 5.05 12.50 10.63 14.29 13.64 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participated in Municipality-Sponsored Activities Related to Climate Change South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 5.13 8.80 6.75 5.56 8.00 12.18 8.77 12.61 11.54 10.80 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participated in Municipality-Sponsored Activities Related to Climate Change South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 25 Finally, LAPOP asked Nicaraguans in the Southern and Southern Caribbean regions about the extent to which they think that the government should spend more money to confront climate change and to make sure that business is prepared to adapt towards climate change. They were asked to express their agreement with those ideas on a 1-7 scale but we converted it to the traditional 0-100 scale for better understanding of the results. The specific wording is as follows: ENV4a. El gobierno debe destinar más dinero a asegurar que los negocios esten preparados para adaptarse al cambio climático, aun cuando esto implique gastar menos en otras cosas o programas. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? [Escala 1-7] ENV4b. El gobierno debe destinar más dinero a combatir el cambio climático,, aun cuando esto implique gastar menos en otras cosas o programas. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? [Escala 1-7] The left side of Figure 6 presents the average level of agreement with the idea that the government should spend more money ensuring that businesses are ready to adapt to climate change for the municipalities in the South-Center and in the Southern Caribbean. The averages are very close with averages of 72.61 points and 71.29 points, respectively, which shows an agreement with that statement. The difference between the two measurements are not statistically significant. In similar a way, Nicaraguans in both regions agree with the idea that the government should spend more economic resources on fighting climate change. Again, the average scores are very similar in both regions, around 70 points. Figure 6. Government should spend more Money to Fight Climate Change 72.61 71.29 0 20 40 60 80 100 Government Should Spend More Money to Ensure that Businesses are Prepared for Climate Change South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 72.61 71.29 0 20 40 60 80 100 Government Should Spend More to Fight Climate Change South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 26 Once again, the qualitative data support the idea that public institutions and the central government should keep allocating resources to adapt to climate change. As one participant mentions in one of the focus group: “Pero una cosa que si se debería hacer y que el gobierno como presidencia, porque ahorita solo es la municipalidad y las instituciones pero el gobierno regional tanto local y nacional deberían de tomar conciencia y decir: Estamos haciendo efectos, busquemos como moderar esos efectos que estamos haciendo o provocando; deberían de implementar dentro de sus planes de gobierno estos planes para poder hacer algo para la comunidad, porque de las comunidades dependen ellos y nosotros de ellos y entonces pienso que el gobierno debería de tener un poquito más de conciencia y entrar”. In this sense, focus group participants highlighted the importance of USAID funded activities to prevent and mitigate climate change. There was a general consensus among focus group participants that the programs promoted by USAID represent almost the only systematic initiative that offered practical solutions that can be applied in their communities and that are based on technical and comprehensive design. Community leaders that participated in the training activities on preventive measures, indicated that they had the opportunity to participate in workshops in which they learn about climate change, and how to prepare contingency plans for their communities and actively participate as neighbors. In these terms, they recognize that they are able to know what to do and where to go during emergencies. As one participant stated: “USAID ha estado apoyando a las familias de los sectores afectados para adaptarse en la alimentación, como reforestar. Los niños que son de tercer año y sexto grado están reforestando con mangles en todas las comunidades cercanas. Por medio de BICU y URACCAN, y en Global Communities se ha ayudado a los distintos sectores/ al grupo de gabinete familiar y otros autores locales como la cooperativa de turismo- los está apoyando para elaborar un plan de adaptación ante el cambio climático de la comunidad”. Another participant mentioned: Nosotros hemos participado ante ese plan de USAID, el plan es del barrio y nosotros hemos tenido estudios de varios encuentros, todo el día sábado y domingo. Esto nos ha permitido ver cuáles son los factores que nos afectan, ver las problemáticas que tenemos y ver en que podemos mejorar nosotros nuestra situación económica, nuestra forma de vida y mejorar así el entorno del barrio. Eso es muy bueno para nosotros porque realmente estamos adquiriendo ese conocimiento no solo para quedarnos con ello si no para compartirlo con los demás, porque como líderes de barrio nosotros estamos metiendo a funcionar por sectores para darnos a conocer y para que ellos participen y se integren a apoyar estas actividades estas iniciativas, porque solo nosotros no podemos lograrlo, porque esta es una problemática de todos nosotros entonces debemos de ver como mitigamos todo”. In addition to the training activities that were carried out under this component, the program has promoted several related climate change activities and in-depth studies, like a study about the quality of the water that was carried out in one of the municipalities and was mentioned during the focus groups. One focus group participant also mentioned an Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 27 assessment of the educational programs that was done in Bluefields related to climate change activities in school programs and determine the need to incorporate issues pertaining to climate change in the school curriculum. Conclusions Quantitative findings  There is a moderate agreement among respondents that the incumbent government deals with climate change (average close to 60 points on a 0-100 scale) in both the South-Center and Southern Caribbean municipalities.  Fewer than 50% of respondents in the South-Center and Southern Caribbean municipalities believe that environmental protection should be a priority over economic growth.  At the same time, respondents recognized that climate change is a very serious problem and poses a threat to citizens’ wellbeing. Respondents believe that climate change is going to have a big impact on their future economic situation if no actions are taken to reduce climate change.  Nicaraguans in both regions are hardly taking steps to confront climate change (18 points on a 0-100 scale).  They are also not participating in activities related to climate change in their communities and municipalities (averages lower than 11 points on a 0-100 scale).  Participation in climate change activities sponsored by the municipality is higher among males and more educated. This difference is statistically significant for those with only primary education in the South-Center municipalities. Also, participation is also higher among respondents between 16 and 25 years old.  There is widespread agreement with the idea that the government should spend more economic resources to fight climate change and to ensure that private enterprises are prepared to confront that problem (average scores around 70 on a 0-100 for both the and Southern Caribbean regions). Qualitative findings  There was consensus among focus group participants that climate change is having an increasingly powerful impact in Bluefields. Participants think that climate change has accelerated over time and modified the conditions in all aspects of their lives. One of the major changes is the erratic rain during the planting season, the irresponsible deforestation that is causing changes in the course of the rivers and flooding, rise in temperature levels and the salinization of the soil and rivers.  About training citizens and leaders on preventive measures, most participants indicated that they had the opportunity to participate in workshops in which they learn about climate change, and how about to prepare contingency plans for their communities and actively participate as neighbors. In these terms, they recognize that they are able to know what to do and where to go in case of natural disaster emergencies. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 28  Participants agreed that participation in the workshops and their involvement in the communities increased their awareness of climate change.  With regard to the actions of USAID, residents indicate that they have received training on climate change and how to adapt and reduce the effects on residents’ economic activities. Recommendations General recommendations  Implement educational programs that show citizens the steps they can take to confront climate change.  Improve the targeting of climate change activities to reach women, less educated groups of the population and people 46 years and older to educate them about the importance of climate change and how to cope with the consequences that climate change might impose in their lives and the economy of their households.  Coordinate with local organizations to advertise their activities around climate change.  Enhance public awareness campaigns, specially targeting them to vulnerably populations. Recommendations for program implementation  Expand the programs to other neighborhoods and different organizations.  Transfer experiences from a neighborhood to another place that is not part of the program.  Collect data and information to evaluate and measure the effects of climate change in the región. “Debe apoyarse el levantamiento de información para la valoración de vulnerabilidad para orientar el plan que se está construyendo a nivel municipal, pues ya hay ciertas recomendaciones de que cosas deberían de hacerse, y sobre todo pues los recursos son escasos”.  It is imperative to involve regional and national authorities in the activities implemented. The National Government must recognize the seriousness of the situation and take actions to avoid reaching unsustainable and irreversible situations. II. Addressing People with Disabilities Needs A second dimension USAID’s Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program focuses on strengthening the capacity of persons with disabilities and disable persons organizations. To evaluate the effectiveness of this sub-component of the program, LAPOP asked citizens in the selected municipalities in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean a series of questions about the situation of disabled persons in the country. The 1-7 scales of the questions were recalibrated into a 0-100 one where larger values mean more agreement with both ideas, i.e. that the government protects disabled people’s rights and that they approve Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 29 the idea of people with disabilities running for office. Figure 7 shows levels of agreement with the two statements. The wording of the sentences is as follows: NICDIS1. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual promueve los derechos de las personas con discapacidad? [Escala 1-7] D7. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que se permita que las personas con discapacidad física se postulen para cargos públicos? [Escala 1-7] Results show that there is an overall agreement that the government is protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, with agreement being stronger in the South’s municipalities (73.27 points) than in the Southern Caribbean’s (68.90 points). Again, the difference is not statistically significant (see right panel of Figure 7). On the contrary, levels of support for disabled citizens to run for office are below 65 average points on a 0-100 scale. Support is higher in the Southern Caribbean (63.79 points) than in the South-Center region (56.02 points), and the difference is statistically significant9 . Figure 7. Government Protects the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Approval of them Running for Office Participants in our in-depth interviews in Bluefields acknowledge the steps that the national government is taking to support disabled citizens. As one of them mentions: “Si se ha visto que el gobierno central ha estado muy anuente con las personas con discapacidad, a como se dice han venido restituyendo derechos a personas con discapacidad tanto aquí en el municipio hay cuatro personas que consiguieron esa casas para el pueblo, toman en cuenta a las personas con discapacidad, tal vez la problemática que se da es en los municipios que hacen caso omiso a las personas con discapacidad”. 9 Activities of this component were implemented in three municipalities: Bluefields, Corn Island and Pearl Lagoon. 73.27 68.90 0 20 40 60 80 Govt. protects the rights of persons with disabilities South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) 56.02 63.79 0 20 40 60 80 Approval of persons with disabilities running for office South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 30 Another respondent mentions specific measures from the national government: “Si por que el gobierno está anuente es una de las partes que, se ha preocupado el gobierno por las personas con discapacidad además de aprobar la ley se ha hecho censos a nivel de gobierno en todos los municipios a nivel nacional, se ha hecho el censo para ver a cuántas personas con discapacidad les han estado brindando ayuda a través de los diferentes programas, ahí van incluida las personas con discapacidades digamos el programa: TODOS CON VOS, que se hace a través del ministerio de salud ellos son los que les están dando carnet para que ellos puedan tener un mejor apoyo, mejor nivel de vida y muchos tienen apoyo del gobierno.” LAPOP also asked survey respondents to point out the institution that should ensure that people with disabilities enjoy equal opportunities. Figure 8 shows respondents opinion about the institution that should be responsible of ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in the South-Center region (left side) and in the Southern Caribbean. In both groups, around 60% of respondents mentioned the central government as the institution in charge of ensuring equal opportunities for disable persons. In the South, the second most frequent option was churches (12.3%) followed by the municipality (8.6%) and themselves (7.6%), whereas in the Southern Caribbean, the second most frequent choice was the municipality (12.4%) and then churches or other faith-based organizations (9.2%). NICDIS2. En su opinión, cuál de los siguientes organismos debe ocuparse de asegurar la igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad? [LEER LA LISTA, MARCAR UNA SOLA OPCION] 1) El Gobierno Central 2) Los Gobiernos Locales (Municipios) 3) La Empresa privada 4) Las mismas personas con discapacidad o sus familias 5) Las ONGs 6) Las Iglesias y Organizaciones de la Fe 7) [NO LEER] Otra respuesta (88) No sabe (98) No responde Although in both regions, the municipality was mentioned in second place as the institution that should be responsible for ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. Focus group participants agreed that the municipal government does not allocate resources to support the participation of people with disabilities in their communities. The opinion of one participant reflects on this: “Por parte de las autoridades de la Alcaldía, experimentan un abandono y despreocupación. En ocasiones de reclamos o gestiones de las organizaciones representativas de la comunidad, los escuchan pero no resuelven. No hay programas o partidas presupuestarias destinadas a la comunidad en condición de discapacidad”. Another participant also made reference to this citing the 763 Law that was passed and approved in 2011 but implemented 3 years later10: “”En el ámbito jurídico, si bien desde hace 4 años se aprobó la ley 763, hasta recientemente se aprobó el reglamento respectivo, lo que ha impedido que se ponga en 10 The act number 763 (Ley 763) on the rights of people with disabilities was published in August 2011. It aims at establishing a legal and quality framework to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights of people with disabilities Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 31 práctica su cumplimiento. Tampoco se asignan recursos para facilitar o garantizar el derecho de las personas con discapacidad”. “…No hay voluntad o interés de la Municipalidad para habilitar las condiciones y facilidades para que los discapacitados puedan transitar libremente: no hay rampas en las calles, no se obliga a los servicios de transporte público – taxis y buses – para disponer de facilidades para la población” Figure 8. Institution that Should Ensure Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. All focus group participants agreed on the important role that non-governmental organizations are playing in supporting and promoting the equality of opportunities and rights of persons with disabilities. In this regard, opinions highlighted the efforts (training activities, workshops) that USAID, BICU (Bluefields Indian & Caribbean University), and other NGOs (ADIFIN, PIPITOS, ADNIC) are carrying out to support them: “Dadas las dificultades y la poca ayuda que recibimos de las autoridades públicas, son las organización no gubernamental las que más nos apoyan. Por ejemplo “USAID” que a través de la Universidad BICU ha brindado capacitaciones y ha apoyado las luchas de por defender nuestros derechos” Another participant reinforced this comment by saying: “Con el respaldo de USAID y “USAID es un convenio que nosotros logramos un proyecto donde ellos nos apoyaron a fortalecer a las personas con discapacidad y empoderarla de cómo organizarse. Asimismo nos brindaron apoyo para comprender las disposiciones de la ley 763…. nos prepararon más porque nosotros estábamos como… como dicen… no sabíamos nada de lo que era las leyes.” 61.5% 8.6% 0.7% 7.6% 2.3% 12.3% 7.0% 0 20 40 60 80 Percentage Municipality Themselves NGOs Churches Other Central Gov't. Companies South-Center (2015) 60.2% 12.4% 4.5% 4.5% 5.0% 9.2% 4.2% 0 20 40 60 80 Percentage Municipality Themselves NGOs Churches Other Central Gov't. Companies Southern Caribbean(2015) 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 32 The support given to persons with disabilities and disabled people organization was recognized to go beyond the training and programmed activities. Members of the various organizations that participated in a focus group noted that in addition to the training activities, having participated in the program helped expand their incidence in the communities and in the public sector agenda by increasing their visibility in the society. Finally, a set of four questions delves further into other opinions and attitudes towards persons with disabilities in Nicaragua. The first one asks on a 1-4 scale about the extent to which discrimination against them is important in the country, while the rest of them ask respondents about the level of agreement with three statements: people with disabilities can perform well in their work, should receive the same wage for the same work as other coworkers, and should participate in organizations that protect their rights. Responses to these three were given on a 1-10 scale. Following the LAPOP standard, all these questions were recoded into a 0-100 with larger values meaning greater support for the disabled. These were the four questions: NICDIS2A. En general, cree usted que en Nicaragua la discriminación en contra de las personas con discapacidad es un problema muy importante, algo importante, poco importante, o nada importante? (1) Muy importante (2) Algo importante (3) Poco importante (4) Nada importante (88) NS (98) NR NICDIS4. Las personas con discapacidad pueden hacer bien sus trabajos. ¿Hasta que punto está de acuerdo? [Escala 1-10] NICDIS5. Las personas con discapacidad que trabajan deben recibir a igual tarea, el mismo salario que otros trabajadores que no tienen discapacidad ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo? [Escala 1-10] NICDIS7. Pensando las personas con discapacidad ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo que las personas con discapacidad participen en los cabildos en la defensa de sus derechos? [Escala 1-10] Figure 9 presents the results to those four questions. The upper left graph shows that there are no differences in the way respondents in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean perceive discrimination towards the disabled. On a 0-100 scale, respondents in both regions score an average of 86.50 points (South) and 89.12 points (Southern Caribbean), indicating that discrimination of people with disabilities is an important problem in Nicaragua. Also, in similar levels, respondents in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean agree with the idea that people with disabilities should receive the same salary and workload as others, with averages of 70.27 and 69.34, respectively (see lower left graph). When looking at the levels of agreement with the idea that the disabled can perform well in their work, the averages are lower than in the rest of scenarios, although scores fall above the mid-point on the 0-100 scale. In this case, there is a statistically significant difference between respondents in the Southern Caribbean and the South-Center region, with average scores of 53.09 and 64.27 points, respectively. There is also a significant difference when considering whether the disabled should participate in Cabildos that defend their rights. Even though the support for this idea is high in both regions, it is higher in the South-Center (85.02 points) than in the Southern Caribbean (77.98 points). This difference is statistically significant. Participants in the in-depth interviews agree that discrimination toward persons with disabilities is a serious problem in Nicaragua. They also agree on the main obstacles that Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 33 they face, mainly related to access to jobs, education and access to public places and transportation: “El acceso al trabajo, el acceso a la educación, el no acceso a los lugares.” They also face discrimination because people think that they cannot perform their work: “a veces se dejan llevar por otras cosas que tal vez, dicen esa persona es discapacitada y no puede desempeñar bien su trabajo”. A lack of interest from people working in the municipality or other institutions is also mentioned: “Algunas veces falta de interés, a como le decía se han hecho talleres se ha invitado a concejales a distintas a autoridades a distintas instituciones de aquí de este municipio y ha sido muy poca la participación desde años no viene no asisten.” Figure 9. Attitudes towards Persons with Disabilities Conclusions Qualitative findings  Average levels of agreement with the idea that disabled citizens should be allowed to run for office are below 65 points on a 0-100 scale in both regions. Scores in the Southern Caribbean are lower than those in the South-Center, and the difference is statistically significant (63.79 versus 56.02 points).  Levels of perceived discrimination against people with disabilities are high in both regions (scores above 85 points). 86.50 89.12 0 20 40 60 80 100 Discrimination towards PwD is a problem South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 53.09 64.27 0 20 40 60 80 100 PwD can do their job well South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 70.27 69.34 0 20 40 60 80 100 PwD should receive the same pay for same work South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 85.02 77.98 0 20 40 60 80 100 PwD should participate in Cabildos South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 34  Respondents in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean agree with the idea that people with disabilities should receive the same workload and the same salary for the same work as others (averages around 70 points on the 0-100 scale).  There is moderate agreement with the idea that the disabled can perform well at work. There is a statistically significant difference between the South-Center (53.09 points) and the Southern Caribbean (64.27 points).  There is high support for the idea that the disabled should participate in Cabildos or municipal meetings to defend their rights. Support is higher in the South-Center (85.02 points) than in the Southern Caribbean (77.98 points). Quantitative findings  Persons with disabilities agreed that are discriminated against and have limited opportunities. They highlighted that Municipal authorities are not doing much to improve the accessibility conditions and opportunities: “Los discapacitados somos un sector olvidado tanto para el gobierno, empresas privadas y sociedad civil. Nosotros hemos tocado puertas ante el gobierno, organizaciones y no hemos alcanzado ninguna respuesta mucho menos un cambio para nosotros. Hemos solicitado carnets que nos identifiquen como un sector activo e importante de la sociedad pero todo ha sido en vano, solo nos – engañan - sin ningún destino positivo, lo que les produce incertidumbre.”  “se ha brindado capacitaciones y ha apoyado las luchas de por defender los derechos de las personas en condiciones de discapacidad” “tenemos un convenio que nosotros logramos un proyecto donde ellos nos apoyaron a fortalecer a las personas con discapacidad y empoderarla de cómo organizarse. Asimismo nos brindaron apoyo para comprender las disposiciones de la ley 763, nos prepararon más porque nosotros estábamos como dicen no sabíamos nada de lo que era las leyes.”  “Creo que a la organización nos ayudó a cómo hacer un incidente (incidencia) dado que las instituciones no se dan cuentan lo que está pasando con nuestra gente”.” no fue monetario lo que nos dio, fue bastante didáctico pero fue algo que si lo ponemos en prácticas nos va ayudar mucho en la población”.  Another participant mentioned: “También nos empodero en liderazgo que nos ayudó bastante para las organizaciones saber cómo ser líder, cómo elaborar un proyecto, como echarlo andar. saber cómo es un incidente ante todo. Todo lo que nos dieron fue muy didáctico pero yo creo que fue algo muy a provechoso para todos”  “Con la implementación del programa nosotros aprendimos muchas cosas que no las habíamos aprendidos o no las sabíamos: participación ciudadana como hacer las incidencias políticas. Ahora nosotros ya sabemos cómo elaborar un presupuesto írselo a presentar a la alcaldía y encontrar más persona con discapacidad porque se hizo también visita domiciliar casa en casa para encontrar personas con discapacidad de las que ya no estaban dentro de la organización”. Recommendations General recommendations Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 35  Inform and educate citizens about the laws that protect their rights. More information is needed about the laws that protect persons with disabilities rights.  Coordinate among different national and local institutions working in favor of people with disabilities. Partner with churches and NGOs to promote the rights of peoples with disabilities.  Support the participation of the disabled in Cabildos where they can defend their rights. Recommendations for program implementation  Continue with training activities that not only include persons with disabilities but public officials, leaders, citizens, entrepreneurs and private sector enterprises so they are also aware of PwD rights and they can contribute to their social inclusion by increasing their opportunities. Participants insisted on the need to focus more on the authorities. Authority changes every four years, and it’s as if efforts have to start from scratch after every election. Greater awareness among authorities about persons with disabilities should thus be created to ensure the welfare of PwD.  Extend the scope of the program to other areas and communities in the region. It is mentioned in a particular the community of Pearl Lagoon where there is a large group of deaf people who do not know how to communicate.  Given the limited support they received at the local level, it is necessary to establish relationships with national or international NGOs in Managua to propose initiatives and projects, especially to provide white canes, crutches, wheelchairs and other necessary items. III. Strengthening citizen participation An important component of the MGP focuses on strengthening Nicaraguans’ participation in the various organizations of civil society. This section compares 2011 and 2015 responses to a series of questions to assess the extent to which there have been improvements in participation over time. Although it would have been ideal to compare trends over time in both the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean regions, the survey data collected in 2011 and 2015 only allows us to compare the municipalities in the South￾Center over time. Nonetheless, figures in this section show three bars, one for the South￾Center (2011), one for the South-Center (2015) and a third one for the Southern Caribbean (2015). A first set of questions asks respondents if they have participated in city council meetings or cabildos, popular consultations, asambleas de pobladores (neighbors’ meetings) or in any other type of meeting in the year prior to the survey11. Figure 10 shows the results to these four questions, showing an overall low level of participation. 11 It is important to highlight that the scope of the program does not include promoting citizen participation in referendums or in other meetings. It focuses mainly on participation in Cabildos and Municipal meetings and CDMs. Participation in other types of organization are shown as references. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 36 En los últimos 12 meses usted ha participado en: ….. Si No NICMUN17A. Cabildos? 1 2 NICMUN17B. Consultas populares? 1 2 NICMUN17C. Asambleas de pobladores? 1 2 NICMUN17D. Otras reuniones? 1 2 Figure 10. Participation in Different Types of Organizations Regarding participation in city council meetings or cabildos, there has been a decrease in participation in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015, going from 17.78% to 15.99%, although the difference is not statistically significant. Citizen participation in the cabildos in the South-Center is significantly higher than the national average (presented in Figure 10). Participation in these meetings are even lower in the case of the Southern Caribbean, with a 10.21%. The national average is 12.8% as shown in Figure 11. The country ranks relatively high when we compare citizens participation in council or municipal meetings across countries. When comparing participation in referendums (upper right graph) we observe similar percentages over time and by region. The South-Center has seen a slight increase from 10.79 % to 12.23% while, in the Southern Caribbean, this percentage does not exceed the 10%. Also, similar percentages are found when analyzing participation in Asambleas de Pobladores. In this case the Southern Caribbean has larger percentages with an 18.32% of its respondents participating. In the South-Center the increase between 2011 (11.64%) and 2015 (16.40%) is not statistically significant. Finally, there is a significant and large increase in participation in other types of meetings in the South-Center between these two periods of time, going from 14.20% to 28.53%. In the Southern Caribbean, the percentage in 2015 is 17.78% 15.99% 10.21% 0 10 20 30 40 Participation in Cabildos South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) Region 10.79% 12.23% 9.42% 0 10 20 30 40 Participation in referendums South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 11.64% 16.40% 18.32% 0 10 20 30 40 Participation in Asambleas de Pobladores South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 14.20% 28.53% 30.29% 0 10 20 30 40 Participation in other meetings South-Center (2011) South_Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 37 similar to that of the South-Center with a 30.29%. However, we do not know what type of meetings respondents refer to when talking about “other meetings”. Figure 11. Participation in Council/Municipal meetings across the Americas Focus group participants agreed that participation in Cabildos and the Municipal Development Committees (CDM) are among the most effective mechanisms that civil society has to express their opinion and needs: “.. creo que la participación en Cabildos es una de las formas más conocidas en que las personas podemos participar y que nuestra vos sea escuhada y , y, creo que los programas de USAID han ayudado a la gente a participar a acercarse. Por ejemplo, en Muelle de los Bueyes, se hacen cabildos de jóvenes, donde hay una gran participación de la juventud. Han comenzado desde los niños pequeños hasta llegar a edades de secundaria. Se ha logrado una gran participación de jóvenes de todas las comunidades y en el municipio”. Participants also recognized that civil society participation, although it is conceived in the public administration, through the municipal councils, etc. the existence lies in the ability and willingness of civil society organizations to participate. As a community leader pointed out: “el que empuja la participación ciudadana no es desde el gobierno, ni local ni nacional, 4.9% 6.1% 6.3% 6.4% 6.7% 6.8% 8.3% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 9.3% 9.4% 9.6% 10.0% 10.8% 11.1% 11.4% 11.7% 12.6% 13.1% 13.3% 14.0% 14.2% 15.2% 15.5% Argentina Panama Chile El Salvador Guyana Costa Rica Trinidad & Tobago Jamaica Uruguay Brazil Guatemala Mexico Colombia Honduras Dominican Republic Peru Bolivia Paraguay Nicaragua Ecuador Venezuela Canada Belize United States Haiti 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Attended Municipal Meeting 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, 2014; v.GM14_0912 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 38 son las organizaciones de sociedad civil, las que empujan la participación ciudadana de todo el municipio pensando en que es un derecho y que la gente no lo sabía y la ayuda de programas como el de USAID son esencial”. When we asked participants about the role of external cooperation and different programs that promote civil society participation they mentioned the trainings, workshops and activities organized by APRODER12 and USAID Global Communities as the ones that have promoted citizens participation. The following questions tap into different ways of participation aimed at helping to solve a problem in the community: Una vez a la semana Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca CP5. Ahora, para cambiar el tema, ¿en los últimos doce meses usted ha contribuido para ayudar a solucionar algún problema de su comunidad? 1 2 3 4 CP5A. ¿Ha donado Ud. dinero o materiales para ayudar a solucionar algún problema de la comunidad o de su barrio? 1 2 3 4 CP5B. ¿Ha contribuido Ud. con su propio trabajo o mano de obra? 1 2 3 4 CP5C. ¿Ha estado asistiendo Ud. a reuniones comunitarias sobre algún problema o sobre alguna mejora? 1 2 3 4 Per LAPOP standards, we reversed and rescaled the 1-4 response from 0 to 100, with 0 meaning “never” and 100 “once a week”. Figure 12 shows the average for each of these four questions. In none of the graphs do we observe significant differences either over time or by region. In the South, levels of participation to solve community problems remained around an average of 15 points while in the Southern Caribbean this score is 18.25 points. Both groups of municipalities ranks below the national average, 20.62 points. The upper right graph shows similar average scores for the donation of money to solve community problems (around 13 points). The average score is a little bit higher for the contribution of work. This average has increased over time in the South-Center from 13.88 to 17.56 (although the difference is not statistically significant) and 19.50 points in the Southern Caribbean. Finally, attendance at community meetings about problems or improvements is relatively low, with average scores between 12.58 points (in the South-Center municipalities in 2011) and 13.73 points (South-Center 2015). As shown in Figure 13, participation in community meetings varies by gender. Attendance at community meetings to solve problems in their community or decide about improvements in their communities is lower among women. This difference is statistically significant in the Southern Caribbean region and it is lower than the participation levels observed for the country and in the South-Center municipalities. This indicates that more efforts toward women participating and women empowerment should be done in the Southern Caribbean region. Opinions collected during the focus groups confirm that women’s participation in community development meetings is lower than men. Several 12 APRODER is a sub-grantee of USAID. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 39 initiatives like the creation of “Oficinas de la Mujer” in Muelle de los Buelles and programs implemented by the CDM were mentioned as examples of activities that promote the participation of women. Figure 12. Participation in Community Meetings Figure 13. Participation in Community Meetings by gender 15.17 15.81 18.25 20.62 0 5 10 15 20 25 Participation to solve community problems South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 14.22 13.31 12.65 0 5 10 15 20 25 Has donated money to solve community problems South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 13.88 17.56 19.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 Has contributed with his own work South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 13.73 12.58 13.02 0 5 10 15 20 25 Attended community meetings South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 19.41 18.48 23.25 22.54 10.94 13.10 13.24 18.70 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 40 Not only do citizens participate in existing organizations to help improve their communities, but they may also take the initiative to create groups seeking to make a difference. Also, apart from community organizations, citizens often take part in meetings of various types of organizations, such as parents’ associations at school or religious associations. The following questions asked about that kind of participation: Una vez a la seman a Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca CP5D. ¿Ha tratado de ayudar Ud. a organizar algún grupo nuevo para resolver algún problema del barrio, o para buscar alguna mejora? 1 2 3 4 CP6. ¿Reuniones de alguna organización religiosa? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 CP7. ¿Reuniones de una asociación de padres de familia de la escuela o colegio? Asiste 1 2 3 4 CP8. ¿Reuniones de un comité o junta de mejoras para la comunidad? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 Again, we recoded the 1-4 scales into a 0-100 scale so that larger averages mean more involvement in these types of organizations. Figure 14 presents the results. We observe that helping to organize groups to solve problems scores below 10 points in the two regions, and they remain stable over time in the South, with averages around 7 points. We see larger levels of participation in religious organizations (upper right graph), with no variation over time in the South-Center (around 63 average points) and lower levels in the Southern Caribbean (56.33). Both group of municipalities rank above the national average in 2014, of 50.28 points. Regarding participation in parents’ associations, there has been a slight increase in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015 from 26.83 to 30.64 points, which brings it very close to the 31.82 score in the Southern Caribbean. The national average is 31.86 points. Finally, no region scores higher than 15 in terms of participation in community improvement committees, with no significant differences over time in the South, nor between the South￾Center and the Southern Caribbean in 2015. The national average level of participation in community improvement committees is 21.13 points. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 41 Figure 14. Participation in Different Types of Organizations II The following battery of questions continues to ask about citizens’ participation in different types of organizations, following the same structure as previous ones: Una vez a la semana Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca CP9. ¿Reuniones de una asociación de profesionales, comerciantes, productores, y/u organizaciones campesinas? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 CP13. ¿Reuniones de un partido o movimiento político? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 NICCP14. ¿Reuniones de un CPC o Consejo del Poder Ciudadano? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 NICCP15. ¿Reuniones de los Gabinetes de la Familia? Asiste.. 1 2 3 4 CP20. [Solo mujeres] ¿Reuniones de asociaciones o grupos de mujeres o amas de casa? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 Figures 15 and 16 show the results for this battery of questions. We again observe low levels of participation with no significant variation over time in the South-Center and no differences between the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean in 2015. Participation in associations of professionals, merchants, manufacturers or farmers remains around 8 points in the South-Center and is at a lower level in the Southern Caribbean (6.39). With regards to meetings of political organizations, we observe a not statistically significant decline in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015 (from 11.67 to 7.85) and a score of 7.57 in the Southern 7.23 7.96 9.11 0 20 40 60 80 Helped organize a group to solve a problem South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 63.53 63.56 56.33 50.28 0 20 40 60 80 Religious organization South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 26.83 30.64 31.82 31.86 0 20 40 60 80 Parents' association South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 15.01 13.04 12.38 21.13 0 20 40 60 80 Community improvement committee South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 42 Caribbean. The national average level of participation in a political organizations is 15.03 points. Also, participation in meetings of the CPCs13 is 2 points lower in 2015 than in 2011 in the South, although the difference is not statistically significant. The Southern Caribbean scores a low 4.07 in 2015 in participation in the CPCs. At the national level, participation in CPCs score higher than the implementing municipalities (14.84 points).Finally, participation in meetings of Gabines de la Familia is almost 3 points higher in the Southern Caribbean (4.91) than in the South-Center (7.88). The national average is 9.3 points, higher than in the implementing municipalities. However this difference is not statistically significant. Figure 15. Participation in Different Types of Organizations III Most of the participants in our in-depth interviews and focus groups are very active in their communities. However, they acknowledge that most citizens do not get involved either because they are not aware of their rights or because they see public officials as corrupt. As this person from Chontales states: “ Algunos porque desconocen de sus derechos, otras porque piensan que la persona o el Gobierno central o sea municipal está robando directamente porque “no vamos a tapar el sol con un dedo” entonces piensan y dice: para ser yo involucrado en eso, mejor no participo, mejor que se lo roben ellos” y la realidad de las cosas es que a veces pensamos de esa forma y lo mejor es pues la participación y ahí es donde nosotros nos damos cuenta cómo podemos evitar si está dando alguna fuga en la comunal o ya sea en la central.” Finally, female respondents were asked about the extent to which they participate in associations or groups of women or homemakers. For 2015, levels of participation in the 13 CPCs (or Consejos de Poder Ciudadano) and Gabinetes de Familia are community organizations created by the government of Nicaragua. They are both recognized for their partisan nature. 7.97 8.15 6.39 0 5 10 15 20 Professional, Labor, or Agricultural Group South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 11.67 7.85 7.57 15.03 0 5 10 15 20 Political Organization South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 7.15 5.01 4.07 14.84 0 5 10 15 20 Participation in CPC South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 4.91 7.88 9.30 0 5 10 15 20 Participation in Gabinetes de la Familia South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 43 Southern municipalities (8.37 points) are very similar to those in the Southern Caribbean (8.44 points). In the South, there was a two-point increase in this type of participation between 2011 and 2015. The national average is 7.49 points. These differences are not statistically significant. Figure 16. Participation in Groups of Women LAPOP has also asked about citizens’ knowledge of various organizations. The specific wording is as follows: Le voy a mencionar algunas organizaciones, quisiera que me conteste si conoce o no conoce a estas organizaciones que trabajan en el municipio: Sí No NICMUN20A. Organizaciones de Mujeres 1 2 NICMUN20B. Organización de Productores 1 2 NICMUN20C. Comité de Desarrollo Municipal 1 2 NICMUN20D. Otras organizaciones del municipio 1 2 Figure 17 shows the percentage of respondents who knew of those organizations. Again, we have survey data to compare the municipalities in the South-Center corridor between 2011 and 2015, but we only have data for the Southern Caribbean for 2015. The upper-left graph shows a decrease in the knowledge of groups of women in the South-Center over time from 55.78% to 44.73%, which is a statistically significant difference. There is also a significant difference between the South-Center in 2015 and the Southern Caribbean, where the percentage rises to 58.71%. There are also differences between these two regions in 2015 regarding levels of knowledge of groups of farmers, with a difference of almost 20 6.41 8.37 8.44 7.49 0 5 10 15 Participation in groups of women South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 44 percentage points. When looking at awareness of municipal development committees, there is a big jump between 2011 and 2015 in the South, going from 10.5% to 47.45% points. In 2015, 39.36% of respondents in the Southern Caribbean know of these organizations. Finally, almost one third of respondents in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean in the 2015 know of other municipal organizations. It is noteworthy to have found a significant increase of these municipal organizations in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015, going from 8.61% to 31.83%. Figure 17. Knowledge of Different Types of Organizations Figure 18 shows that knowledge of CDMs varies by educational level. Those with higher education are more knowledgeable of the CDMs. This indicates that more efforts have to be made to reach people with no education, primary education and secondary education to increase civil society participation. 55.78% 44.73% 58.71% 0 20 40 60 80 Knowledge of groups of women South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 63.11% 57.56% 39.14% 0 20 40 60 80 Knowledge of groups of farmers South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 10.51% 47.45% 39.36% 0 20 40 60 80 Knowledge of municipal development committees South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 8.61% 31.83% 32.87% 0 20 40 60 80 Knowledge of other municipal organizations South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 45 Figure 18. Knowledge of Municipal Development Committees by demographic characteristics Another set of questions inquiries about Nicaraguans’ opinions about the extent to which they think their mayor is interested in citizen’s participation in the municipality’s affairs, as well as their level of awareness of the CPC and what they think is the CPC’s main role. These are the LAPOP questions: NICMUNI15. ¿Qué tan interesado cree usted que está el alcalde en la participación de la gente en el trabajo del municipio? [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy interesado (2) Algo interesado (3) Poco interesado (4) Nada interesado (88) NS (98) NR NICMUNI16. ¿Ha escuchado hablar de los CPC (Consejos de Poder Ciudadano)? (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR NICMUNI16A. Pensando en los CPC (Consejos de Poder Ciudadano), ¿cuál cree usted que es el rol principal de estos? [Leer alternativas] (1) Estimular la participación de los ciudadanos (2) Son un método para estimular la rendición de cuentas (3) Promover el control partidista (4) Facilitar la descentralización de poderes (5) Son un mecanismo para vigilar a los ciudadanos (6) Otro [No leer] (88) NS (98) NR Figure 19 shows the results for the first two questions. Between 2011 and 2015, we observe that respondents of the South-Center have changed their perceptions about their mayors’ interest in citizens’ participation in the municipality between 2011 and 2015. The average score is 45.91 points in 2011 and moves up to 55.71 points in 2015. We also find a statistically significant difference between the South-Center (55.71 points) versus the Caribbean-Center (45.28 points) in 2015. The right-side graph shows the percentage of 13.08 41.77 43.62 7.87 53.21 35.11 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 tees South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region Male Female Gender 5.95 48.65 48.12 12.30 44.70 39.74 13.64 53.45 26.67 14.29 38.46 23.53 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 es South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 3.70 31.11 18.18 6.60 42.34 28.28 9.52 59.38 31.43 41.67 52.94 56.47 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Municipal Development Committees South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 3.49 36.67 32.86 10.77 45.45 29.31 5.13 48.00 48.08 14.29 36.00 41.07 42.31 86.11 48.57 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Municipal Development Committees South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 46 respondents reporting that they have heard of CPCs. The decrease between 2011 and 2015 in the South-Center (from 68.65% to 55.99%) is a noteworthy and statistically significant drop. In the Southern Caribbean, less than half the respondents have heard of these committees. Figure 19. Mayor’s interest in people’s participation and knowledge of CPCs When asked about the main role of these CPSs, there is been a slight change in respondents’ perceptions in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015. While in 2011 a third of them considered CPCs’ main role to be promoting citizens’ participation, in 2015, 42.3% of respondents in this region think that their goal is to monitor citizens, a view held by a 27.9% in 2011. In both years, the third most frequent response was to promote partisanship control. We find similar views in the Southern Caribbean, where one third of respondents think that CPCs monitor citizens, followed by a 25.9% who think that the main role is to stimulate citizens’ participation and a similar percentage (24.7%) who see CPCs as an instrument that increases the control of the party in government. 45.91 55.71 45.28 0 20 40 60 80 Mayor Interested in People Participating South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 68.65% 55.99% 47.63% 0 20 40 60 80 Has Heard of CPC South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 47 Figure 20. CPC’s Main Role Focus group participants mentioned the political nature of some civic participation organizations like the CPCs and Gabinetes de Familia in some cases, they higlited some conflict between the organizations: “No obstante que esas instancias de participación ciudadana están consagradas en la legislación, no cuentan con el respaldo y simpatía de las autoridades gubernamentales, que prefieren operar mediante la estructura del Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN) y que en la estrategia en la actual administración están apoyando y funcionando a nivel local, municipal, regional y nacional, mediante los Gabinetes de Familia que, en realidad son las células del partido en el gobierno.” Another participant stated: “la excepción se ha dado en municipios parte del departamento de Chontales que – han sido beneficiarios del programa de Participación Ciudadana que impulsa y apoya USAID, donde la participación ciudadana era muy baja; sin embargo, mediante la estructura de los CDM han logrado una amplia participación en los cabildos que realizan cada tres meses.” The final subsection addresses opinions about discriminatory attitudes. These attitudes can pose a constraint on the partition of some individuals in the political arena. LAPOP asked a series of questions to understand the extent to which Nicaraguans support equal opportunities for minority groups. In this case, we can only compare the municipalities in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean in 2015. Below are the first three questions on 37.6% 5.5% 27.3% 1.2% 27.9% 0.6% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage Accountability Party Control Decentralization Monitor Citizens Other Participation South-Center (2011) 29.2% 7.3% 15.3% 1.5% 42.3% 4.4% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage Accountability Party Control Decentralization Monitor Citizens Other Participation South-Center (2015) 25.9% 5.6% 24.7% 6.2% 34.6% 3.1% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage Accountability Party Control Decentralization Monitor Citizens Other Participation Southern Caribbean (2015) 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Government Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 48 this topic. Once again, we recoded the 1-7 scales into a 0-100, where 100 means total agreement with the proposed statement. NICMUJ1. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno protege los derechos de las mujeres? [Escala 1-10] GEN1. Se dice que cuando no hay suficientes trabajos, los hombres deben tener más derecho a los trabajos que las mujeres. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo? [Escala 1-10] GEN6. El Estado debe exigir que los partidos políticos reserven algunos espacios para mujeres en sus listas de candidatos, aunque tengan que excluir (dejar afuera) a algunos hombres. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo? [Escala 1-7] Figure 21 shows the results for these three questions. Overall, citizens in the South￾Center and Southern Caribbean agree with the idea that the government is protecting women’s rights. Nonetheless, there is a statistically significant difference between these two regions. The average score is 86.34 points in the South-Center and 81.10 points in the Southern Caribbean. In both regions we also find support for gender quotas within the political parties, with similar average scores around 72 points. Finally, scores for agreement with the idea that men should have the priority for jobs when there is not enough work falls around the mid-point on the 0-100 scale in both the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean. Figure 21. Opinions and Attitudes towards Women I LAPOP also included a question asking about the extent to which respondents think that women should have the same rights to the ownership of land and assets as men, as well as a 86.34 81.10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Government protects women's rights South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) 54.14 49.56 0 20 40 60 80 100 Men should have priority for jobs South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) 71.78 72.53 0 20 40 60 80 100 Support for gender quotas South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 49 series of questions tapping into attitudes towards women in positions of political leadership. The text of these questions is as follows: NICGEN2. El Estado debe exigir que los partidos políticos reserven algunos espacios para mujeres en sus listas de candidatos, aunque tengan que excluir (dejar afuera) a algunos hombres. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo? [Escala 1-10] VB50. Algunos dicen que en general, los hombres son mejores líderes políticos que las mujeres. ¿Está usted muy de acuerdo, de acuerdo, en desacuerdo, o muy en desacuerdo? (1) Muy de acuerdo (2) De acuerdo (3) En desacuerdo (4) Muy en desacuerdo (88) NS (98) NR VB51. ¿Quién cree usted que sería más corrupto como político: un hombre, una mujer, o ambos por igual? (1) Un hombre (2) Una mujer (3) Ambos por igual (88) NS (98) NR VB52. Y si le toca a un político o a una política manejar la economía nacional, ¿quién va a hacer el mejor trabajo; un hombre, una mujer o no importa? (1) Un hombre (2) Una mujer (3) No importa (88) NS (98) NR We first look at the mean levels of responses to questions NICGEN2 and VB50. In Figure 22 we display average scores of this measure by region using a 0-100 scale. The left panel graph shows a high support for the idea that women should have the same rights as men regarding the ownership of land and assets. Nonetheless, this support is higher in the South￾Center municipalities (90.56 points) than in the Southern Caribbean (83.74 points), and the difference is statistically significant. Also, we find that scores of the agreement with the idea that men make better political leaders than women fall below 40 on the 0-100 scale in both regions. Again, there is a statistically significant difference between them, with the scores being lower in the Southern Caribbean (33.14 points) than in the South-Center (38.04 points). Figure 22. Opinions and Attitudes towards Women II 90.56 83.74 0 20 40 60 80 100 Women should have the same rights to the ownership of land and assets than men South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 38.04 33.14 0 20 40 60 80 100 Men are better political leaders than women South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 50 Participants in the in-depth interviews agree that there have been improvements in the role of women in municipalities. As this person from Chontales mentions: “…. hemos tenido más avances porque las mujeres se han apoderado, las mujeres saben cuáles son sus derecho y ahora las mujeres participan ahora si usted ve un cabildo, hace poco paso el cabildo las mujeres toman el micrófonos y comienzan a pedir sus demandas, o demandar lo que no se hizo, entonces esto de la participación ciudadana ha sido muy importante tanto para las mujeres como para el Gobierno municipal porque antes se miraba que solo el hombre se paraba frente a la mesa que estaba ahí y ellos hacían sus peticiones, mientras que hoy en día las mujeres participan y empiezan a pedir”. Considering views on who would be more corrupt as a politician, more than 70% of respondents in both the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean say that “both women and men are the same”. Around 20% in both groups consider men as more corrupt political leaders. Similar opinions are also found when looking at who would be better at running the economy (see Figure 23). In this case, nearly 65% of respondents in both regions mention “both” while 2 out 10 consider that women would be better at managing the nation’s economy. Figure 23. Beliefs Regarding Which Political Leaders are More Corrupt and Better Handling the Economy We conclude this section by assessing Nicaraguans’ views on homosexuals. The following three questions tap into three different aspects about attitudes towards homosexuals (i.e., the extent to which they should allowed to run for public office, have the 20.6% 3.2% 76.2% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Who is more corrupt Men Women Both South-Center (2015) 24.2% 2.7% 73.1% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Who is more corrupt Men Women Both Southern Caribbean (2015) 15.8% 21.0% 63.2% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Who handles the economy better Men Women Both South-Center (2015) 6.7% 28.5% 64.8% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Who handles the economy better Men Women Both Southern Caribbean (2015) 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 51 right to marry and allowed to participate in municipal meetings to defend their rights). The specific wording is as follows: D5. Y ahora, cambiando el tema, y pensando en los homosexuales. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que estas personas puedan postularse para cargos públicos? D6. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que las parejas del mismo sexo puedan tener el derecho a casarse? NICGEN1. Y ahora, pensando en las personas homosexuales ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo que las personas homosexuales participen en los cabildos en la defensa de sus derechos? Once again we recoded the original scales to the LAPOP standard 0-100 scale, with larger values meaning greater support for homosexuals. In general, the low levels of gay marriage approval and support for gays running for public office are noteworthy. Support normally does not surpass the mid-point in the scale in both regions and waves. Support for gay marriage is especially low. Support for gays running for public office increased by 5 points between 2011 (32.19 points) and 2015 (38.80 points) in the South, but the difference is not statistically significant. The average in the Southern Caribbean is 45.82 points. With regard to approval of same-sex marriage there was a statistically significant change between 2011 and 2015 in the South, increasing from 7.46 to 16.86 points. The score for the Southern Caribbean does not reach 20 points on the 0-100 scale. The national average is 14.50 points. Finally, approval for gay citizens attending municipal Cabildos is on 56.52 points in the Southern Caribbean and on 59.54 points in the South-Center region. Figure 24 . Attitudes towards Homosexuals Qualitative data also supports the difficulties that homosexuals are having in Nicaragua, and the lack of resources to support them. When asked about municipal resources to support homosexuals this person states: “hasta el momento no”. 32.19 38.80 45.82 34.73 0 20 40 60 80 100 Gays should be allowed to run for public office South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 7.46 16.86 18.56 14.50 0 20 40 60 80 100 Approval of same-sex marriage South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 59.54 56.52 0 20 40 60 80 100 Gays should be allowed to participate in Cabildos South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 52 The importance of providing support to minority groups was mentioned during the focus groups. Participants indicated that they have had the opportunity to participate in training activities organized by BICU and USAID in which they received training related to the civil participation, participation in budgetary processes and discussion and consultations processes: “las actividades nos han permitido recibir talleres y capacitaciones relacionadas con los temas de participación ciudadana, consultas presupuestarias y temáticas que les convienen para el ejercicio de nuestro liderazgo como organización. Que son temas que conocíamos solo por sus nombres, pero no en su aplicación en la realidad social y política. Another focus group participant mentioned: …. los que hacen la lucha por garantizar la mayor participación ciudadana son los movimientos que representan a las minorías, tal el caso de movimiento de diversidad sexual y los jóvenes que están en el Observatorio del BICU o las organizaciones de discapacitados, porque aunque deben competir con la estructura social y ´política del Gobierno, participan en los cabildos y las reuniones de consulta municipal y con menor ventaja, pueden plantear sus demandas y necesidades”. “En mi experiencia en una organización que representa la comunidad LGBTI se está avanzando en elaborar una propuesta que incluye los derechos de la comunidad con planteamientos en el plano económico, social, cultural, Salud, Trabajo. Sin embargo, al presentarlo ante las autoridades de la Alcaldía si bien les dieron audiencia formal, al final indican que no les cumplieron, lo que significa una burla a los esfuerzos realizados. Conclusions Qualitative findings  Low levels of participation in city council meetings or Cabildos (around 16% of respondents in the South-Center participate in these meetings and 10.21% in the Southern Caribbean). We observe a slight decrease in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015.  Attendance at community meetings to solve problems in their community or decide about improvements in their communities is lower among women. This difference is statistically significant in the Southern Caribbean region where participation levels are lower than the national average and those for the South-Center municipalities. This indicates that more efforts toward women participating and women empowerment should be done in the Southern Caribbean region.  Around 10% in both regions participate in referendums. No changes in the South￾Center between 2011 and 2015.  In the Southern Caribbean, 18.32% of respondents participate in Asambleas de Pobladores. In the South-Center there is been no significant increase between 2011 and 2015 (from 11.64% to 6.40%).  There has been a significant increase in participation in other types of meetings in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015, going from 14.20% to 28.53%. In the Southern Caribbean, the percentage in 2015 is similar to that in the South-Center (30.29%).  There are low levels of participation to solve community problems (around 10 points on a 0-100 scale). Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 53  There are low levels of participation in associations of professionals, merchants, manufacturers or farmers, in meetings of political organizations, and in meetings of the CPCs and Gabinetes de la Familia.  There was a statistically significant decrease in the knowledge of groups of women in the South-Center over time, (from 55.78% to 44.73%). There is also a significant difference between the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean in 2015, where the percentage rises to 58.71%. Almost one third of respondents in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean in the 2015 know of other municipal organizations. It is worth noting the significant increase in the knowledge of these municipal organizations in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015, (from 8.61% to 31.83%).  Regarding approval of same-sex marriage, there was a statistically significant change between 2011 and 2015 in the South-Center (increasing from 7.46 to 16.86 points on a 0-100 scale). The score for the Southern Caribbean does not reach the 20 points on that scale. Qualitative findings  Participants highlighted that citizens’ participation in public matters is relatively low, especially among youths and women. They recognized that participation is higher among population minorities, that they participate in the councils and municipal meetings to express their demands and needs.  Participants claimed that decisions are made at the national level and that those decisions do not take into account their reality: “… el Gobierno toma todas las decisiones relacionadas a la población negra, la población diversa sexual e inclusive sobre los temas de interés de las mujeres tales como el aborto terapéutico. Las autoridades del Gobierno central toman decisiones y deciden políticas de cumplimiento obligatorio en la región. Por lo general, no hay mecanismos de consulta y las decisiones se toman desde Managua de forma unilateral.”  Members of an organization representing the LGTB community indicated they worked on a proposal that focused on their rights in areas related to economic activities, social, culture, health, etc. They had a formal hearing at the municipality, but authorities did nothing about their proposal.  Participants are aware that they must therefore strengthen the capacity of their organizations, young participant said “…nosotros nos hemos fortalecido con cada uno de los miembro de este concejo y hemos seleccionado jóvenes de diferentes organizaciones que trabajan con temas de juventud inclusive hemos incluido a los de la JS y a los liberales y de diferentes religión. Entonces queremos que cuando vayamos a plantear nuestras necesidades ante la autoridades no vayamos con JS ni con ningún partido político ya que los jóvenes en nuestra municipalidad debemos defender los interés de todos los jóvenes de nuestra municipalidad” “En que la experiencia en el observatorio de BICU, nos ha permitido recibir talleres y capacitaciones relacionadas con los temas de participación ciudadana, consultas presupuestarias y temáticas que nos sirven para el ejercicio de liderazgo. Que son temas que conocíamos por sus nombres, pero no en su aplicación en la realidad social y política”. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 54 Recommendations General recommendations  Encourage and promote citizens’ participation in community and municipal associations. Inform citizens about the existence of women’s groups and other civil society organizations.  Encourage and promote women participation in community and municipal meetings. More efforts toward women participation and women empowerment should be done, especially in the Southern Caribbean region. Program implementation recommendations  Overall, opinions about the implementing partner are very favorable: “…es muy importante porque en esos espacios es que nosotros nos damos cuenta cual es nuestro derecho, cuáles son las ventajas y desventajas, como podemos trabajar, como podemos incidir, nos está dando la enseñanza necesaria para poder apoyarnos mutuamente”  While the type of work has been very good, more resources are needed to extend the coverage of the programs to indigenous and Afro descendants communities: “…se está empezando en la ciudad pero me gustaría que se extendiera a las comunidades indígenas para darle mayor conocimiento e influenciarlos a que hablen por ellos mismos, que digan sus proyectos y que participen en los cabildos municipales”.  Participants emphasized the importance of having the support in the future: “Es verdad que tenemos muchas herramientas para seguir adelante, pero creo que también necesitamos más apoyo para seguirnos capacitando, formar nuestra propia alianza y organizaciones que apoyen en la temática juvenil y LGBTI”. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 55 IV. Fiscal Transparency The forth component of the Municipal Governance Program we evaluate in this report is related to fiscal transparency. LAPOP included a set of two questions asking respondents about the national budget. We later focus on fiscal transparency at the municipal level. NICFT1. ¿Hasta qué punto diría Ud. que el gobierno nacional actual informa a los ciudadanos sobre el Presupuesto General de la República? NICFT2. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual es transparente en la administración del Presupuesto General de la República? Figure 25 shows the results for these two questions about the National Budget. In this case we have survey data for Nicaragua and we compare the scores of the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean with those for the capital in 2015. Regarding the levels of information that respondents perceive from the government about the National Budget, we see that those in the South-Center score higher on the 0-100 scale, where higher levels indicate more information. The average score there is 55.70, and that score is statistically significant different from the score in the Southern Caribbean (48.97) and Managua (38.44). The right side shows moderate levels on the scale measuring government transparency when administering the National Budget. In this case the only significant difference is between the Southern Caribbean (50.99) and Managua (42.41), and between the South-Center (54.14) and Managua. Figure 25. Opinions about the General Budget of the Republic 55.70 48.97 38.44 0 20 40 60 80 National Gov't informs about the General Budget of the Republic Managua 2015 South-Center 2015 Southern Caribbean 2015 54.14 50.99 42.41 0 20 40 60 80 National Gov't is transparent administering the General Budget of the Republic Managua 2015 South-Center 2015 Southern Caribbean 2015 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 56 Qualitative data from focus groups support the lack of knowledge of the General Budget of the Republic, as several of the participants in Managua stated: “…prácticamente no hay mucha publicidad”, “coincido con el otro compañero en el sentido de que es muy poca la información acerca de porque se definen estos tales montos para tales identidades, no hay una justificación por lo menos a las cuales sean de conocimientos que determine que estos montos son para estas identidades, ni se determina tal vez para que proyectos va, hay poca transparencia acerca de cómo se definen los montos y con qué fin.” The next series of questions tap into knowledge of and participation in social audits and into opinion about the transparency of accountability actions by the municipality. The upper two graphs in Figure 26 show a low percentage of respondents having heard of social audits and an even lower one of those who have participated in those forums. In no case do we find differences by regions or over time. Fewer than 15% of respondents in any region report having heard of social audits. In 2010, 10% of respondents in the South-Center region reported having participated in a social audit, while this percentage dropped in 2015 to 2.13%. In the Southern Caribbean only 3.77% have participated in these social audits. Finally, the third graph shows the average score used to measure transparency of accountability actions in the municipality. There has been a significant change in respondents’ perceptions in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015. While in 2011 the average score was 46.61, in 2015 it is 54.28 on the 0-100 scale. We find the lowest score in the Southern Caribbean, with a 42.54 on the same transparency scale. The difference with the South-Center is statistically significant. NICMUNI18. ¿Usted sabe que significa la auditoría social? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde NICMUNI18A. ¿Ha participado en alguna acción de auditoría social en los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde (99) INAP NICMUNI19. ¿Considera que las acciones de rendición de cuentas que hace la Alcaldía, son: (1) Muy transparentes (2) Algo transparentes (3) Poco transparentes (4) Nada transparentes (88) NS (98) NR Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 57 Figure 26. Social Audits and Municipal Accountability In spite of low levels of participation in social audits or drafting municipal budgets, participants in our in-depth interviews highlight the benefits of these initiatives, as this person from Bluefields states: “Bueno para mí y para mi comunidad es importante porque así nos estamos dando cuenta nosotros de los presupuestos, de cómo va la municipalidad, en qué se está invirtiendo el fondo que entra como transferencia estamos viendo como se está distribuyendo lo que son los fondos, lo que son las transferencia que viene a la Alcaldía, lo que es el cobro de impuestos y estamos viendo cómo se está distribuyendo y estamos viendo que se esté dando la continuidad y que se esté trabajando conforme a la necesidad del municipio porque para eso es el dinero y lo que entra a la municipalidad”. LAPOP also included a battery of questions about the extent to which citizens receive information from the municipality, the means they use to obtain it, and their knowledge about the Law to Access to Public Information. The specific wording is as follows: PMP4. ¿A través de qué medio solicitó o accedió a la información de la municipalidad? (1) Mediante trámite regular (2) Mediante la página web de la municipalidad (7) Otro medio (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP PMP4A. ¿Le han brindado la información solicitada? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde (99) INAP PMP6. Sabía usted que la Ley de Acceso a la información pública contiene los pasos a seguir cuando le niegan la información solicitada? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde (99) INAP 12.74% 15.21% 14.17% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Heard of Social Audit South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 10.00% 2.13% 3.77% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Participated in a Social Audit South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 46.61 54.28 42.54 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Municipality's accountabilty actions are transparent South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Government Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 58 Figures 27 and 28 display the results of these three questions. Figure 27 compares the ways in which respondents ask for information from their municipalities in the South-Center over time and in the Southern Caribbean. When looking at the distribution of responses in the South, the percentage of respondents who regularly visit the municipality has increased over time, going from 61.9%to 94.4%. We find a similar result when looking at the Southern Caribbean: 83.3% of citizens prefer the traditional procedure versus the 16.7% who prefer the municipality’s website. Figure 27. How citizens ask for information to the municipality Figure 28 shows a significant difference in the percentage of citizens in each country who have made a request or demand to a person or agency in local government in the past year. As with local meeting attendance, the rate of demand making on local governments varies significantly across countries. Nicaragua ranks in second place with 21.5% of the respondents claiming to have made a request to their local government. 61.9% 14.3% 23.8% 0 20 40 60 80 100 How requested or accessed municipal information Visit Website Other South-Center (2011) 94.4% 5.6% 0 20 40 60 80 100 How requested or accessed municipal information Visit Website South-Center (2015) 83.3% 16.7% 0 20 40 60 80 100 How requested or accessed municipal information Visit Website Southern Caribbean (2015) 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Government Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 59 Figure 28. Requested help from the municipality When asked about whether the municipality gave respondents the information they requested, we find that the majority did. Nonetheless, when looking at the South-Center region, we observe a drop from 95.24% in 2011 to 72% in 2015. However, the difference is not significant. 76% of respondents in the Southern Caribbean obtained the requested information. The moderate levels of knowledge of the Access to Public Information Law is noteworthy. Again, in the South, the percentage of respondents who know the steps to follow when the municipality denies information dropped from a 65% to a 58.33% (although the difference is not statistically significant) between 2011 and 2015. In the Southern Caribbean, 5 out of 10 respondents know the steps to follow when they do not get the requested information. 8.2% 9.5% 10.5% 10.6% 10.8% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 11.7% 12.8% 12.8% 12.9% 14.0% 14.4% 14.8% 15.0% 15.1% 15.8% 15.9% 16.7% 16.8% 17.1% 19.2% 21.5% 22.6% Guyana Panama Costa Rica Haiti Jamaica Venezuela Guatemala El Salvador Bolivia Honduras Colombia Trinidad & Tobago Brazil Argentina Paraguay United States Ecuador Chile Belize Canada Mexico Dominican Republic Peru Nicaragua Uruguay 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Requested Help from Municipal Office 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, 2014; v.GM14_0912 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 60 Figure 29. Getting information from the municipality Finally, the last battery of questions about fiscal transparency taps into opinions about the municipal budget. The specific wording is as follows: NICMUNI5. ¿Ha participado usted en la elaboración del presupuesto del municipio? (1) Sí ha participado (0) No ha participado (88) NS (98) NR HONMUN37a. ¿Conoce usted el presupuesto de su municipio? (1) Sí (2) No 88) No Sabe (98) No Responde The upper graphs show the little citizen participation in the drafting of municipal budgets and scarce knowledge of their content. Participation has increased over time in the South￾Center region from 4.39% to 8.44% (although the difference is not statistically significant), and it is almost 6% in the Southern Caribbean. Only 8.2% of respondents in the South-Center know their municipal budgets while this percentage drops to 5.22% in the Southern Caribbean. Finally, regarding trust in the municipality managing the budget, scores barely reach the mid-point on the 0-100 scale. There was a significant improvement in the South, where the score rose from 32.72 points to 38.80 points, while in the Southern Caribbean the average is 33.15 points. As shown in Figure 31, trust in the local government is relatively high in Nicaragua (55.1 points in a 0 to 100 scale). The country ranks in fourth place after Chile, Canada and El Salvador. 95.24% 72.00% 76.00% 0 20 40 60 80 100 They gave you the requested information South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 65.00% 58.33% 52.17% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Knows that the access to public information law has the steps to follow when information is denied South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 61 Figure 30. Municipal Budget Figure 31. Trust in the Local Government 4.39% 8.44% 5.99% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Participated in the drafting of the Municipal Budget South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 8.20% 5.22% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Knows the Municipal Budget South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 32.72 38.80 33.15 0 10 20 30 40 50 Trust in the Municipality managing the budget South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 33.7 36.6 37.1 38.7 41.1 41.6 42.1 42.9 43.9 44.0 44.5 45.8 46.2 49.5 49.6 49.9 50.2 50.2 50.9 53.7 53.7 55.1 55.3 55.9 57.3 Jamaica Peru Brazil Haiti Trinidad & Tobago Belize Dominican Republic Colombia Panama Guatemala Guyana Argentina Bolivia United States Ecuador Costa Rica Uruguay Venezuela Mexico Paraguay Honduras Nicaragua El Salvador Canada Chile 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Trust in Local Government 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, 2014; v.GM14_0912 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 62 Conclusions Qualitative findings  There is moderate agreement with the idea that the government informs citizens about the National Budget (average scores of 55.70 on a 0-100 scale in the South, 48.97 points in the Southern Caribbean, and 38.44 points in Managua).  There is little knowledge of and participation in social audits across regions.  There is a perception of low transparency regarding accountability actions in the municipalities (below the mid-point on the 0-100 scale).  There is a preference of regular visits to the municipalities to ask for information over the use of the municipality’s website.  The majority of respondents get the information they request from their municipalities.  There is little knowledge of the Access to Public Information Law.  There is low participation in the drafting of municipal budgets and scarce knowledge of their content (around 8% of respondents have participated and know of their content, with no differences across time nor region).  There is moderate trust in the municipality managing the budget. There was a significant improvement in the South, where the score rose from 43.34 to 47.52 points, while in the Southern Caribbean the average is 50.28 points. In general, focus group participants showed high levels of knowledge of the national budget, what it is, how it is approved, why it is important, etc. At the same time they recognize that there is a general lack of knowledge among Nicaraguans about the national budget.  They mentioned that while there are legal norms and procedures for civil society consultations and participation in the development of the national budget, these mechanisms are not employed.  Limitations remain for citizens or civil society organizations to obtain accurate and timely information about the budget’s definitions and components.  Participants agreed that government authorities do not seem to have any interest in providing adequate information on the budget. The information that is available is said to be very limited and related to those programs that can generate more political advantages for the government. These opinions are also highlighted in regards to the budget at the municipal level.  Most of the participants recognized the importance of the workshops and activities organized by IEEPP, including the information the IEEPP offered about the methodology used in order to better understand the national and local budgets, as well as the tools provided to participants to audit the management public institutions and resources. Recommendations General recommendations  Organize public awareness campaigns about social audits.  Encourage participation in the drafting of municipal budgets. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 63  Inform citizens about the budget drafting process, and the budget’s content.  Organize and promote public awareness campaigns about the Access to Public Information Law.  Improve municipal websites and make information available online.  Ensure/provide access to the Internet through community organizations.  Promote the use of the Internet to interact with local governments.  Hold workshops to teach journalists, students and politicians about computers and the use of the Internet. Recommendations for program implementation  All participants agreed that IEEPP is geographically focused in Managua and they consider it important to expand the coverage of the program to other regions and departments.  Participants believe that the IEEPP should work as a national network, through integration and coordination with other civil society organization that have similar objectives in terms of improving citizens participation, strengthening social audits, etc. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 64 References Bamberger M., Rao V. & Woolcock M. (2010). Using Mixed Methods in Monitoringand Evaluation. Experiences from International Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://wwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/03/23/0001583= 20100323100628/Rendered/PDF/WPS5245.pdf National Research Council, Jack A. Goldstone, Larry Garber, John Gerring, Clark C. Gibson, Mitchell A. Seligson, and Jeremy Weinstein. 2008. Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press. Rodriguez M. and Donoso J.C. (2016) “Survey Study of Citizen Security in the Northern Southern Caribbean Coast in Nicaragua and Targeted Municipalities of the Northern and Southern Borders”, LAPOP, Vanderbilt University. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 65 Annexes Annex 1: Fieldwork Dates Table A1: Quantitative Interviews Fieldwork Dates Table A2: Focus Groups and In-depth Interviews Fieldwork Dates Managua Managua November 15-17, 2015 San Pedro de Lovago December 08-21, 2015 Santo Domingo December 12-15, 2015 Muelle de Los Bueyes January 18-22, 2016 El Almendro January 18-21, 2016 Laguna de Perlas January 22-26, 2016 Bluefields January 22-25, 2016 Corn Island January 27-30, 2016 Fieldwork Dates South Caribbean Region Municipality Municipality Focus Groups In-Depth interviews Interview Dates 3 students + 2 Civil Society Organization + 1 National Assembly Deputies + 2 Journalists + 1 Program implementer partners November 14-17, 2015 TOTAL 9 interviews 3 stakeholders (NGO, women, Youth, Municipal Councils, etc.) + 1 Program implementer partners November 18-20, 2015. TOTAL 4 interviews Disability Program 3 per program (NGOs, Youth, Municipal Councils, etc.) + 3 Program implementer partners November 21-26, 2015. Civil Society Participation Climate Change TOTAL 12 interviews Total 5 Focus groups 25 in-depth interviews Managua Fiscal Transparency Chontales Civil Society Participation Bluefields Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 67 Annex 3: Letter of Informed Consent 14 de Noviembre de 2015 Estimado señor o señora: Usted ha sido elegido/a al azar para participar en un estudio de opinión pública. Vengo por encargo de la Universidad de Vanderbilt y Borge y Asociados. El proyecto esta financiado por la AID de los Estados Unidos. La entrevista durará unos 45 minutos. El objetivo principal del estudio es conocer la opinión de las personas acerca de diferentes aspectos de la situación de Nicaragua. El estudio se lleva a cabo de manera que podamos comprender mejor lo que la gente piensa acerca de su país, aunque no podemos ofrecer ningún beneficio específico. Planificamos realizar una serie de conferencias basadas en los resultados de lo que dice la gente. Nunca revelaremos su opinión individual. Su participación en el estudio es voluntaria. Usted puede dejar preguntas sin responder o terminar la entrevista en cualquier momento. Las respuestas que usted proporcione serán completamente confidenciales y anónimas. Usted no recibirá pago alguno por su participación, pero ésta tampoco le ocasionará gastos. Si tiene preguntas respecto al estudio, puede comunicarse con [partner local] al teléfono [XXX- XXX- XXXX] con [Director del estudio] al correo [XXXXXX]. Dejaremos esta carta con usted, en caso usted desee revisarla. El número IRB del estudio es 110627. ¿Desea Participar? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 68 Annex 4: Questionnaires Nicaragua, Municipal Governance Program 2015 (v10) IRB Approval: 110627 Municipal Governance Study, Nicaragua 2015 © Vanderbilt University 2015. Derechos reservados. All rights reserved. PAIS. 01. México 02. Guatemala 03. El Salvador 04. Honduras 05. Nicaragua 06. Costa Rica 07. Panamá 08. Colombia 09. Ecuador 10. Bolivia 11. Perú 12. Paraguay 13. Chile 14. Uruguay 15. Brasil 16. Venezuela 17. Argentina 21. Rep. Dom. 22. Haití 23. Jamaica 24.Guyana 25. Trinidad y Tobago 26. Belice 40. Estados Unidos 41. Canadá 27. Surinam IDNUM. Número de cuestionario [asignado en la oficina]__________________ ESTRATOPRI: (501) Metropolitana (502) Centro (503) Norte (504) Pacífico Norte (505) Pacífico Sur (506) Caribe UPM. (Unidad Primaria de Muestreo) ______________________________ PROV. Departamento :_______________________________________ 5 MUNICIPIO. Municipio: ____________________________________ 5 NICSEGMENTO. SEGMENTO CENSAL__________________________________ NICSEC. Sector_______________________________________________________ CLUSTER. (Unidad Final de Muestreo o Punto Muestral) [Máximo de 8 entrevistas urbanas, 12 rurales] UR. (1) Urbano (2) Rural [Usar definición censal del país] MUESTRAESPC. (3) Región Sur, tratamiento TAMANO. Tamaño del lugar: (1) Capital nacional (área metropolitana) (2) Ciudad grande (3) Ciudad mediana (4) Ciudad pequeña (5) Área rural IDIOMAQ. Idioma del cuestionario: (1) Español Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 69 Hora de inicio: _____:_____ FECHA. Fecha de la entrevista día: ____ mes:_______ año: 2015 ¿Vive usted en esta casa? Sícontinúe No Agradezca al entrevistado y termine la entrevista ¿Es usted ciudadano nicaragüense o residente permanente de Nicaragua? Sícontinúe No Agradezca al entrevistado y termine la entrevista ¿Cuántos años tiene? [Seguir solo si tiene por lo menos 16 años] Sícontinúe No Agradezca al entrevistado y termine la entrevista ATENCIÓN: ES UN REQUISITO LEER SIEMPRE LA HOJA DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO ANTES DE COMENZAR LA ENTREVISTA Q1. [Anotar, no preguntar] Género: (1) Hombre (2) Mujer LS3. Para comenzar, ¿en general, qué tan satisfecho está con su vida? ¿Usted diría que se encuentra: [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy satisfecho(a) (2) Algo satisfecho(a) (3) Algo insatisfecho(a) (4) Muy insatisfecho(a) (88) NS (98) NR A4MUNI. En su opinión ¿cuál es el problema más grave que está enfrentando el municipio? [NO LEER ALTERNATIVAS; SÓLO UNA OPCIÓN] Agua, falta de 19 Impunidad 61 Caminos/vías en mal estado 18 Inflación, altos precios 02 Secretismo 71 Los políticos 59 Corrupción 13 Mal gobierno 15 Crédito, falta de 09 Medio ambiente 10 Delincuencia, crimen, 05 Migración 16 Derechos humanos, violaciones de 56 Narcotráfico 12 Desempleo/falta de empleo 03 Pandillas 14 Desigualdad 58 Pobreza 04 Desnutrición 23 Protestas populares (huelgas, cierre de carreteras, paros, etc.) 06 Desplazamiento forzado 32 Salud, falta de servicio 22 Deuda Externa 26 Secuestro 31 Discriminación 25 Seguridad (falta de) 27 Drogadicción 11 Terrorismo 33 Economía, problemas con, crisis de 01 Tierra para cultivar, falta de 07 Educación, falta de, mala calidad 21 Transporte, problemas con el 60 Electricidad, falta de 24 Violencia 57 Explosión demográfica 20 Vivienda 55 Guerra contra terrorismo 17 Otro 70 NS 88 NR 98 SOCT1. Ahora, hablando de la economía… ¿Cómo calificaría la situación económica del país? ¿Diría usted que es muy buena, buena, ni buena ni mala, mala o muy mala? (1) Muy buena (2) Buena (3) Ni buena, ni mala (regular) (4) Mala (5) Muy mala (pésima) (88) NS (98) NR Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 70 SOCT2. ¿Considera usted que la situación económica actual del país es mejor, igual o peor que hace doce meses? (1) Mejor (2) Igual (3) Peor (88) NS (98) NR IDIO1. ¿Cómo calificaría en general su situación económica? ¿Diría usted que es muy buena, buena, ni buena ni mala, mala o muy mala? (1) Muy buena (2) Buena (3) Ni buena, ni mala (regular) (4) Mala (5) Muy mala (pésima) (88) NS (98) NR IDIO2. ¿Considera usted que su situación económica actual es mejor, igual o peor que la de hace doce meses? (1) Mejor (2) Igual (3) Peor (88) NS (98) NR Ahora, para hablar de otra cosa, a veces la gente y las comunidades tienen problemas que no pueden resolver por sí mismas, y para poder resolverlos piden ayuda a algún funcionario u oficina del gobierno. ¿Para poder resolver sus problemas alguna vez ha pedido usted ayuda o cooperación ... [Lea cada opción y anote la respuesta] Sí No NS NR CP2. ¿A algún diputado de la Asamblea Nacional? 1 2 88 98 CP4A. ¿A alguna autoridad local como el alcalde, concejal u otro funcionario municipal? 1 2 88 98 CP4. ¿A algún ministerio/secretario, institución pública, u oficina del estado? 1 2 88 98 Pasando a otro tema, hablando sobre el alcalde y los concejales municipales. Sí No NS NR PMP1. ¿Se siente usted representado por el Alcalde? 1 2 88 98 PMP2. ¿Se siente usted representado por los concejales? 1 2 88 98 NP1. ¿Ha asistido a un cabildo abierto o una sesión del concejo municipal durante los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí [Pase a NP1B] (2) No [Siga] (88) No Sabe [Pase a NP1C] (98) No Responde [Pase a NP1C] NP1A. [Solo para los que no asistieron] ¿Por qué no asistió? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) No fue informado (2) No quiso asistir (3) No le interesa (7) Otra razón (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde (99) INAP NP1B. ¿Recibió información previa sobre lo que se discutiría en el cabildo? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde (99) INAP NP1C. ¿Ha escuchado o visto campañas de comunicación que expliquen cómo y dónde participar en los cabildos, sesiones y otros espacios en el municipio? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pase a NP1E] (88) No Sabe [Pase a NP1E] (98) No Responde [Pase a NP1E] NP1D. Si las ha escuchado o visto, ¿estas campañas de comunicación le han motivado a participar? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (3) Nada (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde (99) INAP NP1E. Sobre las sesiones del Concejo, ¿conoce la fecha en que se realizan dichas sesiones? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 71 (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde NP2. ¿Ha solicitado ayuda o ha presentado una petición a alguna oficina, funcionario, concejal o síndico de la alcaldía durante los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pase a PMP3] (88) NS [Pase a PMP3] (98) No responde [Pase a PMP3] MUNI10. ¿Le resolvieron su asunto o petición? (1) Sí (0) No (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP MUNI10a. En general, ¿cómo evalúa la calidad de la atención recibida? (1) Muy buena (2) Buena (3) Ni buena ni mala (regular) (4) Mala (5) Muy mala (pésima) (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP PMP3. ¿Ha solicitado o accedido a información de la municipalidad durante los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pase a SGL1] (88) No Sabe [Pase a SGL1] (98) No Responde [Pase a SGL1] PMP4. ¿A través de qué medio solicitó o accedió a la información de la municipalidad? (1) Mediante trámite regular (2) Mediante la página web de la municipalidad (7) Otro medio (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP PMP4A. ¿Le han brindado la información solicitada? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pase a PMP6] (88) No Sabe [Pase a PMP6] (98) No Responde [Pase a PMP6] (99) INAP PMP5. En general, ¿cómo evalúa la calidad de la información recibida? (1) Muy buena (2) Buena (3) Ni buena ni mala (regular) (4) Mala (5) Muy mala (pésima) (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP PMP6. ¿Sabía usted que la Ley de Acceso a la información pública contiene los pasos a seguir cuando le niegan la información solicitada? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde (99) INAP SGL1. ¿Diría usted que los servicios que la alcaldía está dando a la gente son: [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy buenos (2) Buenos (3) Ni buenos ni malos (regulares) (4) Malos (5) Muy malos (pésimos) (88) NS (98) NR SGL2. ¿Cómo considera que les han tratado a usted o a sus vecinos cuando han ido al municipio para hacer trámites? ¿Le han tratado muy bien, bien, ni bien ni mal, mal o muy mal? (1) Muy bien (2) Bien (3) Ni bien ni mal (4) Mal (5) Muy mal (88) No sabe (98) NR PMP7. ¿Qué tan bien o mal capacitado cree que está el alcalde para realizar su trabajo? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Muy capacitado (2) Algo capacitado (3) Poco capacitado (4) Nada capacitado (88) NS (98) NR PMP8. ¿Qué tan bien o mal capacitados cree que están los otros funcionarios municipales para realizar su trabajo? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Muy capacitados (2) Algo capacitados (3) Poco capacitados (4) Nada capacitados (88) NS (98) NR PMP9. ¿Ha pagado sus impuestos en los últimos doce meses? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde PMP11. ¿En los últimos 12 meses, la municipalidad le ha informado cuáles son sus obligaciones tributarias/impuestos? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 72 LGL3. ¿Estaría usted dispuesto a pagar más impuestos al municipio para que pueda prestar mejores servicios municipales o cree que no vale la pena pagar más impuestos al municipio? (1) Dispuesto a pagar más impuestos (2) No vale la pena pagar más impuestos (88) No sabe (98) NR Ahora le voy a preguntar sobre ciertos servicios municipales. Le voy a pedir que para cada uno de ellos me diga si en los últimos dos años ha mejorado, ha seguido igual o ha empeorado. [Después de cada servicio, repetir “¿Ha mejorado, ha seguido igual o ha empeorado?] HONMUN32. Recolección de basura (1) Ha mejorado (2) Ha seguido igual (3) Ha empeorado NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN33. Administración de los mercados. (1) Ha mejorado (2) Ha seguido igual (3) Ha empeorado NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN34. Relleno sanitario y deposición de desechos/ botadero de basura (1) Ha mejorado (2) Ha seguido igual (3) Ha empeorado NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN35. Administración de los cementerios municipales (1) Ha mejorado (2) Ha seguido igual (3) Ha empeorado NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN36. Y el servicio de Agua y alcantarillas en su municipio… [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Ha mejorado (2) Ha seguido igual (3) Ha empeorado NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN45. Mantenimiento de calles (1) Ha mejorado (2) Ha seguido igual (3) Ha empeorado NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN46. Mantenimiento de caminos (1) Ha mejorado (2) Ha seguido igual (3) Ha empeorado NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN47. Rastros (mataderos) (1) Ha mejorado (2) Ha seguido igual (3) Ha empeorado NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN49.Parques y lugares de recreación (1) Ha mejorado (2) Ha seguido igual (3) Ha empeorado NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN48. ¿Participa usted en el cuidado o mantenimiento de alguno de estos servicios que hemos mencionado? (1) Sí (2) No (3) Algunas veces (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde HONMUN37. ¿La alcaldía del municipio donde usted vive informa a los ciudadanos sobre la forma en que invierte los recursos de la municipalidad? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pase a NICMUNI5] (88) No Sabe [Pase a NICMUNI5] (98) No Responde [Pase a NICMUNI5] Dígame por favor, ¿de cuáles de las siguientes maneras esta municipalidad suele informar a los ciudadanos sobre su gestión y la utilización de recursos? HONMUN38. Mediante cabildos abiertos (1) Sí (2) No NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN39. Asambleas Comunitarias (1) Sí (2) No NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN40. Publicación en algún medio local, como radio o TV. (1) Sí (2) No NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN41. Reunión con el alcalde municipal o delegado municipal (1) Sí (2) No NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN42. La municipalidad informa a través de rótulos fijos o murales (1) Sí (2) No NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 73 HONMUN43. Páginas Web (1) Sí (2) No NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) HONMUN44. Oficinas de Acceso a la Información Pública (1) Sí (2) No NS (88) NR (98) INAP (99) NICMUNI5. ¿Ha participado usted en la elaboración del presupuesto del municipio? (1) Sí ha participado (0) No ha participado (88) NS (98) NR HONMUN37a. ¿Conoce usted el presupuesto de su municipio? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde NICMUNI6. ¿Qué grado de confianza tiene usted en el buen manejo de los fondos por parte de la alcaldía? [Leer alternativas] (3) Mucha confianza (2) Algo de confianza (1) Poca confianza (0) Nada de confianza (88) NS (98) NR NICMUNI8. ¿Ha realizado usted algún trámite o solicitado algún documento en la alcaldía durante los últimos doce meses? (1) Sí [siga] (0) No [pase a NICMUNI15] (88) NS [pase a NICMUNI15] (98) NR [Pase a NICMUNI15] NICMUNI9. ¿Cómo fue atendido? [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy bien (2) Bien (3) Ni bien, ni mal (Regular) (4) Mal (5) Muy mal (Pésimo) (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP NINCMUN10. ¿Cómo considera que son los trámites en la municipalidad: ágiles o engorrosos/complicados? (1) Ágiles (2) Engorrosos/complicados (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP NICMUNI15. ¿Qué tan interesado cree usted que está el alcalde en la participación de la gente en el trabajo del municipio? [Leer alternativas] (3) Muy interesado (2) Algo interesado (1) Poco interesado (0) Nada interesado (88) NS (98) NR NICMUNI16. ¿Ha escuchado hablar de los CPC (Consejos de Poder Ciudadano)? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pase a NICMUNI17] (88) NS [Pase a NICMUNI17] (98) NR [Pase a NICMUNI17] NICMUNI16A. Pensando en los CPC (Consejos de Poder Ciudadano), ¿cuál cree usted que es el rol principal de estos? [Leer alternativas] (1) Estimular la participación de los ciudadanos (2) Son un método para estimular la rendición de cuentas (3) Promover el control partidista (4) Facilitar la descentralización de poderes (5) Son un mecanismo para vigilar a los ciudadanos (6) Otro (especifique): ________________________ [No leer] (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP NICMUNI17. En los últimos 12 meses usted ha participado en: Sí No NS NR NICMUN17A. Cabildos? 1 2 88 98 NICMUN17B. Consultas populares? 1 2 88 98 NICMUN17C. Asambleas de pobladores? 1 2 88 98 NICMUN17D. Otras reuniones? 1 2 88 98 NICMUNI18. ¿Usted sabe que significa la auditoría social? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pase a NICMUNI19] (88) No Sabe [Pase a NICMUNI19] (98) No Responde [Pase a NICMUNI19] Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 74 NICMUNI18A. ¿Ha participado en alguna acción de auditoría social en los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde (99) INAP NICMUNI19. ¿Considera que las acciones de rendición de cuentas que hace la Alcaldía, son: (1) Muy transparentes (2) Algo transparentes (3) Poco transparentes (4) Nada transparentes (88) NS (98) NR Le voy a mencionar algunas organizaciones, quisiera que me conteste si conoce o no conoce a estas organizaciones que trabajan en el municipio: Sí No NS NR NICMUN20A. Organizaciones de Mujeres 1 2 88 98 NICMUN20B. Organización de Productores 1 2 88 98 NICMUN20C. Comité de Desarrollo Municipal 1 2 88 98 NICMUN20D. Otras organizaciones del municipio 1 2 88 98 Sobre la información que brinda el municipio, usted cree que el municipio informa sobre: Sí No NS NR NICMUN22B. El plan de desarrollo municipal? 1 2 88 98 NICMUN22C. La ejecución del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal? 1 2 88 98 NICMUN22D. El presupuesto y la ejecución del mismo? 1 2 88 98 NICMUN22G. Los trámites para obtener determinados servicios? 1 2 88 98 Considera que su municipalidad es: Sí No NS NR NICMUN23A. Transparente en la gestión 1 2 88 98 NICMUN23B. Neutro (imparcial) ante diferencias partidarias de los ciudadanos 1 2 88 98 NICMUN23C. Libre de presiones políticas cuando toma las decisiones 1 2 88 98 Una vez a la semana Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunc a NS NR CP5. Ahora, para cambiar el tema, ¿en los últimos doce meses usted ha contribuido para ayudar a solucionar algún problema de su comunidad o de los vecinos de su barrio o colonia? Por favor, dígame si lo hizo por lo menos una vez a la semana, una o dos veces al mes, una o dos veces al año, o nunca en los últimos 12 meses. 1 2 3 4 88 98 CP5A. ¿Ha donado Ud. dinero o materiales para ayudar a 1 2 3 4 88 98 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 75 solucionar algún problema de la comunidad o de su barrio? CP5B. ¿Ha contribuido Ud. con su propio trabajo o mano de obra? 1 2 3 4 88 98 CP5C. ¿Ha estado asistiendo Ud. a reuniones comunitarias sobre algún problema o sobre alguna mejora? 1 2 3 4 88 98 CP5D. ¿Ha tratado de ayudar Ud. a organizar algún grupo nuevo para resolver algún problema del barrio, o para buscar alguna mejora? 1 2 3 4 88 98 Voy a leerle una lista de grupos y organizaciones. Por favor, dígame si asiste a las reuniones de estas organizaciones: una vez a la semana, una o dos veces al mes, una o dos veces al año, o nunca. [Repetir “una vez a la semana,” “una o dos veces al mes,” “una o dos veces al año,” o “nunca” para ayudar al entrevistado] Una vez a la seman a Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunc a NS NR CP6. ¿Reuniones de alguna organización religiosa? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 CP7. ¿Reuniones de una asociación de padres de familia de la escuela o colegio? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 CP8. ¿Reuniones de un comité o junta de mejoras para la comunidad? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 CP9. ¿Reuniones de una asociación de profesionales, comerciantes, productores, y/u organizaciones campesinas? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 CP13. ¿Reuniones de un partido o movimiento político? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 NICCP14. ¿Reuniones de un CPC o Consejo del Poder Ciudadano? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 NICCP15. ¿Reuniones de los Gabinetes de la Familia? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 CP20. [Solo mujeres] ¿Reuniones de asociaciones o grupos de mujeres o amas de casa? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 99 IT1. Ahora, hablando de la gente de por aquí, ¿diría que la gente de su comunidad es: [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy confiable (2) Algo confiable (3) Poco confiable (4) Nada confiable (88) NS (98) NR Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 76 [ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “A”] L1. Cambiando de tema, en esta tarjeta tenemos una escala del 1 a 10 que va de izquierda a derecha, en la cual el número 1 significa izquierda y el 10 significa derecha. Hoy en día cuando se habla de tendencias políticas, mucha gente habla de aquellos que simpatizan más con la izquierda o con la derecha. Según el sentido que tengan para usted los términos "izquierda" y "derecha" cuando piensa sobre su punto de vista político, ¿dónde se encontraría usted en esta escala? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (NS=88) (NR=98) Izquierda Derecha [RECOGER TARJETA “A”] Ahora hablemos de otro tema. Alguna gente dice que en ciertas circunstancias se justificaría que los militares de este país tomen el poder por un golpe de estado. En su opinión se justificaría que hubiera un golpe de estado por los militares frente a las siguientes circunstancias…? [Lea las alternativas después de cada pregunta]: JC1. Frente al desempleo muy alto. (1) Se justificaría que los militares tomen el poder por un golpe de estado (2) No se justificaría que los militares tomen el poder por un golpe de estado NS (88) NR (98) JC10. Frente a mucha delincuencia. (1) Se justificaría que los militares tomen el poder por un golpe de estado (2) No se justificaría que los militares tomen el poder por un golpe de estado NS (88) NR (98) JC13. Frente a mucha corrupción. (1) Se justificaría que los militares tomen el poder por un golpe de estado (2) No se justificaría que los militares tomen el poder por un golpe de estado NS (88) NR (98) JC15A. ¿Cree usted que cuando el país enfrenta momentos muy difíciles, se justifica que el presidente del país cierre la Asamblea Nacional y gobierne sin la Asamblea Nacional? [Leer alternativas] (1) Sí se justifica (2) No se justifica (88) NS (98) NR JC16A. ¿Cree usted que cuando el país enfrenta momentos muy difíciles se justifica que el presidente del país disuelva la Corte Suprema de Justicia y gobierne sin la Corte Suprema de Justicia? [Leer alternativas] (1) Sí se justifica (2) No se justifica (88) NS (98) NR VIC1EXT. Ahora, cambiando el tema, ¿ha sido usted víctima de algún acto de delincuencia en los últimos 12 meses? Es decir, ¿ha sido usted víctima de un robo, Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 77 hurto, agresión, fraude, chantaje, extorsión, amenazas o algún otro tipo de acto delincuencial en los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pasar a VIC1HOGAR] (88) NS [Pasar a VIC1HOGAR] (98) NR [Pasar a VIC1HOGAR] VIC1EXTA. ¿Cuántas veces ha sido usted víctima de un acto delincuencial en los últimos 12 meses? ___________[Marcar el número]____________ (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP VIC2. Pensando en el último acto delincuencial del cual usted fue víctima, de la lista que le voy a leer, ¿qué tipo de acto delincuencial sufrió? [Leer alternativas] (01) Robo sin arma sin agresión o amenaza física (02) Robo sin arma con agresión o amenaza física (03) Robo con arma (04) Agresión física sin robo (05) Violación o asalto sexual (06) Secuestro (07) Daño a la propiedad (08) Robo en la casa (10) Extorsión [o alguien le sobornó] (11) Estafa (12) Otro (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP (no fue víctima) VIC2AA. ¿Podría decirme en qué lugar ocurrió el último acto delincuencial del cual usted fue víctima? [Leer alternativas] (1) En su hogar (2) En este barrio o comunidad (3) En este municipio (4) En otro municipio (5) En otro país (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP (no fue víctima) VIC1HOGAR. ¿Alguna otra persona que vive en su hogar ha sido víctima de algún acto de delincuencia en los últimos 12 meses? Es decir, ¿alguna otra persona que vive en su hogar ha sido víctima de un robo, hurto, agresión, fraude, chantaje, extorsión, amenazas o algún otro tipo de acto delincuencial en los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR AOJ8. Para poder capturar delincuentes, ¿cree usted que las autoridades siempre deben respetar las leyes o en ocasiones pueden actuar al margen de la ley? [No leer alternativas] (1) Deben respetar las leyes siempre (2) En ocasiones pueden actuar al margen de la ley (88) NS (98) NR AOJ11. Hablando del lugar o el barrio/la colonia donde usted vive y pensando en la posibilidad de ser víctima de un asalto o robo, ¿usted se siente muy seguro(a), algo seguro(a), algo inseguro(a) o muy inseguro(a)? (1) Muy seguro(a) (2) Algo seguro(a) (3) Algo inseguro(a) (4) Muy inseguro(a) (88) NS (98) NR AOJ11A. Y hablando del país en general, ¿qué tanto cree usted que el nivel de delincuencia que tenemos ahora representa una amenaza para el bienestar de nuestro futuro? [Leer alternativas] (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR AOJ12. Si usted fuera víctima de un robo o asalto, ¿cuánto confiaría que el sistema judicial castigaría al culpable? [Leer alternativas] Confiaría… Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 78 (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR AOJ17. ¿Hasta qué punto diría que su barrio está afectado por las pandillas? ¿Diría mucho, algo, poco o nada? (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR [ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “B”] En esta tarjeta hay una escalera con gradas numeradas del uno al siete, en la cual el 1 es la grada más baja y significa NADA y el 7 es la grada más alta y significa MUCHO. Por ejemplo, si yo le preguntara hasta qué punto le gusta ver televisión, si a usted no le gusta ver nada, elegiría un puntaje de 1. Si por el contrario le gusta mucho ver televisión me diría el número 7. Si su opinión está entre nada y mucho elegiría un puntaje intermedio. ¿Entonces, hasta qué punto le gusta a usted ver televisión? Léame el número. [Asegúrese que el entrevistado entienda correctamente]. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 98 Nada Mucho NS NR Anotar el número 1-7 88 para los que NS y 98 para los NR Voy a hacerle una serie de preguntas, y le voy a pedir que para darme su respuesta utilice los números de esta escalera. Recuerde que puede usar cualquier número. B1. ¿Hasta qué punto cree usted que los tribunales de justicia de Nicaragua garantizan un juicio justo? (Sondee: Si usted cree que los tribunales no garantizan para nada la justicia, escoja el número 1; si cree que los tribunales garantizan mucho la justicia, escoja el número 7 o escoja un puntaje intermedio) B2. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted respeto por las instituciones políticas de Nicaragua? B3. ¿Hasta qué punto cree usted que los derechos básicos del ciudadano están bien protegidos por el sistema político nicaragüense? B4. ¿Hasta qué punto se siente usted orgulloso(a) de vivir bajo el sistema político nicaragüense? B6. ¿Hasta qué punto piensa usted que se debe apoyar al sistema político nicaragüense? B10A. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza en el sistema de justicia? B11. ¿Hasta qué punto usted tiene confianza en el Consejo Supremo Electoral? B13. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Asamblea Nacional? B14. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en el Gobierno? B18. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Policía Nacional? B20. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Iglesia Católica? B20A. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Iglesia Evangélica? B21A. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en el presidente? B31. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted confianza en la Corte Suprema de Justicia? B32. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted confianza en su alcaldía? B16. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza en la Procuraduría General de la República? B17. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Defensoría Pública? B46 [b45]. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted confianza en la Contraloría General de la República? B47. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted confianza en las elecciones? NICB49. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted confianza en los CPC o Consejos del Poder Ciudadano? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 79 NICB60. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted confianza en los Gabinetes de la Familia? NICB50. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted confianza en los Concejales de su Municipio? NICN10. Y pensando ahora en el gobierno nacional ¿Hasta qué punto diría que el Gobierno actual protege los derechos humanos? NICFT1.¿Hasta qué punto diría Ud. que el gobierno nacional actual informa a los ciudadanos sobre el Presupuesto General de la República? NICFT2. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual es transparente en la administración del Presupuesto General de la República? NICDIS1. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual promueve los derechos de las personas con discapacidad? NICMUJ1. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno protege los derechos de las mujeres? GEN1. Se dice que cuando no hay suficientes trabajos, los hombres deben tener más derecho a los trabajos que las mujeres. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo? GEN6. El Estado debe exigir que los partidos políticos reserven algunos espacios para mujeres en sus listas de candidatos, aunque tengan que excluir (dejar afuera) a algunos hombres. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo? NICCLI1. Cambiando de tema ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual trabaja para enfrentar el cambio climático? Vamos a hablar un poco del gobierno de su municipio. Ahora, usando la misma escalera [continúe con la tarjeta B: escala 1-7] NADA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MUCHO Anotar 1- 7, 88 = NS, 98 = NR N1MUN. ¿Hasta qué punto diría que el gobierno municipal combate la pobreza? N3MUN. ¿Hasta qué punto diría que el gobierno municipal promueve y protege los principios democráticos? N9MUN. ¿Hasta qué punto diría que el gobierno municipal combate la corrupción en el gobierno? N11MUN. ¿Hasta qué punto diría que el gobierno municipal mejora la seguridad ciudadana? N12MUN. ¿Hasta qué punto diría que el gobierno municipal combate el desempleo? N15MUN. ¿Hasta qué punto diría que el gobierno municipal está manejando bien la economía? [RECOGER TARJETA “B”] [ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “C”] Ahora, vamos a usar una escalera similar, pero el número 1 representa “muy en desacuerdo” y el número 7 representa “muy de acuerdo”. Un número entre el 1 y el 7, representa un puntaje intermedio. Por favor, dígame hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con las siguientes frases. Anotar Número 1-7, 88 para los que NS y 98 para los NR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NS NS Muy en desacuerdo Muy de acuerdo 88 98 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 80 EFF1MUN. A los que gobiernan el municipio les interesa lo que piensa la gente como usted. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? EFF2MUN. Usted siente que entiende bien los asuntos políticos más importantes del municipio. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? Anotar un número 1-7, 88 para los que NS y 98 para los NR ING4. Puede que la democracia tenga problemas, pero es mejor que cualquier otra forma de gobierno. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? DEM23. La democracia puede existir sin partidos políticos. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? [RECOGER TARJETA “C”] PN4. En general, ¿usted diría que está muy satisfecho(a), satisfecho(a), insatisfecho(a) o muy insatisfecho(a) con la forma en que la democracia funciona en Nicaragua? (1) Muy satisfecho (a) (2) Satisfecho (a) (3) Insatisfecho (a) (4) Muy insatisfecho (a) (88) NS (98) NR PN4MUN. Y pensando ahora en su municipalidad En general, ¿usted diría que está muy satisfecho(a), satisfecho(a), insatisfecho(a) o muy insatisfecho(a) con la forma en que la democracia funciona en el municipio? (1) Muy satisfecho (a) (2) Satisfecho (a) (3) Insatisfecho (a) (4) Muy insatisfecho (a) (88) NS (98) NR PN5. En su opinión, ¿Nicaragua es un país muy democrático, algo democrático, poco democrático, o nada democrático? (1) Muy democrático (2) Algo democrático (3) Poco democrático (4) Nada democrático (88) NS (98) NR DEM2. Con cuál de las siguientes frases está usted más de acuerdo: (1) A la gente como uno, le da lo mismo un régimen democrático que uno no democrático, O (2) La democracia es preferible a cualquier otra forma de gobierno, O (3) En algunas circunstancias un gobierno autoritario puede ser preferible a uno democrático (88) NS (98) NR Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 81 [ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “D”] Ahora vamos a cambiar a otra tarjeta. Esta nueva tarjeta tiene una escalera del 1 a 10, el 1 indica que usted desaprueba firmemente y el 10 indica que usted aprueba firmemente. Las preguntas que siguen son para saber su opinión sobre las diferentes ideas que tienen las personas que viven en Nicaragua. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NS NR Desaprueba firmemente Aprueba firmemente 88 98 E16. Que las personas hagan justicia por su propia cuenta cuando el Estado no castiga a los criminales. ¿Hasta qué punto aprueba o desaprueba? 1-10, 88,98 D1. Hay personas que siempre hablan mal de la forma de gobierno de Nicaragua, no sólo del gobierno de turno, sino del sistema de gobierno, ¿con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted el derecho de votar de esas personas? Por favor léame el número de la escalera: [Sondee: ¿Hasta qué punto?] D2. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted que estas personas puedan llevar a cabo manifestaciones pacíficas con el propósito de expresar sus puntos de vista? Por favor léame el número. D3. Siempre pensando en los que hablan mal de la forma de gobierno de Nicaragua. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted que estas personas puedan postularse para cargos públicos? D4. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted que estas personas salgan en la televisión para dar un discurso? D5. Y ahora, cambiando el tema, y pensando en los homosexuales. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que estas personas puedan postularse para cargos públicos? D6. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que las parejas del mismo sexo puedan tener el derecho a casarse? D7. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que se permita que las personas con discapacidad física se postulen para cargos públicos? [RECOJA TARJETA D] NICDIS2. En su opinión, cuál de los siguientes organismos debe ocuparse de asegurar la igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad? [LEER LA LISTA, MARCAR UNA SOLA OPCION] 1) El Gobierno Central 2) Los Gobiernos Locales (Municipios) 3) La Empresa privada 4) Las mismas personas con discapacidad o sus familias 5) Las ONGs 6) Las Iglesias y Organizaciones de la Fe. 7) [NO LEER] Otra respuesta (88) No sabe (98) No responde NICDIS2A. En general, cree usted que en Nicaragua la discriminación en contra de las personas con discapacidad es un problema muy importante, algo importante, poco importante, o nada importante? (1) Muy importante (2) Algo importante (3) Poco importante (4) Nada importante (88) NS (98) NR Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 82 [ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “E”] Ahora vamos a cambiar a otra tarjeta. Esta nueva tarjeta tiene una escalera del 1 a 10, el 1 indica nada y 10 indica mucho. Voy a leerle una lista de frases. Quisiera que me dijera con qué firmeza usted está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NS NR Nada Mucho 88 98 1-10, 88, 98 NICDIS4. Las personas con discapacidad pueden hacer bien sus trabajos. ¿Hasta que punto está de acuerdo? NICDIS5. Las personas con discapacidad que trabajan deben recibir a igual tarea, el mismo salario que otros trabajadores que no tienen discapacidad ¿Hasta que punto está de acuerdo? NICDIS7. Pensando las personas con discapacidad ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo que las personas con discapacidad participen en los cabildos en la defensa de sus derechos? NICGEN1. Y ahora, pensando en las personas homosexuales ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo que las personas homosexuales participen en los cabildos en la defensa de sus derechos? NICGEN2. Las mujeres deben tener los mismos derechos a la propiedad de tierras y bienes de producción que los hombres. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo? [Recoger tarjeta “E”] Ahora cambiando de tema… VB50. Algunos dicen que en general, los hombres son mejores líderes políticos que las mujeres. ¿Está usted muy de acuerdo, de acuerdo, en desacuerdo, o muy en desacuerdo? (1) Muy de acuerdo (2) De acuerdo (3) En desacuerdo (4) Muy en desacuerdo (88) NS (98) NR VB51. ¿Quién cree usted que sería más corrupto como político: un hombre, una mujer, o ambos por igual? (1) Un hombre (2) Una mujer (3) Ambos por igual (88) NS (98) NR VB52. Y si le toca a un político o a una política manejar la economía nacional, ¿quién va a hacer el mejor trabajo; un hombre, una mujer o no importa? (1) Un hombre (2) Una mujer (3) No importa (88) NS (98) NR INAP No trató o tuvo contacto No Sí NS NR Ahora queremos hablar de su experiencia personal con cosas que pasan en la vida diaria... EXC2. ¿Algún agente de policía le pidió una mordida o soborno en los últimos 12 meses? 0 1 88 98 EXC6. ¿En los últimos 12 meses, algún empleado público le ha solicitado una mordida o soborno? 0 1 88 98 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 83 INAP No trató o tuvo contacto No Sí NS NR EXC11. ¿Ha tramitado algo en la alcaldía en los últimos 12 meses? Si la respuesta es No  Marcar 99 Si la respuesta es Si  Preguntar: Para tramitar algo en la alcaldía, como un permiso, por ejemplo, durante el último año, ¿ha tenido que pagar alguna suma además de lo exigido por la ley? 99 0 1 88 98 EXC13. ¿Usted trabaja? Si la respuesta es No  Marcar 99 Sí la respuesta es Si  Preguntar: En su trabajo, ¿le han solicitado alguna mordida o soborno en los últimos 12 meses? 99 0 1 88 98 EXC14. ¿En los últimos 12 meses, tuvo algún trato con los juzgados? Si la respuesta es No  Marcar 99 Sí la respuesta es Si  Preguntar: ¿Ha tenido que pagar una mordida o soborno en los juzgados en este último año? 99 0 1 88 98 EXC15. ¿Usó servicios médicos públicos (del Estado) en los últimos 12 meses? Si la respuesta es No  Marcar 99 Sí la respuesta es Si  Preguntar: En los últimos 12 meses, ¿ha tenido que pagar alguna mordida o soborno para ser atendido en un hospital o en un puesto de salud? 99 0 1 88 98 EXC16. En el último año, ¿tuvo algún hijo o hija en la escuela o colegio? Si la respuesta es No  Marcar 99 Sí la respuesta es Si  Preguntar: En los últimos 12 meses, ¿tuvo que pagar alguna mordida o soborno en la escuela o colegio? 99 0 1 88 98 EXC18. ¿Cree que como están las cosas a veces se justifica pagar una mordida o soborno? 0 1 88 98 VB1. ¿Tiene usted cédula de identidad? (1) Sí (2) No (3) En trámite (88) NS (98) NR VB2. ¿Votó usted en las últimas elecciones presidenciales del 2011? (1) Sí votó [Siga] (2) No votó [Pasar a NICVB2] (88) NS [Pasar a NICVB2] (98) NR [Pasar a NICVB2] EXC7. Teniendo en cuenta su experiencia o lo que ha oído mencionar, ¿la corrupción de los funcionarios públicos en el país está: [LEER] (1) Muy generalizada (2) Algo generalizada (3) Poco generalizada (4) Nada generalizada (88) NS (98) NR EXC7MUN. Teniendo en cuenta su experiencia o lo que ha oído mencionar, ¿la corrupción de los funcionarios municipales está: [LEER] (1) Muy generalizada (2) Algo generalizada (3) Poco generalizada (4) Nada generalizada (88) NS (98) NR Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 84 VB3. ¿Por quién votó para Presidente en las últimas elecciones presidenciales de 2011? [NO LEER LISTA] (00) Ninguno (fue a votar pero dejó la boleta en blanco) (97) Ninguno (anuló su voto) (501) Arnoldo Alemán (Partido Liberal Constitucionalista - PLC) (502) Daniel Ortega Saavedra (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional – FSLN) (503) Enrique Quiñonez (Alianza Liberal Nicaragüense - ALN) (504) Fabio Gadea Mantilla (Alianza Partido Liberal Independiente (PLI) (505) Roger Guevara Mena (Alianza por la República - APRE) (577) Otro (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP (No votó) NICVB2. ¿Votó usted en las últimas elecciones municipales del 2012? (1) Sí votó (2) No votó (88) NS (98) NR POL1. ¿Qué tanto interés tiene usted en la política: mucho, algo, poco o nada? (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR PP1. Durante las elecciones, alguna gente trata de convencer a otras para que voten por algún partido o candidato. ¿Con qué frecuencia ha tratado usted de convencer a otros para que voten por un partido o candidato? [Leer alternativas] (1) Frecuentemente (2) De vez en cuando (3) Rara vez (4) Nunca (88) NS (98) NR [SOLO EN CUESTIONARIOS PARES] ENV1. En su opinión, ¿a qué debe darse más prioridad: proteger el medio ambiente o promover el crecimiento económico? (1) Proteger el medio ambiente (2) Promover el crecimiento económico (3) [No leer] Ambas (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP |__|__| [ENTREGAR TARJETA “F”] [SOLO EN CUESTIONARIOS IMPARES] ENV1_new. Algunas personas creen que se debe priorizar la protección del medio ambiente por sobre el crecimiento económico, mientras otros creen que se debe priorizar el crecimiento económico por sobre la protección del medio ambiente. Pensando en este debate, ¿Dónde se ubicaría usted en una escala de 1 a 7, donde 1 significa que la protección del medio ambiente debe tener mayor prioridad y 7 significa que el crecimiento económico debe tener mayor prioridad. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 El medio ambiente debe tener mayor prioridad El crecimiento económico debe tener mayor prioridad. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 85 [RECOGER TARJETA “F”] ENV2. Si no se toman acciones para reducir el cambio climático en el futuro, ¿Qué tan serio sería esto para Nicaragua? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Muy serio (2) Algo serio (3) Poco serio (4) Nada serio (88) NS (89) NR ENV5.¿Cree usted que el cambio climático representa un riesgo para su bienestar y el de su familia? (1) Si (2) No (88) No sabe (98) No responde ENV3. Pensando ahora en su situación económica. Si no se toman acciones para reducir el cambio climático en el futuro, ¿Qué tan serio sería esto para su situación económica en el futuro? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Muy serio (2) Algo serio (3) Poco serio (4) Nada serio (88) NS (89) NR Una vez a la semana Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunc a NS NR ENV6a. ¿En los últimos doce meses usted y su familia han tomado medidas o acciones para enfrentar problemas relacionados con el cambio climático? Por favor, dígame si lo hizo por lo menos una vez a la semana, una o dos veces al mes, una o dos veces al año, o nunca en los últimos 12 meses. 1 2 3 4 88 98 ENV6b. ¿En los últimos doce meses ha participado usted de actividades o acciones para enfrentar problemas relacionados con el cambio climático en su comunidad? Por favor, dígame si lo hizo por lo menos una vez a la semana, una o dos veces al mes, una o dos veces al año, o nunca en los últimos 12 meses. 1 2 3 4 88 98 ENV6c. En los últimos doce meses ha participado de actividades o acciones para enfrentar problemas relacionados con el cambio climático en su municipio? 1 2 3 4 88 98 [ENTREGAR TARJETA “G”] Ahora, vamos a usar una escalera similar, pero el número 1 representa “muy en desacuerdo” y el número 7 representa “muy de acuerdo”. Un número entre el 1 y el 7, representa un puntaje intermedio. Anotar Número 1-7, 88 para los que NS y 98 para los NR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 98 Muy en desacuerdo Muy de acuerdo NS NR ENV4a. El gobierno debe destinar más dinero a asegurar que los negocios estén preparados para adaptarse al cambio climático, aun cuando esto implique gastar menos en otras cosas o programas. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 86 ENV4b. El gobierno debe destinar más dinero a combatir el cambio climático,, aun cuando esto implique gastar menos en otras cosas o programas. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? [RECOGER TARJETA “G”] ED. ¿Cuál fue el último año de educación que usted completó o aprobó? _____ Año de ___________________ (primaria, secundaria, universitaria, superior no universitaria) = ________ años total [Usar tabla a continuación para el código] 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ninguno 0 Primaria 1 2 3 4 5 6 Secundaria 7 8 9 10 11 12 Universitaria 13 14 15 16 17 18+ Superior no universitaria 13 14 15 16 NS 88 NR 98 Q2. ¿Cuál es su edad en años cumplidos? __________ años (888 = NS 988 = NR) Q5A. ¿Con qué frecuencia asiste usted a servicios religiosos? [Leer alternativas] (1) Más de una vez por semana (2) Una vez por semana (3) Una vez al mes (4) Una o dos veces al año (5) Nunca o casi nunca (88) NS (98) NR Q5B. Por favor, ¿podría decirme, qué tan importante es la religión en su vida? [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy importante (2) Algo importante (3) Poco importante (4) Nada importante (88) NS (98) NR [ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “H”] Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 87 Q10NEW. ¿En cuál de los siguientes rangos se encuentran los ingresos familiares mensuales de este hogar, incluyendo las remesas del exterior y el ingreso de todos los adultos e hijos que trabajan? [Si no entiende, pregunte: ¿Cuánto dinero entra en total a su casa al mes?] (00) Ningún ingreso (01) Menos de 1,100 córdobas (02) Entre 1,100 – 1,650 córdobas (03) Entre 1,651 – 1,950 córdobas (04) Entre 1,951– 2,550 córdobas (05) Entre 2,551 – 3,000 córdobas (06) Entre 3,001 – 3,200 córdobas (07) Entre 3,201 – 3,500 córdobas (08) Entre 3,501 – 3,950 córdobas (09) Entre 3,951– 4,450 córdobas (10) Entre 4,451 – 5,100 córdobas (11) Entre 5,101 – 5,750 córdobas (12) Entre 5,751 – 6,350 córdobas (13) Entre 6,351 – 7,700 córdobas (14) Entre 7,701 – 9,800 córdobas (15) Entre 9,801– 13,500 córdobas (16) Más de 13,500 córdobas (88) NS (98) NR [RECOGER TARJETA “H”] Q10A. ¿Usted o alguien que vive en su casa recibe remesas, es decir, ayuda económica del exterior? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pase a Q10C] (88) NS [Pase a Q10C] (98) NR [Pase a Q10C] Q10B. [Sólo si recibe remesas] ¿Hasta qué punto dependen los ingresos familiares de esta casa de las remesas del exterior? [Leer alternativas] (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP Q10A3. [Sólo si recibe remesas] En los últimos doces meses, ¿la cantidad de dinero que recibe del exterior ha disminuido, aumentado, permanecido igual, o no recibió dinero del exterior en los últimos doce meses? (1) Ha aumentado (2) Se ha mantenido igual (3) Ha disminuido (4) No recibió dinero del exterior en los últimos doce meses (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 88 Q10C. [Preguntar a todos] ¿Tiene usted familiares cercanos que antes vivieron en esta casa y que hoy estén residiendo en el exterior? [Si dijo “Sí”, preguntar ¿en dónde?] [No leer alternativas] (1) Sí, en los Estados Unidos solamente [Siga] (2) Sí, en los Estados Unidos y en otros países [Siga] (3) Sí, en otros países (no en Estados Unidos) [Siga] (4) No [Pase a Q14] (88) NS [Pase a Q14] (98) NR [Pase a Q14] Q16. [Sólo para los que contestaron Sí en Q10C] ¿Con qué frecuencia se comunica con ellos? [Leer alternativas] (1) Todos los días (2) Una o dos veces por semana (3) Una o dos veces por mes (4) Rara vez (5) Nunca (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP Q14. [Preguntar a todos] ¿Tiene usted intenciones de irse a vivir o a trabajar a otro país en los próximos tres años? (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR Q10D. El salario o sueldo que usted recibe y el total del ingreso de su hogar: [Leer alternativas] (1) Les alcanza bien y pueden ahorrar (2) Les alcanza justo sin grandes dificultades (3) No les alcanza y tienen dificultades (4) No les alcanza y tienen grandes dificultades (88) [No leer] NS (98) [No leer] NR Q10E. En los últimos dos años, el ingreso de su hogar: [Leer opciones] (1) ¿Aumentó? [Pase a Q11] (2) ¿Permaneció igual? [Pase a Q11] (3) ¿Disminuyó? [Pase a Q10F] (88) NS [Pase a Q11] (98) NR [Pase a Q11] Q10F. ¿Cuál fue la principal razón por la que el ingreso de su hogar disminuyó en los últimos dos años? [NO LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Disminuyó la cantidad de horas de trabajo o salario (2) Un miembro de la familia perdió su trabajo (3) Bajaron las ventas/El negocio no anduvo bien (4) El negocio familiar se quebró (5) Las remesas (dinero del exterior) disminuyeron o dejaron de recibirse (6) Un miembro de la familia que recibía ingreso se enfermó, murió o se fue del hogar (7) Desastre natural/ pérdida de cultivo (9) Todo está más caro, el ingreso alcanza menos (8) Otra razón (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP ( “Aumentó”, “Permaneció igual” o NS/NR en Q10E) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 89 Q11. ¿Cuál es su estado civil? [Leer alternativas] (1) Soltero (2) Casado (3) Unión libre (acompañado) (4) Divorciado (5) Separado (6) Viudo (88) NS (98) NR Q12. ¿Tiene hijos(as)? ¿Cuántos? _________ (00= ninguno  Pase a ETID) (88) NS (98) NR Q12A. [Si tiene hijos] ¿Cuántos hijos viven en su hogar en este momento? ___________ 00 = ninguno, (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP (no tiene hijos) ETID. ¿Usted se considera una persona blanca, mestiza, indígena, mulata u otra? [Si la persona entrevistada dice Afro-nicaragüense, codificar como (4) Negra] (1) Blanca (2) Mestiza (3) Indígena (4) Negra (5) Mulata (7) Otra (88) NS (98) NR NICETIDA. Considera que su mamá es o era una persona blanca, mestiza, indígena, negra o Afro-nicaragüense o mulata? (1) Blanca (2) Mestiza (3) Indígena (4) Negra o Afro-nicaragüense (5) Mulata (7) Otra (88) NS (98) NR LENG1. ¿Cuál es su lengua materna, o el primer idioma que habló de pequeño en su casa? [No leer alternativas] [acepte una alternativa, no más] (501) Castellano/ Español (502) Inglés (503) Mískito (506) Sumo o Mayangna (Twahka, Panamahka o Ulwa) (507) Rama (508) Garífuna (504) Otro (nativo) (505) Otro extranjero (88) NS (98) NR Por propósitos estadísticos, ahora queremos saber cuánta información sobre política y el país tiene la gente… GI0. ¿Con qué frecuencia sigue las noticias, ya sea en la televisión, la radio, los periódicos, o el Internet? [Leer opciones]: (1) Diariamente (2) Algunas veces a la semana (3) Algunas veces al mes (4) Rara vez (5) Nunca (88) NS (98) NR OCUP4A. ¿A qué se dedica usted principalmente? ¿Está usted actualmente: [Leer alternativas] (1) Trabajando? (2) No está trabajando en este momento pero tiene trabajo? (3) Está buscando trabajo activamente? (4) Es estudiante? (5) Se dedica a los quehaceres de su hogar? (6) Está jubilado, pensionado o incapacitado permanentemente para trabajar? [ (7) No trabaja y no está buscando trabajo? (88) NS (98) NR Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 90 NICING1 ¿De qué actividad/rubro provienen los mayores ingresos de la familia? [LEER OPCIONES. MARCAR SOLO UNA OPCION] (1) Agricultura (2) Ganadería (3) Pesca (4) Forestación (5) Turismo (6) Comercio (7) Prestación de servicios (8) Industria (9) Otra actividad (88) NS (98) NR Para finalizar, podría decirme si en su casa tienen: [Leer todos] R1. Televisor (0) No (1) Sí R3. Refrigeradora (nevera) (0) No (1) Sí R4. Teléfono convencional /fijo (no celular) (0) No (1) Sí R4A. Teléfono celular (0) No (1) Sí R5. Vehículo. ¿Cuántos? (0) No (1) Uno (2) Dos (3) Tres o más R6. Lavadora de ropa (0) No (1) Sí R7. Microondas (0) No (1) Sí R8. Motocicleta (0) No (1) Sí R12. Agua potable dentro de la casa (0) No (1) Sí R14. Cuarto de baño dentro de la casa (0) No (1) Sí R15. Computadora (0) No (1) Sí R16. Televisor de pantalla plana (0) No (1) Sí R18. Servicio de internet (0) No (1) Sí Estas son todas las preguntas que tengo. Muchísimas gracias por su colaboración. FORMATQ. Favor indicar el formato en que se completó ESTE cuestionario específico 1. Papel 2. Android 3. Windows PDA |___| COLORR. [Una vez salga de la entrevista, SIN PREGUNTAR, por favor use la Paleta de Colores, e indique el número que más se acerca al color de piel de la cara del entrevistado] ______ (97) No se pudo clasificar [Marcar (97) únicamente, si por alguna razón, no se pudo ver la cara de la persona entrevistada] |___|___| Hora en la cual terminó la entrevista _______ : ______ |__|__|__| TI. Duración de la entrevista [minutos, ver página # 1] _____________ INTID. Número de identificación del entrevistador: ____________ |__|__|__| SEXI. Anotar el sexo suyo: (1) Hombre (2) Mujer |__| COLORI. Usando la Paleta de Colores, anote el color de piel suyo. |___|___| Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 91 Yo juro que esta entrevista fue llevada a cabo con la persona indicada. Firma del entrevistador__________________ Fecha ____ /_____ /_____ Firma del supervisor de campo _________________ Comentarios: ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ [No usar para PDA] Firma de la persona que digitó los datos __________________________________ [No usar para PDA] Firma de la persona que verificó los datos _______________________________ Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 92 Tarjeta “A” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Izquierda Derecha Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 93 Tarjeta “B” 7 Mucho 6 5 4 3 2 Nada 1 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 94 Tarjeta “C” 7 Muy de acuerdo 6 5 4 3 2 Muy en desacuerdo 1 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 95 Tarjeta “D” 10 Aprueba firmemente 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Desaprueba firmemente 1 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 96 Tarjeta “E” 10 Mucho 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Nada 1 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 97 Tarjeta “F” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 El medio ambiente debe tener mayor prioridad El crecimiento económico debe tener mayor prioridad. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 98 Tarjeta “G” 7 Muy de acuerdo 6 5 4 3 2 Muy en Desacuerdo 1 Tarjeta “H” Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 99 (00) Ningún ingreso (01) Menos de 1,100 córdobas (02) Entre 1,100 – 1,650 córdobas (03) Entre 1,651 – 1,950 córdobas (04) Entre 1,951– 2,550 córdobas (05) Entre 2,551 – 3,000 córdobas (06) Entre 3,001 – 3,200 córdobas (07) Entre 3,201 – 3,500 córdobas (08) Entre 3,501 – 3,950 córdobas (09) Entre 3,951– 4,450 córdobas (10) Entre 4,451 – 5,100 córdobas (11) Entre 5,101 – 5,750 córdobas (12) Entre 5,751 – 6,350 córdobas (13) Entre 6,351 – 7,700 córdobas (14) Entre 7,701 – 9,800 córdobas (15) Entre 9,801– 13,500 córdobas (16) Más de 13,500 córdobas (88) NS (98) NR Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 100 Programa de Gobernancia Municipal: Nicaragua 2015 © Vanderbilt University 2015. Derechos reservados Cuestionario para Beneficiarios Programas de Inserción de Personas con Discapacidad INTRODUCCIÓN (15 Minutos) Buenos días (tardes). Sean ustedes bienvenidos. Agradecemos mucho su presencia y respuesta a nuestra invitación. Soy colaborador de la empresa Borge & Asociados, una firma especializada en estudios de opinión pública y estudios de carácter social. Hemos sido contratados para realizar un estudio sobre temas de interés del país y sobre la situación de las personas con discapacidad y su inclusión tanto a nivel nacional como municipal. Asimismo estaremos haciendo a referencia a programas e iniciativas que promueven la participación e inclusión de las personas con discapacidad, para nosotros sus opiniones son especialmente valiosas.  Queremos oír sus opiniones, y que nos expliquen el porqué de esas opiniones.  Estaremos haciendo una grabación para que nos ayude a recordar lo que ustedes dijeron, pero la conversación es confidencial. Por favor hablen alto y claro, para que podamos entender a la hora de escuchar la grabación.  Por favor hable uno a la vez – para que tenga sentido en la grabación.  Pónganse cómodos y estén tranquilos – esperamos que la sesión sea interesante y agradable.  Por favor apaguen sus celulares.  Por favor, en orden, vayan diciendo sus nombres y me cuentan algo sobre ustedes como su ocupación, su organización o institución a la que pertenecen. ASPECTOS GENERALES (30 MINUTOS) 1. ¿Cómo describiría la situación de las personas con discapacidad en Nicaragua? 2. ¿Cuáles son las principales dificultades que enfrentan las personas con discapacidad en su municipio? 3. ¿Cree usted que hay igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad en Nicaragua? A que tipo de oportunidades no pueden acceder las personas con discapacidad? 4. ¿Tienen las personas con discapacidad de su municipio oportunidades de acceder a una educación? En que lugar estudian? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 101 5. ¿Tienen las personas con discapacidad de su municipio o comunidad oportunidades de acceder a empleos? 6. ¿Existe en su municipio o comunidad medios adecuados e infraestructura adecuada para que las personas con discapacidad puedan trasladarse sin dificultades? 7. ¿Cuál cree que son los impedimentos más grandes que enfrentan las personas con discapacidad al momento de trasladarse? 8. ¿Conoce la Ley 202, que es para la Prevención, Rehabilitación y Equiparación de Oportunidades, para Personas con Discapacidad? Sabe que dice esa ley y que contempla esa ley? 9. ¿Qué sabe usted sobre la Ley 763 y las rutas de para el ejercicio de derechos de las personas con discapacidad? 10. ¿Asigna recursos el gobierno municipal para apoyar la participación las personas con discapacidad? Si no los hay, está de acuerdo que los haya? ¿Hay ONGs que invierten recursos para apoyar esta participación? 11. ¿Qué recursos existen en el municipio para apoyar a las personas con discapacidad? 12. ¿Ha escuchado hablar de los programas que USAID ha implementado para mejorar la inserción de las personas con discapacidad? ¿Qué sabe de este programa? 13. ¿Participo usted de este programa? ¿De qué forma participó usted en el programa? ¿Qué beneficios obtuvo de este programa? 14. ¿En qué consistieron las actividades que se realizaron y cómo estas actividades mejoraron la calidad de vida y la inclusión de las personas con discapacidad? 15. ¿Qué aspectos del programa considera usted son los más importante? 16. Si estuviera en sus manos ¿Qué aspectos del programa cambiaría o modificaría? 17. ¿Según su opinión, que debería hacerse en el futuro para mejorar la integración e inclusión de las personas con discapacidad? 18. ¿Cuáles son los principales logros alcanzados a la fecha para la comunidad de discapacitados con el apoyo del programa de gobernabilidad local implementado por Global Communities? 19. ¿En su municipio que cosas han mejorado en la vida de los discapacitados en los dos últimos años que sea producto del apoyo del programa de gobernabilidad local implementado por Global Communities? 20. ¿Qué cosas deberían demandarse a las autoridades para garantizar mejor los derechos de las personas con discapacidad? 21. ¿Qué acciones o programas propondría usted para mejorar las condiciones de las personas con discapacidad? [A IMPLEMENTADORES- entrevistas en profundidad] 1. ¿Cuáles son las principales actividades que realizaron en el marco de los programas de inserción de las personas con discapacidad? Con que organizaciones trabajaron? Hubo participación ciudadana? ¿Cuál cree que ha sido el mayor impacto del programa en la comunidad? 2. ¿Qué dificultades han tenido para llevar a cabo las actividades o programas planeados? Detallar 3. ¿Cómo ha sido la recepción de la gente de los programas y actividades? 4. Qué tipo de apoyo recibieron del municipio y las autoridades en la implementación del programa? Trabajaron conjuntamente con algún organismo municipal? Con Cual? De que manera se trabajó coordinadamente? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 102 5. ¿Cuáles diría que han sido los mayores logros del programa? ¿Qué se corrigió durante la implementación para mejorar los resultados? ¿Se cumplieron todos los objetivos? 6. ¿Cuánto hace que se está implementando el programa? 7. ¿Cuántas personas trabajan en la implementación del programa? 8. Cuantas personas se vieron beneficiadas por el programa? 9. Cuáles son los planes para el futuro? Como continua la implementación o las actividades para mejorar la inclusión de las personas con discapacidad? CARACTERÍSTICAS DEMOGRÁFICAS [PARA ENTREVISTAS EN PROFUNDIDAD] A. ¿Qué edad tiene? B. ¿Genero? C. Tiene usted alguna discapacidad? Que discapacidad tiene? D. ¿Cuál es el último grado y nivel de educación aprobado? E. ¿A qué se dedica usted? ¿Cuál es su profesión? F. ¿En caso de trabajar, cuanto hace que se dedica a {profesión}? G. ¿La capacitación que recibió sobre la elaboración del Presupuesto General de la Republica, le ha servido para su profesión? En qué sentido? ¿Podría darme un ejemplo? [Persona con Discapacidad en el Hogar] ¿Hay en su hogar alguna persona con alguna discapacidad física o mental? A. ¿Qué tipo de discapacidad tiene esta persona? B. ¿Cuántos años tiene esta persona? C. ¿A qué se dedica esta persona? D. Si estudia, ¿a dónde estudia? ¿Qué grado o nivel? ¿En qué institución (escuela pública, PRIVADA?) ¿SU DISCAPACIDAD LE CREA DIFICULTADES EN EL APRENDIZAJE? (SI CONTESTA SI: E. Si trabaja: ¿A qué se dedica? ¿Su discapacidad le crea dificultades para realizar esa labor? CONCLUSION Y AGRADECIMIENTO Es importante que ustedes conozcan que los resultados de estos grupos focales y del estudio que estamos realizando, pretende contribuir a mejorar el grado de conocimiento y participación de las personas con discapacidad y que las opiniones de todos los nicaragüenses sean escuchadas. En esos términos, las opiniones y aportes que ustedes han dado en esta actividad, se sumarán a otros participantes. El resultado recogerá las impresiones, percepciones y opiniones más relevantes .Como les dijimos al inicio, los aportes de ustedes son confidenciales. Muchas gracias por su colaboración. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 103 Programa de Gobernancia Municipal: Nicaragua 2015 © Vanderbilt University 2015. Derechos reservados Cuestionario para Beneficiarios Programa de Transparencia Fiscal INTRODUCCIÓN (15 Minutos) Buenos días (tardes). Sean ustedes bienvenidos. Agradecemos mucho su presencia y respuesta a nuestra invitación. Soy colaborador de la empresa Borge & Asociados, una firma especializada en estudios de opinión pública y estudios de carácter social. Hemos sido contratados para realizar un estudio sobre temas de interés del país y sobre la gestión presupuestaria tanto a nivel nacional como municipal. Estaremos hablando sobre temas relacionados con la materia presupuestaria y fiscal en Nicaragua, así como los mecanismos de información ciudadana, transparencia y mecanismos de control en la ejecución presupuestaria. Asimismo estaremos haciendo a referencia a programas e iniciativas que promueven la participación ciudadana y la transparencia fiscal Dado el rol y posición que ostentan ustedes, para nosotros sus opiniones son especialmente valiosas.  Queremos oír sus opiniones, y que nos expliquen el porqué de esas opiniones.  Estaremos haciendo una grabación para que nos ayude a recordar lo que ustedes dijeron, pero la conversación es confidencial. Por favor hablen alto y claro, para que podamos entender a la hora de escuchar la grabación.  Por favor hable uno a la vez – para que tenga sentido en la grabación.  Pónganse cómodos y estén tranquilos – esperamos que la sesión sea interesante y agradable.  Por favor apaguen sus celulares.  Por favor, en orden, vayan diciendo sus nombres y me cuentan algo sobre ustedes como su ocupación, su organización o institución a la que pertenecen. ASPECTOS GENERALES (30 MINUTOS) 1. ¿Ha escuchado usted hablar del Presupuesto General de la República? 2. ¿Conocen ustedes el proceso de elaboración del Presupuesto Nacional de la República? Cuáles son los actores principales y cuáles son los factores claves en la construcción del presupuesto? Como se aprueba el Presupuesto General de la República? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 104 3. ¿Porque cree usted que es tan importante el Presupuesto General de la Republica? 4. Cuál es el grado de conocimiento de la ciudadanía sobre el presupuesto? Cuáles son los procedimientos de acceso al presupuesto? Hasta qué grado interesa a las autoridades de Gobierno informar a la ciudadanía? En caso positivo, cuáles son las formas? Ampliar al respecto. 5. ¿De qué forma (o mediante qué medios) el gobierno nacional informa a los ciudadanos nicaragüenses sobre el Presupuesto General de la República? 6. ¿Cómo se puede acceder al Presupuesto General de la Republica? 7. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno nacional actual es transparente en la administración del Presupuesto General de la República? 8. Conocen ustedes sobre algún programa de capacitación acerca de cómo acceder, leer e interpretar el Presupuesto General de la República? 9. ¿Ha participado usted de algún programa de capacitación acerca de cómo acceder, leer e interpretar el Presupuesto General de la República? SOBRE EL PROGRAMA IMPLEMENTADO POR USAID (30 MINUTOS) 1. ¿Ha escuchado hablar del Observatorio virtual del Presupuesto (el sitio web donde se puede obtener información presupuestaria -Presupuesto General de la República de Nicaragua y de los Programas Anuales de Contrataciones? 2. ¿Conoce para que se creó el Observatorio virtual del Presupuesto? 3. ¿Ha accedido usted a la página web y accedido información a partir de ella? ¿Con que frecuencia utiliza esta fuente de información? 4. ¿Cuáles considera usted que son los principales beneficios del observatorio virtual del presupuesto? ¿Cómo se ha beneficiado usted y los otros participantes del observatorio virtual del presupuesto? 5. ¿Cómo ha utilizado la información disponible en el Observatorio virtual del presupuesto en su trabajo o profesión? 6. ¿Participó usted de las actividades de diseminación y campañas de concientización sobre el presupuesto nacional y transparencia fiscal realizadas por el IEEPP (Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos y Políticas Publicas)? 7. ¿En qué consistían estas actividades? ¿Cuáles considera usted que son los principales beneficios de estas actividades de diseminación y concientización?¿Cuál cree que han sido los aspectos de estas actividades le han resultado de utilidad o interés? Donde ha aplicado usted los conocimientos adquiridos en estas actividades? (en su trabajo, estudio? Puede darnos un ejemplo? 8. Han oído hablar o participado en los talleres de capacitación sobre transparencia fiscal y presupuestaria que el Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos y Políticas Publicas ofreció a periodistas? ¿Cómo se ha beneficiado usted y los otros participantes de estas actividades de capacitación? Como ha implementado en su trabajo lo aprendido en la capacitación? 9. ¿Cómo fue la calidad de la capacitación recibida? ¿Cuál cree que han sido los aspectos más importantes del programa de capacitación? Que cambiaría o modificaría del programa de capacitación del cual participo? Que temas le hubiera gustado que se discutieran o trataran? 10. ¿Cree usted que hay mayor concientización y demanda por parte de la ciudadanía por conocer acerca del uso de los recursos del estado? 11. ¿Según su opinión, que medidas o programas son necesarios para incrementar la participación de la sociedad en la elaboración y monitoreo de los recursos del estado? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 105 SOBRE EL PRESUPUESTO MUNICIPAL (30 minutos) 1. ¿Conoce el presupuesto de su Municipio? ¿La alcaldía del municipio en donde usted vive informa a los ciudadanos sobre la forma en que invierte los recursos de la municipalidad? Que medios utiliza el gobierno municipal para informar a los ciudadanos sobre el presupuesto? 2. ¿Hablando en general acerca del gobierno municipal actual, ¿Cómo calificaría el trabajo que está haciendo el Alcalde? Porqué esa calificación? 3. ¿Hablando del Concejo Municipal y pensando en todos los Concejales en su conjunto, sin importar los partidos políticos a los que pertenecen; ¿ustedes creen que los concejales están haciendo su trabajo muy bien, bien, ni bien ni mal, mal, o muy mal? 4. ¿Hablando del Concejo Municipal y de su funcionamiento ¿Cómo consideran ustedes su potestad o facultad para la destitución de los Alcaldes o Concejales? 5. ¿Conocen ustedes si en los últimos 12 meses, la municipalidad le ha informado sobre sus obligaciones tributarias? Es decir, existe una política de notificación a los ciudadanos sobre sus deudas y obligaciones tributarias? 6. ¿Y por lo general, cuáles son los medios que utilizan ustedes para informarse sobre los temas de la Municipalidad? Favor enlistar? CARACTERÍSTICAS DEMOGRÁFICAS [PARA ENTREVISTAS EN PROFUNDIDAD] H. ¿Qué edad tiene? I. ¿Genero? J. ¿Cuál es el último grado y nivel de educación aprobado? K. ¿A qué se dedica usted? ¿Cuál es su profesión? L. ¿En caso de trabajar, cuanto hace que se dedica a {profesión}? M. ¿La capacitación que recibió sobre la elaboración del Presupuesto General de la Republica, le ha servido para su profesión? En qué sentido? ¿Podría darme un ejemplo? CONCLUSION Y AGRADECIMIENTO Es importante que ustedes conozcan que los resultados de estos grupos focales y del estudio que estamos realizando, pretende contribuir a mejorar el grado de conocimiento y participación ciudadana en el manejo de los presupuestos públicos tanto a nivel nacional como municipal y contribuir a garantizar la transparencia en el manejo de los fondos públicos. En esos términos, las opiniones y aportes que ustedes han dado en esta actividad, se sumarán a otros participantes. El resultado recogerá las impresiones, percepciones y opiniones más relevantes. Como les dijimos al inicio, los aportes de ustedes son confidenciales. Muchas gracias por su colaboración. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 106 Programa de Gobernancia Municipal: Nicaragua 2015 © Vanderbilt University 2015. Derechos reservados Cuestionario para Beneficiarios Programas de Cambio Climático INTRODUCCIÓN (10 Minutos) Buenos días (tardes). Sean ustedes bienvenidos. Agradecemos mucho su presencia y respuesta a nuestra invitación. Soy colaborador de la empresa Borge & Asociados, una firma especializada en estudios de opinión pública y estudios de carácter social. Hemos sido contratados para realizar un estudio sobre temas de interés del país y sobre la gestión presupuestaria tanto a nivel nacional como municipal. Estaremos hablando sobre temas relacionados con el fenómeno del cambio climático y sus efectos y consecuencias en el país, así como las estrategias, políticas que se han planteado a nivel nacional y local para enfrentar esa situación. Asimismo estaremos haciendo a referencia a programas e iniciativas que promueven acciones para enfrentar el cambio climático. Dado el rol y posición que ostentan ustedes, para nosotros sus opiniones son especialmente valiosas.  Queremos oír sus opiniones, y que nos expliquen el porqué de esas opiniones.  Estaremos haciendo una grabación para que nos ayude a recordar lo que ustedes dijeron, pero la conversación es confidencial. Por favor hablen alto y claro, para que podamos entender a la hora de escuchar la grabación.  Por favor hable uno a la vez – para que tenga sentido en la grabación.  Pónganse cómodos y estén tranquilos–esperamos que la sesión sea interesante y agradable.  Por favor apaguen sus celulares.  Por favor, en orden, vayan diciendo sus nombres y me cuentan algo sobre ustedes como su ocupación, su organización o institución a la que pertenecen. ASPECTOS GENERALES (30 minutos) 1. ¿Según su opinión, su municipio está siendo afectado por el cambio climático? ¿Cuáles son las consecuencias e impacto mayor del cambio climático sobre las siguientes dimensiones? ¿La región, la comunidad? ¿La familia? Favor enlistar y comentar Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 107 2. ¿Cuáles principales problemas que enfrenta su comunidad a causa del cambio climático? 3. ¿Y hablando del futuro, cómo cree que será la situación de su comunidad dentro de unos años debido al cambio climático? 4. ¿Cómo espera que el cambio climático afecte su región? ¿Cree que esto tendrá un impacto en su actividad económica y el futuro de su hogar? ¿Cuál cree que será ese impacto? 5. Existe algún plan o estrategia de enfrentamiento del cambio climático a nivel del Gobierno, la Municipalidad, instancias ciudadanas? Favor ampliar 6. En su municipio, hay un plan Municipal de adaptación al cambio climático? ¿Podría decirme en qué consiste este plan? ¿Ha recibido usted información sobre buenas prácticas en el manejo de agua, seguridad alimentaria, desechos sólidos, medidas ante riesgos, seguimiento a signos del cambio climático?¿Quién le ha brindado esta información? ¿Ha escuchado o visto campañas de información sobre el cambio climático? ¿Podría decirme de qué se trataba esta campaña? ¿Recuerda usted quien llevaba a adelante esta campaña? 7. Independiente a las iniciativas institucionales, ¿qué estrategias o iniciativas deben asumirse desde la perspectiva ciudadana? Favor enlistar y explicar 8. ¿Creen ustedes que se brinda o existe suficiente información de cómo enfrentar el cambio climático? En caso afirmativo, ¿cuál y quienes la ofrecen? En caso contrario, ¿qué tipo de información debería brindarse y quién sería el responsable? 9. Con base en la experiencia, para ustedes ¿cuáles deberían ser las mejores prácticas para enfrentar los efectos del cambio climático por ejemplo, en las siguientes áreas: manejo del agua, seguridad ciudadana, desechos sólidos, emergencias naturales, etc.? ¿Cómo cree usted que deben enfrentarse los cambios climáticos que afectan a su comunidad? ¿Qué acciones pueden tomarse a nivel de cada hogar, municipal, comunitario, en el país? 10. ¿Con sus vecinos, han tomado medidas colectivas para enfrentar el cambio climático de su comunidad? ¿Qué medidas han tomado? ¿Quiénes participan en su comunidad y cómo colaboran? 11. ¿Qué herramientas o medidas ha tomado su comunidad para enfrentar el cambio climático? En caso de responder afirmativamente, indagar ¿cuáles han sido las actividades o acciones tomadas? 12. ¿Se han realizado campañas de sensibilización, información y preparación de la gente ante los embates del cambio climático? En caso afirmativo, ¿quiénes los han realizado y cuál ha sido el resultado? IMPACTO Y EFECTOS SOBRE LA ECONOMÍA Profundizando en el tema, analicemos los principales efectos del cambio climático sobre las siguientes áreas de la economía. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 108 1. ¿Cuál es la principal forma de ingresos de su familia? (Por ejemplo, es la Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca, Forestaría, Turismo, Comercio, Servicio, Otro (¿cuál?) 2. ¿Su actividad económica o la actividad económica de su hogar, se ha visto afectada por el cambio climático? De ser así, ¿Cómo se ha visto afectada su actividad económica por el cambio climático? ¿Qué medidas ha tomado usted para combatir esto? Es decir para contrarrestar el efecto negativo del cambio climático en su actividad económica? 3. Pensando en su actividad económica. Si usted no toma medidas para adaptarse a los cambios en el clima de su municipio por ejemplo cambio en patrón de lluvias, elevación del nivel del mar o aumento de temperatura promedio ¿Qué tan serio sería esto para su situación económica? SOBRE LA AGENDA ANTE EL FENÓMENO DEL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO (30 minutos) Dada la importancia que tiene el cambio climático para la humanidad, nos interesa profundizar sobre el tema de frente al futuro. 1. En términos de prioridad para la humanidad y nuestros países, que es más importante? El desarrollo económico o la protección del medio ambiente. Favor justificar sus opiniones 2. Y cuáles son los principales síntomas o signos en los que se expresa el cambio climático? ( temperatura, patrón de lluvias, nivel del mar, etc.) 3. Hasta qué grado estiman ustedes el cambio climático afectará la vida de las personas y sus familias y qué dimensiones? ( alimentación, salud, trabajo, etc.) Favor explicar 4. Y cuál debe ser el rol del Gobierno ante el riesgo del cambio climático? En las políticas públicas, en la asignación presupuestaria, en materia legal? 5. En su opinión, ¿a qué debe darse más prioridad: proteger el medio ambiente o promover el crecimiento económico? 6. ¿Cree usted que el cambio climático representa un riesgo para su bienestar y el de su familia? Porque? 7. Según su opinión, el gobierno debe destinar más dinero a asegurar que los negocios estén preparados para adaptarse al cambio climático incluso si esto significa gastar menos en otras cosas o programas? 8. Algunos dicen que el gobierno debe destinar más dinero a enfrentar los problemas ocasionados por el cambio climático, incluso si esto significa gastar menos en otras cosas o programas. Qué opina usted de esta frase? Está de acuerdo? Que debería hacer el gobierno? PROGRAMAS DE USAID (30 minutos) 10. Conoce usted los programas que está implementando USAID para enfrentar el cambio climático en su municipio? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 109 11. ¿Podría hablarme de este programa y actividades desarrollados por USAID? Podría darme un ejemplo o describir este programa o actividades desarrollados por USAID? 12. Según su opinión, cual han sido los principales logros o el impacto que el programa ha tenido en la comunidad, municipio, familias? (detallar para cada uno de estos grupos) 13. ¿Sabe usted cual es el estado de avance de implementación de los programas o actividades que está realizando USAID para enfrentar el cambio climático? 14. ¿En qué áreas o actividades considera usted que hubo las mayores cambios positivos o logros para enfrentar el cambio climático? ¿En qué áreas se pueden notar los mayores logros del programa? 15. ¿En qué áreas/actividades considera usted que hubo las mayores cambios positivos? Que actividades cree usted que han generado los cambios más positivos en enfrentar el cambio climático? (Profundizar) 16. ¿En qué áreas/actividades considera usted que hubo las mayores dificultades? Que actividades cree usted que han generado menos cambios en los intentos por enfrentar el cambio climático? (Profundizar) 17. En su opinión, ¿qué otras acciones o medidas deberían considerarse en el diseño de las futuras actividades para enfrentar y reducir el impacto del cambio climático en la región? 18. Si se les permitiera modificar los programas y actividades implementados por USAID, ¿Qué modificaría usted? ¿Qué recomendaciones haría? [A IMPLEMENTADORES- entrevistas en profundidad] a. ¿Cuáles son las principales actividades que realizaron en el marco del programa y como las recibieron los ciudadanos? Hubo participación ciudadana? ¿Cuál cree que ha sido el mayor impacto del programa en la comunidad? b. ¿Qué dificultades han tenido para llevar a cabo las actividades o programas planeados? Detallar c. ¿Cómo ha sido la recepción de la gente de los programas y actividades? d. ¿Cuáles diría que han sido los mayores logros del programa? ¿Qué se corrigió durante la implementación para mejorar los resultados? ¿Se cumplieron todos los objetivos? e. ¿Cuánto hace que se está implementando el programa? f. ¿Cuántas personas trabajan en la implementación del programa? 19. [TODOS] Ya para finalizar, ¿quisiera hacer algún comentario adicional a los temas que hemos revisado en esta reunión? CARACTERÍSTICAS DEMOGRÁFICAS [PARA ENTREVISTAS EN PROFUNDIDAD] Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 110 N. ¿Qué edad tiene? O. ¿Genero? P. ¿Cuál es el último grado y nivel de educación aprobado? Q. ¿A qué se dedica usted? ¿Cuál es su profesión? R. ¿En caso de trabajar, cuanto hace que se dedica a {profesión}? S. ¿se ha beneficiado usted de los programas implementados para mitigar el cambio climático? Como se ha visto beneficiado? Le ha servido para su profesión, su actividad económica, para los ingresos de su hogar, para mejorar el bienestar de su hogar? ¿Podría darme un ejemplo? CONCLUSION Y AGRADECIMIENTO Es importante que ustedes conozcan que los resultados de estos grupos focales y del estudio que estamos realizando, pretende contribuir a mejorar el grado de conocimiento y participación ciudadana en el manejo de los presupuestos públicos tanto a nivel nacional como municipal y contribuir a garantizar la transparencia en el manejo de los fondos públicos. En esos términos, las opiniones y aportes que ustedes han dado en esta actividad, se sumarán a otros participantes. El resultado recogerá las impresiones, percepciones y opiniones más relevantes .Como les dijimos al inicio, los aportes de ustedes son confidenciales. Muchas gracias por su colaboración. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 111 Programa de Gobernancia Municipal: Nicaragua 2015 © Vanderbilt University 2015. Derechos reservados Cuestionario para Beneficiarios Programa de Participación Ciudadana INTRODUCCIÓN (15 Minutos) Buenos días (tardes). Sean ustedes bienvenidos. Agradecemos mucho su presencia y respuesta a nuestra invitación. Soy colaborador de la empresa Borge & Asociados, una firma especializada en estudios de opinión pública y estudios de carácter social. Hemos sido contratados para realizar un estudio sobre temas de interés del país y sobre la participación ciudadana tanto a nivel nacional como municipal. Estaremos hablando sobre temas relacionados con la participación de los ciudadanos en distintos aspectos relacionados con las decisiones presupuestarias y de los derechos de los ciudadanos en Nicaragua y los municipios. Asimismo estaremos haciendo a referencia a programas e iniciativas que promueven la participación ciudadana implementados por Global Communities y distintas organizaciones. Para nosotros sus opiniones son especialmente valiosas.  Queremos oír sus opiniones, y que nos expliquen el porqué de esas opiniones.  Estaremos haciendo una grabación para que nos ayude a recordar lo que ustedes dijeron, pero la conversación es confidencial. Por favor hablen alto y claro, para que podamos entender a la hora de escuchar la grabación.  Por favor hable uno a la vez – para que tenga sentido en la grabación.  Pónganse cómodos y estén tranquilos – esperamos que la sesión sea interesante y agradable.  Por favor apaguen sus celulares.  Por favor, en orden, vayan diciendo sus nombres y me cuentan algo sobre ustedes como su ocupación, su organización o institución a la que pertenecen. ASPECTOS GENERALES (30 MINUTOS) 1. ¿Qué organizaciones de vecinos, de Mujeres, de productores, jóvenes etc., conoce usted? ¿Participa usted en alguna de estas organizaciones (organización (Organizaciones de Mujeres, Organización de Productores, CDM, etc.)? Si dice que no, ¿porque no participa? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 112 2. Según su opinión, ¿cómo es el grado de participación de los ciudadanos en los gobiernos locales? ¿Y en el gobierno nacional? 3. ¿Por qué cree usted que es importante participar en las decisiones que toma el municipio y el gobierno nacional? ¿Por qué cree que algunas personas deciden no participar o no involucrarse en las decisiones que se toman en su municipio o en el gobierno nacional? 4. Si una persona quiere participar en los procesos de consulta de los Gobiernos municipales en la elaboración de una ley, una ordenanza, o en saber sobre los presupuestos del Estado, ¿Cómo hace para participar? ¿Cómo son invitados a participar? ¿Se ha sentido usted invitado a participar como ciudadano en estas consultas? 5. Sobre la base de lo que usted conoce y ha experimentado, ¿cómo describiría estos procesos de participación ciudadana? (sondear si es fácil participar, es complicado o engorroso, no hay suficiente información para que los ciudadanos participen, no son invitados, la gente no desea participar, etc.) 6. Pensando en las diferencias entre el gobierno nacional y los gobiernos locales o municipales, ¿cómo se compara la participación ciudadana a nivel nacional con la participación ciudadana en su municipio? ¿Cómo considera usted que es la participación ciudadana en el municipio respecto de la participación de los ciudadanos en el gobierno nacional? (mayor o menor, igual,) 7. ¿En los últimos 12 meses ha participado usted en alguna actividad que promueva el fortalecimiento de la participación ciudadana? 8. ¿En qué programa ha participado? ¿Recuerda el nombre del programa y las actividades que realizaban? 9. ¿Cuál cree que han sido los beneficios de participar en esas actividades? 10. ¿Ha participado usted en alguna campaña de educación cívica? ¿Y de alguna campaña de supervisión de los recursos públicos? 11. ¿Ha participado usted sobre los programas que USAID y Global Communities están implementando en su municipio? ¿Ha participado usted en alguno de estos programas de participación ciudadana? ¿Podría decirme cómo se llamaba el programa y de qué se trataba? 12. Participo usted de a) Capacitaciones a organizaciones? B) campañas de sensibilización, C) Fortalecimiento de organizaciones D) Apoyo a proyectos sociales? En qué consistían estas actividades? ¿Según su opinión, cuáles han sido los beneficios de estas actividades? ¿Qué aspectos de las actividades le parecieron interesantes? 13. Si estuviese en sus manos ¿Qué cosas cambiaría o modificaría de estas actividades? 14. ¿Cómo evaluaría las capacitaciones desarrolladas por Global Communities para mejorar la participación ciudadana? 15. ¿Cómo cree usted que estas capacitaciones han facilitado el desarrollo de capacidades locales para la mejorar la participación ciudadana? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 113 16. ¿Cree usted que es necesario continuar con estas capacitaciones y programas para mejorar la participación ciudadana? De ser así, ¿Qué considera usted que queda por hacer? 17. ¿Cómo evalúa su capacidad de participar en su municipio como ciudadano después de recibir las capacitaciones o participar en el programa? 12. ¿Cómo cree que este programa apoyó a las organizaciones locales en el diálogo con las autoridades y para influir en las decisiones que estas toman? 13. El Programa de Gobernabilidad Local de USAID, implementado por Global Communities, tiene por objetivo promover y apoyar la participación ciudadana, principalmente a nivel local. ¿Qué tanto cree Usted que se han alcanzado estos objetivos para las Personas con discapacidad? Y para las personas de la diversidad sexual? Y para la participación de Mujeres adultas y jóvenes? 14. ¿Qué tanto cree Usted que el Programa de Gobernabilidad Local de USAID, implementado por Global Communities, ha facilitado la integración y/o diálogo entre actores locales? Apoya esta integración la participación ciudadana en los procesos municipales o la incidencia con las autoridades? Explique 15. ¿Qué mecanismos de participación ciudadana promovidos por el programa cree Usted que han sido más efectivos para que las organizaciones activen de mejor manera la incidencia en las autoridades locales? (Consulta Presupuestaria, Cabildos, CDM, Iniciativa de norma local, Otros (detallar)?) 16. ¿Cuáles serían los principales cambios que haría en el programa y que considera que se debería realizar en apoyo a la participación ciudadana local? 17. El Programa de Gobernabilidad Local de USAID, tiene por objetivo animar la participación ciudadana, principalmente a nivel local. ¿Qué tanto cree Usted que ha alcanzado este objetivo? [Sobre personas homosexuales, lesbianas, bisexuales y transexuales] A. ¿Asigna recursos el gobierno municipal para apoyar a las personas homosexuales, lesbianas, bisexuales y transexuales? Si no los hay, está de acuerdo que los haya? ¿Hay ONGs que invierten recursos para apoyar esta participación? B. ¿Qué recursos existen en el municipio para apoyar a las personas homosexuales, lesbianas, bisexuales, transexuales? Oficinas o dependencias que atiendan problemas de inclusión e igualdad de las personas de diversidad sexual, sus derechos, etc.? C. ¿Qué tipo de actividades o acciones ha realizado el gobierno municipal para apoyar a las personas homosexuales, lesbianas, bisexuales, transexuales? D. ¿Qué cosas deberían demandarse a las autoridades para garantizar mejor los derechos de las personas de la diversidad sexual? E. ¿Cuáles son los principales logros alcanzados a la fecha en el tema LGBTI bajo el auspicio del programa municipal? F. ¿En su municipio que cosas han mejorado en la vida de la comunidad LGBTI en los dos últimos años que sea producto del apoyo del programa municipal? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 114 [Equidad de género y participación de las mujeres] G. ¿Asigna recursos el gobierno municipal para apoyar la participación de las mujeres? Si no los hay, ¿está de acuerdo que los haya? ¿Hay ONGs que invierten recursos para apoyar esta participación? H. ¿Qué tantos recursos existen en el municipio para apoyar el desarrollo de las mujeres? I. ¿Qué cosas deberían demandarse a las autoridades para garantizar mejor los derechos de las mujeres? J. ¿Qué sabes sobre la Ley 779 y la ruta de acceso a la justicia en caso de violencia de género? K. Cuáles son los principales logros alcanzados a la fecha en el tema género con el apoyo del programa de gobernabilidad local implementado por Global Communities? L. ¿En su municipio que cosas han mejorado en la vida de las mujeres en los dos últimos años que sea producto del apoyo del programa de gobernabilidad local implementado por Global Communities? [Derechos de las personas con discapacidad] M. ¿Asigna recursos el gobierno municipal para apoyar la participación las personas con discapacidad? Si no los hay, está de acuerdo que los haya? ¿Hay ONGs que invierten recursos para apoyar esta participación? N. ¿Qué recursos existen en el municipio para apoyar a las personas con discapacidad? O. ¿Qué cosas deberían demandarse a las autoridades para garantizar mejor los derechos de las personas con discapacidad? P. ¿Qué sabe usted sobre la Ley 763 y las rutas de para el ejercicio de derechos de las personas con discapacidad? Q. ¿Cuáles son los principales logros alcanzados a la fecha para la comunidad de discapacitados con el apoyo del programa de gobernabilidad local implementado por Global Communities? R. ¿En su municipio que cosas han mejorado en la vida de los discapacitados en los dos últimos años que sea producto del apoyo del programa de gobernabilidad local implementado por Global Communities? Presupuesto Municipal 1. ¿Conoce el presupuesto de su Municipio? 2. ¿La alcaldía del municipio en donde usted vive informa a los ciudadanos sobre la forma en que invierte los recursos de la municipalidad? 3. Hablando en general acerca del gobierno municipal actual, ¿Cómo calificaría el trabajo que está haciendo el Alcalde? 4. Hablando del Concejo Municipal y pensando en todos los Concejales en su conjunto, sin importar los partidos políticos a los que pertenecen; ¿Cómo calificaría el trabajo que están realizando los concejales? 5. Hablando del Concejo Municipal y de su funcionamiento ¿Cómo considera su rol en la destitución de los Alcaldes o Concejales? 6. ¿En los últimos 12 meses, la municipalidad le ha informado cuáles son sus obligaciones tributarias? ¿Qué medio es el que más ha utilizado la municipalidad para informarle? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 115 7. ¿Ha escuchado o visto campañas de comunicación que expliquen cómo y dónde participar en los cabildos, sesiones y otros espacios en el municipio? ¿De qué se tratan esas campañas? ¿Dónde las vio? 8. ¿Ha escuchado o visto campañas de comunicación que expliquen cómo y dónde participar en la elaboración del presupuesto de su municipio? ¿De qué se tratan esas campañas? ¿Dónde las vio? Si las ha escuchado o visto, ¿estas campañas de comunicación le han motivado a participar? 9. Sobre las sesiones del Concejo, ¿conoce la fecha en que se realizan dichas sesiones? CARACTERÍSTICAS DEMOGRÁFICAS [PARA ENTREVISTAS EN PROFUNDIDAD] T. ¿Qué edad tiene? U. ¿Genero? V. ¿Cuál es el último grado y nivel de educación aprobado? W. ¿A qué se dedica usted? ¿Cuál es su profesión? X. ¿En caso de trabajar, cuanto hace que se dedica a {profesión}? Y. ¿La capacitación que recibió sobre la elaboración del Presupuesto General de la Republica, le ha servido para su profesión? En qué sentido? ¿Podría darme un ejemplo? CONCLUSION Y AGRADECIMIENTO Es importante que ustedes conozcan que los resultados de estos grupos focales y del estudio que estamos realizando, pretende contribuir a mejorar el grado de conocimiento y participación ciudadana en las decisiones y el uso de los recursos por parte del estado nacional como municipal y contribuir a garantizar la transparencia en el manejo de los fondos públicos y que las opiniones de los nicaragüenses sean escuchadas. En esos términos, las opiniones y aportes que ustedes han dado en esta actividad, se sumarán a otros participantes. El resultado recogerá las impresiones, percepciones y opiniones más relevantes. Como les dijimos al inicio, los aportes de ustedes son confidenciales. Muchas gracias por su colaboración. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 116 Annex 5: Graphs by Demographic Characteristics NICCLI1. Cambiando de tema ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual trabaja para enfrentar el cambio climático? ENV1. En su opinión, ¿a qué debe darse más prioridad: proteger el medio ambiente o promover el crecimiento económico? (1) Proteger el medio ambiente (2) Promover el crecimiento económico (3) [No leer] Ambas (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP 55.17 58.11 66.67 61.45 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Government Works to Confront Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 63.04 58.83 60.26 59.52 57.33 60.95 58.33 64.58 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Government Works to Confront Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 65.10 67.20 60.16 58.61 60.74 60.46 60.22 56.98 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Government Works to Confront Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 63.51 60.05 61.85 57.06 58.33 60.42 63.89 51.96 58.84 58.10 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Government Works to Confront Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 48.72 47.47 45.08 49.38 45.63 36.82 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Prioritize Environmental Protection South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 51.79 48.00 50.14 47.83 44.44 38.38 48.15 53.49 36.19 42.86 25.00 41.61 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Prioritize Environmental Protection South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 42.86 35.00 46.06 46.97 50.91 39.66 51.79 46.15 42.79 60.00 46.94 35.29 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Prioritize Environmental Protection South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 44.19 45.45 40.79 44.74 50.00 38.15 55.88 56.00 40.86 47.83 24.00 40.94 62.50 51.11 39.63 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Prioritize Environmental Protection South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nat. Avg. (2014) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nat. Avg. (2014) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nat. Avg. (2014) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nat. Avg. (2014) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 117 ENV2. Si no se toman acciones para reducir el cambio climático en el futuro, ¿Qué tan serio sería esto para Nicaragua? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Muy serio (2) Algo serio (3) Poco serio (4) Nada serio (88) NS (89) NR ENV5. ¿Cree usted que el cambio climático representa un riesgo para su bienestar y el de su familia? (1) Si (2) No (88) No sabe (98) No responde 93.54 90.72 90.80 90.63 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 It would be Serious for Nicaragua if No Measures are Taken to Reduce Climate Cha South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 90.18 93.83 90.82 89.98 93.10 93.42 87.18 84.31 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 It would be Serious for Nicaragua if No Measures are Taken to Reduce Climate Cha South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 84.85 92.72 92.93 86.67 93.33 92.50 95.24 92.05 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 It would be Serious for Nicaragua if No Measures are Taken South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 87.9192.31 90.16 91.67 94.6795.9192.59 92.3189.1089.20 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 It would be Serious for Nicaragua if No Measures are Taken South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 96.27 87.50 94.94 91.15 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Climate Change Represents a Risk for my Family's Well-being South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 96.27 87.50 94.94 91.15 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Climate Change Represents a Risk for my Family's Well-being South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 95.56 97.16 93.94 88.00 94.79 88.13 91.43 90.91 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Climate Change Represents a Risk for my Family's Well-being South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 95.56 91.67 96.20 92.00 90.16 88.46 96.49 88.46 97.30 84.51 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Climate Change Represents a Risk for my Family's Well-being South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean Southern Caribbean (2015) (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 118 ENV3. Pensando ahora en su situación económica. Si no se toman acciones para reducir el cambio climático en el futuro, ¿Qué tan serio sería esto para su situación económica en el futuro? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1)Muy serio (2) Algo serio (3) Poco serio (4) Nada serio (88) NS (89) NR ENV6a. ¿En los últimos doce meses usted y su familia han tomado medidas o acciones para enfrentar problemas relacionados con el cambio climático? 88.96 87.05 86.46 85.34 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 It would be Serious for my Economic Situation if No Measures are Taken to Reduce South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 84.82 88.89 85.64 84.97 91.81 89.47 89.74 80.39 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 It would be Serious for my Economic Situation if No Measures are Taken to Reduce South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 81.82 92.43 87.88 85.26 84.76 85.52 85.00 87.12 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Serious for my economic situation if no measures are taken South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 86.89 87.76 89.33 89.98 87.43 82.69 91.67 83.78 85.26 78.87 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Serious for my economic situation if no measures are taken South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 20.08 21.47 11.11 13.79 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 17.26 18.98 16.55 20.39 13.79 13.60 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0Fa South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 5.93 11.11 10.80 8.75 22.92 19.38 28.57 27.20 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Family has Taken Steps to Confront Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 7.33 14.22 16.03 15.30 17.33 22.22 22.44 18.59 23.42 22.86 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Family has Taken Steps to Confront Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean Southern Caribbean (2015) (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 119 ENV6c. En los últimos doce meses ha participado de actividades o acciones para enfrentar problemas relacionados con el cambio climático en su municipio? ENV4a. El gobierno debe destinar más dinero a asegurar que los negocios esten preparados para adaptarse al cambio climático, aun cuando esto implique gastar menos en otras cosas o programas. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? [Escala 1-7] 8.70 10.94 6.50 7.85 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participated in Municipality-Sponsored Activities Related to Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 8.93 11.59 7.54 10.24 6.90 5.78 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participated in Municipality-Sponsored Activities Related to Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 4.44 4.04 3.05 5.05 12.50 10.63 14.29 13.64 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participated in Municipality-Sponsored Activities Related to Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 5.13 8.80 6.75 5.56 8.00 12.18 8.77 12.61 11.54 10.80 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participated in Municipality-Sponsored Activities Related to Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 77.38 67.67 71.05 71.53 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Should Earmark More Money to Ensure that Businesses are Prepared to A South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 64.95 69.24 76.15 73.00 77.38 74.10 81.67 58.89 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Should Earmark More Money to Ensure that Businesses are Prepared to A South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 76.07 77.01 76.89 68.12 69.90 72.01 61.62 69.16 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government should spend more money to ensure that businesses are prepared fo climate change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 70.7875.34 73.50 69.10 66.1173.08 79.0967.13 71.9069.08 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government should spend more money to ensure that businesses are prepared fo climate change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 120 ENV4b. El gobierno debe destinar más dinero a combatir el cambio climático,, aun cuando esto implique gastar menos en otras cosas o programas. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? [Escala 1-7] NICDIS1. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual promueve los derechos de las personas con discapacidad? [Escala 1-7] 77.38 67.67 71.05 71.53 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Should Earmark More Money to Fight Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 64.95 69.24 76.15 73.00 77.38 74.10 81.67 58.89 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Should Earmark More Money to Fight Climate Change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 76.07 77.01 76.89 68.12 69.90 72.01 61.62 69.16 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government should spend more money to fight climate change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 70.78 75.34 73.50 69.10 66.11 73.08 79.09 67.13 71.90 69.08 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government should spend more money to fight climate change South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 68.06 70.51 78.54 67.28 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Protects the Rights of People with Disabilities South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 75.91 72.01 70.53 69.74 71.60 64.22 70.51 68.75 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Protects the Rights of People with Disabilities South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 71.67 72.71 66.16 68.56 71.68 70.00 81.43 69.32 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Protects the Rights of People with Disabilities South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 74.52 69.52 69.46 70.77 78.47 77.78 70.61 63.73 73.61 62.44 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Protects the Rights of People with Disabilities South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 121 D7. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que se permita que las personas con discapacidad física se postulen para cargos públicos? [Escala 1-7] NICDIS2. En su opinión, cuál de los siguientes organismos debe ocuparse de asegurar la igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad? 1) El Gobierno Central 2) Los Gobiernos Locales (Municipios) 3) La Empresa privada 4) Las mismas personas con discapacidad o sus familias 5) Las ONGs 6) Las Iglesias y Organizaciones de la Fe 7) [NO LEER] Otra respuesta (88) No sabe (98) No responde 54.85 62.50 57.19 65.09 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Approval of People with Disabilities Running for Office South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 49.65 57.65 60.48 60.82 67.90 68.02 43.59 58.17 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Approval of People with Disabilities Running for Office South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 48.99 69.02 58.91 58.73 52.13 60.07 63.17 73.99 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Approval of People with Disabilities Running for Office South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 52.35 64.65 55.70 57.38 62.27 67.74 44.65 58.82 70.57 67.14 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Approval of People with Disabilities Running for Office South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 85.59 87.39 89.76 88.48 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Discrimination toward People with Disabilities is a Problem in Nicaragua South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 84.24 85.35 87.44 89.32 91.81 91.11 94.44 92.16 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Discrimination toward People with Disabilities is a Problem in Nicaragua South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 86.05 92.71 89.29 81.91 87.62 85.33 88.33 93.94 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Discrimination toward People with Disabilities is a Problem in Nicaragua South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 84.29 87.45 87.88 89.58 89.07 96.15 87.50 83.78 88.46 86.38 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Discrimination toward People with Disabilities is a Problem in Nicaragua South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 122 NICDIS4. Las personas con discapacidad pueden hacer bien sus trabajos. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo? [Escala 1-10] NICDIS5. Las personas con discapacidad que trabajan deben recibir a igual tarea, el mismo salario que otros trabajadores que no tienen discapacidad ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo? [Escala 1-10] 49.69 62.62 56.55 65.91 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 People with Disabilities can Do their Job Well South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 51.85 56.30 58.29 66.38 53.22 69.74 29.91 69.28 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 People with Disabilities can Do their Job Well South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 51.68 57.24 50.83 60.33 51.46 64.03 67.65 71.46 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 People with Disabilities can Do their Job Well South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 51.69 59.65 47.26 67.03 56.00 70.94 51.92 63.27 62.61 67.45 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 People with Disabilities can Do their Job Well South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 68.68 66.44 71.87 72.28 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 PwD should receive the same amount of work and pay as other South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 66.17 65.77 72.26 73.10 78.16 69.01 49.57 66.01 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 People with Disabilities should Receive the Same Amount of Work and Pay as Other South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 70.96 71.44 64.65 61.00 67.60 71.52 72.38 76.39 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 PwD should receive the same amount of work and pay as other South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 72.47 66.24 67.37 67.04 77.11 68.59 61.11 70.51 75.68 73.71 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 PwD should receive the same amount of work and pay as other South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 123 NICDIS7. Pensando las personas con discapacidad ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo que las personas con discapacidad participen en los cabildos en la defensa de sus derechos? [Escala 1-10] En los últimos 12 meses usted ha participado en: ….. Si No NICMUN17A. Cabildos? 1 2 NICMUN17B. Consultas populares? 1 2 NICMUN17C. Asambleas de pobladores? 1 2 NICMUN17D. Otras reuniones? 1 2 85.00 76.10 85.05 79.86 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 People with Disabilities should Participate in Cabildos to Defend their Rigths South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 80.18 76.89 87.59 80.39 89.08 76.61 81.20 71.24 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Pw D should participate in Cabildos to defend their rigths South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 87.65 84.16 78.79 70.89 81.71 77.43 93.33 86.74 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 PwD should participate in Cabildos to defend their rigths South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 80.95 77.16 85.75 75.59 85.56 78.21 84.21 79.70 92.19 79.50 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 PwD should participate in Cabildos to defend their rigths South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 18.99 21.12 12.57 16.56 10.76 7.85 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Participation in Cabildos South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 14.42 12.50 10.87 18.37 15.44 9.15 20.37 25.86 12.16 30.00 7.69 5.88 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Participation in Cabildos South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 7.69 15.56 6.25 15.57 15.60 7.07 15.74 19.79 10.63 39.02 8.57 13.64 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Participation in Cabildos South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 15.00 15.56 11.19 19.28 11.39 1.64 13.73 12.00 17.31 25.45 19.30 11.76 15.38 24.32 9.86 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Participation in Cabildos South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 124 CP5. Ahora, para cambiar el tema, ¿en los últimos doce meses usted ha contribuido para ayudar a solucionar algún problema de su comunidad? 13.13 17.50 18.85 10.13 15.29 17.80 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Asambleas de Pobladores South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 6.54 10.81 19.57 11.56 20.59 19.21 20.00 19.30 15.79 22.22 7.69 11.76 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Asambleas de Pobladores South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 5.13 13.33 6.06 7.20 17.86 20.20 10.19 15.63 16.35 34.15 14.29 23.86 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Asambleas de Pobladores South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 12.00 14.44 25.69 9.64 17.95 8.47 11.11 12.00 15.38 12.73 24.56 17.31 15.38 13.51 14.08 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Asambleas de Pobladores South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 19.41 18.48 23.25 22.54 10.94 13.10 13.24 18.70 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 16.36 15.66 18.70 15.59 13.17 16.66 19.86 20.34 17.42 15.36 16.97 25.90 19.80 10.15 5.82 21.15 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 7.62 11.00 18.00 13.10 13.04 13.61 10.59 20.91 16.05 19.65 20.45 21.10 26.63 22.66 22.91 24.18 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 11.97 9.80 16.31 17.45 16.96 18.01 17.34 19.80 12.22 13.88 14.60 23.56 18.04 19.74 20.33 21.65 24.15 24.11 21.42 22.54 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 125 CP5A. ¿Ha donado Ud. dinero o materiales para ayudar a solucionar algún problema de la comunidad o de su barrio? CP5B. ¿Ha contribuido Ud. con su propio trabajo o mano de obra? 14.12 14.32 15.17 14.80 11.42 10.49 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Has Donated Money to Solve Community Problem South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 11.83 12.69 12.45 14.37 12.77 14.24 18.62 16.50 11.75 13.20 10.15 3.88 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Has Donated Money to Solve Community Problem South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 11.00 8.80 15.00 13.20 14.18 10.91 12.41 14.44 13.01 25.60 13.23 13.14 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Has Donated Money to Solve Community Problem South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 12.87 8.34 11.24 13.12 16.73 11.00 11.88 11.3611.42 17.40 16.21 18.44 22.88 15.16 13.04 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Has Donated Money to Solve Community Problem South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 17.97 24.03 22.36 9.77 11.01 16.63 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Has Contributed with his Own Work South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 16.98 15.94 21.49 13.19 20.03 19.86 9.78 15.95 17.83 13.20 12.69 7.76 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Has Contributed with his Own Work South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 11.00 14.69 17.53 14.95 17.69 19.18 11.62 18.57 20.86 19.39 18.00 18.40 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Has Contributed with his Own Work South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 13.60 15.99 21.27 15.94 17.14 15.15 10.41 15.86 19.08 15.93 19.16 24.17 11.42 23.22 16.28 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Has Contributed with his Own Work South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 126 CP5C. ¿Ha estado asistiendo Ud. a reuniones comunitarias sobre algún problema o sobre alguna mejora? CP5D. ¿Ha tratado de ayudar Ud. a organizar algún grupo nuevo para resolver algún problema del barrio, o para buscar alguna mejora? 17.13 13.53 14.27 10.32 11.62 11.76 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Attended Community Meetings about a Problem or Improvements South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 12.0513.61 12.3813.25 13.3913.91 15.60 13.09 12.16 23.10 5.08 5.82 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Attended Community Meetings about a Problem or Improvements South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 7.62 10.27 12.00 12.07 10.69 10.67 14.84 15.47 12.99 20.12 14.14 15.77 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Attended Community Meetings about a Problem or Improvements South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 15.88 10.88 14.78 11.13 13.37 14.61 17.13 9.90 13.96 12.60 14.47 8.25 8.88 15.16 10.70 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Attended Community Meetings about a Problem or Improvements South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 9.50 12.12 12.04 4.96 3.74 6.19 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Helped Organize a Group to Solve a Problem South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 7.73 5.90 10.06 7.36 7.72 8.41 4.80 12.00 10.86 13.20 10.15 0.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Helped Organize a Group to Solve a Problem South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 4.23 8.80 8.00 6.30 6.06 9.25 6.37 8.26 9.49 15.29 14.17 9.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Helped Organize a Group to Solve a Problem South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 9.08 6.54 8.36 9.20 10.328.11 3.06 5.96 13.35 8.40 9.28 5.08 2.54 10.73 7.44 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Helped Organize a Group to Solve a Problem South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 127 CP6. ¿Reuniones de alguna organización religiosa? Asiste… CP7. ¿Reuniones de una asociación de padres de familia de la escuela o colegio? Asiste… 59.56 63.17 48.95 45.59 67.51 63.95 63.71 54.96 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Participation in Meetings of any Religious Group South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 67.07 57.83 54.87 49.92 58.78 66.47 52.35 44.45 69.53 67.09 64.30 57.35 63.00 66.46 68.41 60.18 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Participation in Meetings of any Religious Group South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 57.90 59.04 64.48 47.33 62.18 63.63 58.16 52.18 66.19 66.48 53.34 48.30 66.41 62.80 55.90 52.83 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Participation in Meetings of any Religious Group South-Center (2011) Caribbean-Center (2015) South-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 62.16 60.23 62.56 49.61 60.46 66.03 47.89 45.33 63.37 61.14 52.40 47.48 65.87 68.28 53.04 49.22 74.12 66.49 55.18 55.28 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Participation in Meetings of any Religious Group South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 19.19 24.00 24.77 24.38 34.46 37.44 38.88 39.33 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Meetings of a Parents Association South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 16.07 22.32 26.80 22.35 35.23 39.05 41.01 42.21 28.24 28.96 26.50 29.74 9.90 20.31 13.71 13.11 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Meetings of a Parents Association South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 22.85 21.27 32.03 30.61 28.30 29.50 25.42 32.69 23.32 34.06 34.48 32.22 34.63 36.83 33.02 29.61 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Meetings of a Parents Association South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 30.12 25.38 32.33 31.06 27.84 30.90 31.97 37.25 23.24 29.04 31.73 33.30 18.00 35.95 32.42 29.02 36.81 36.59 30.23 27.01 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Meetings of a Parents Association South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 128 CP8. ¿Reuniones de un comité o junta de mejoras para la comunidad? Asiste… CP13. ¿Reuniones de un partido o movimiento político? Asiste… 15.15 15.37 14.79 20.29 14.88 10.66 9.97 21.98 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Meetings of a Committee for Community Improvements South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 11.11 9.13 13.64 17.58 13.47 16.88 12.08 22.18 24.05 12.16 11.72 23.55 29.70 10.15 7.76 19.06 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Meetings of a Committee for Community Improvements South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 11.00 13.20 11.00 16.42 12.42 12.17 12.54 23.41 14.85 12.38 14.45 20.23 24.15 17.03 9.00 20.91 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Meetings of a Committee for Community Improvements South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 18.46 8.70 16.51 26.74 11.13 15.05 9.20 20.65 14.32 11.22 14.62 23.03 13.22 11.20 7.62 21.08 19.08 24.11 8.37 17.10 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Meetings of a Committee for Community Improvements South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 13.63 9.85 9.81 14.83 9.71 5.82 5.33 15.22 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation in Political Party Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 11.73 8.55 6.46 12.27 13.81 7.72 9.06 14.62 9.04 6.84 7.41 18.08 16.50 7.62 3.88 12.15 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation in Political Party Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 3.38 8.07 5.00 12.70 10.21 6.75 6.93 12.12 13.68 7.92 6.61 15.87 20.17 12.29 10.52 17.99 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation in Political Party Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 10.04 5.44 8.49 17.39 12.34 10.46 7.03 10.39 13.22 5.28 10.17 15.02 17.52 8.68 5.08 14.76 11.46 11.65 6.52 14.23 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation in Political Party Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 129 NICCP14. ¿Reuniones de un CPC o Consejo del Poder Ciudadano? Asiste… NICCP15. ¿Reuniones de los Gabinetes de la Familia? Asiste.. 6.81 4.13 2.94 13.80 7.48 5.91 5.19 15.88 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation in Gabinetes de Familia South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 4.99 2.78 3.83 7.59 6.91 8.74 4.81 16.14 9.02 5.40 3.92 19.46 13.20 2.75 12.06 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation in Gabinetes de Familia South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 2.54 4.02 5.35 11.88 4.45 5.10 2.31 16.99 6.37 4.08 4.96 13.45 17.35 8.51 4.13 14.91 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation in Gabinetes de Familia South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 8.10 3.79 5.78 15.20 7.17 5.73 2.75 15.56 3.67 5.74 5.73 16.34 7.22 5.40 1.90 14.19 10.56 5.82 2.32 13.72 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation in Gabinetes de Familia South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 3.83 3.71 3.72 3.88 3.81 3.72 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 3.89 3.84 3.70 3.75 3.81 3.69 3.80 3.84 3.67 3.83 4.00 3.78 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 3.86 3.81 3.85 3.79 3.80 3.68 3.90 3.69 3.75 3.91 3.82 3.67 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 3.90 3.68 3.70 3.80 3.75 3.73 3.94 3.63 3.68 3.79 3.90 3.77 3.81 3.92 3.72 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 130 Le voy a mencionar algunas organizaciones, quisiera que me conteste si conoce o no conoce a estas organizaciones que trabajan en el municipio: Sí No NICMUN20A. Organizaciones de Mujeres 1 2 Le voy a mencionar algunas organizaciones, quisiera que me conteste si conoce o no conoce a estas organizaciones que trabajan en el municipio: Sí No NICMUN20B. Organización de Productores 1 2 55.56 41.03 56.00 58.51 48.41 58.92 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Groups of Women South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 51.46 43.12 56.12 56.72 44.78 61.74 64.71 43.86 59.46 50.00 61.54 43.75 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Groups of Women South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 38.24 43.18 55.37 45.45 38.41 54.81 55.32 55.21 58.60 74.36 40.00 67.86 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Groups of Women South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 51.02 37.08 61.43 52.63 45.45 50.98 52.54 44.90 52.94 71.70 47.27 54.90 60.00 59.46 63.77 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Groups of Women South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 67.10 61.64 37.77 59.09 53.29 40.54 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Groups of Farmers South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 65.71 54.21 37.59 56.43 53.73 42.57 74.07 68.42 37.33 70.00 76.92 29.41 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Groups of Farmers South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 57.14 66.67 33.33 64.52 50.72 42.86 60.00 61.29 34.64 72.50 60.61 43.02 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Groups of Farmers South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 53.06 54.55 49.64 68.75 54.55 33.90 62.26 55.10 28.85 73.08 55.36 28.85 65.38 77.14 36.76 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Groups of Farmers South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 131 Le voy a mencionar algunas organizaciones, quisiera que me conteste si conoce o no conoce a estas organizaciones que trabajan en el municipio: Sí No NICMUN20C. Comité de Desarrollo Municipal 1 2 NICMUNI15. ¿Qué tan interesado cree usted que está el alcalde en la participación de la gente en el trabajo del municipio? [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy interesado (2) Algo interesado (3) Poco interesado (4) Nada interesado (88) NS (98) NR 13.08 41.77 43.62 7.87 53.21 35.11 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 tees South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 5.95 48.65 48.12 12.30 44.70 39.74 13.64 53.45 26.67 14.29 38.46 23.53 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 es South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 3.70 31.11 18.18 6.60 42.34 28.28 9.52 59.38 31.43 41.67 52.94 56.47 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Municipal Development Committees South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 3.49 36.67 32.86 10.77 45.45 29.31 5.13 48.00 48.08 14.29 36.00 41.07 42.31 86.11 48.57 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Municipal Development Committees South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 45.46 54.55 44.55 46.38 56.94 46.00 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Mayor Interested in People Participating South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 49.23 56.48 49.17 43.40 57.57 43.59 45.76 47.83 40.22 46.30 66.09 50.80 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Mayor Interested in People Participating South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 47.21 52.20 33.03 44.62 53.06 38.67 48.12 59.84 48.94 46.07 56.50 50.03 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Mayor Interested in People Participating South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 36.38 59.22 38.61 47.83 49.64 45.25 49.37 57.81 45.43 55.48 53.17 51.33 47.52 62.64 53.40 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Mayor Interested in People Participating South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 132 NICMUJ1. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno protege los derechos de las mujeres? [Escala 1-10] GEN1. Se dice que cuando no hay suficientes trabajos, los hombres deben tener más derecho a los trabajos que las mujeres. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo? [Escala 1-10] 84.50 88.16 85.35 76.88 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Protects Women's Rights South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 87.54 81.28 88.56 81.03 83.44 75.90 76.92 81.25 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Protects Women's Rights South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 82.95 89.58 85.25 82.99 89.06 79.38 88.10 79.36 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Protects Women's Rights South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 85.21 85.06 83.91 84.17 89.67 84.80 85.62 73.20 88.29 74.65 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Government Protects Women's Rights South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 59.01 54.89 49.27 44.27 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Men Should Have Priority for Jobs South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 57.51 49.15 51.84 47.06 52.59 54.17 56.41 54.90 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Men Should Have Priority for Jobs South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 50.00 57.58 57.74 54.17 58.85 51.26 35.24 37.88 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Men Should Have Priority for Jobs South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 57.22 53.42 55.44 50.00 56.00 46.47 54.68 49.04 42.79 39.44 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Men Should Have Priority for Jobs South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 133 GEN6. El Estado debe exigir que los partidos políticos reserven algunos espacios para mujeres en sus listas de candidatos, aunque tengan que excluir (dejar afuera) a algunos hombres. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo? [Escala 1-7] D5. Y ahora, cambiando el tema, y pensando en los homosexuales. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que estas personas puedan postularse para cargos públicos? 68.34 72.37 75.32 72.69 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Support for Gender Quotas South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 69.70 67.89 72.31 76.02 65.38 76.69 74.89 61.76 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Support for Gender Quotas South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 64.34 72.73 72.81 70.43 69.19 72.36 79.90 76.33 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Support for Gender Quotas South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 73.03 69.05 75.85 68.45 74.54 73.73 74.58 72.12 73.20 68.31 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Support for Gender Quotas South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 28.51 36.32 43.75 34.34 35.93 41.32 47.89 35.14 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 Homosexuals Runs for public office South-Center (2011) Caribbean-Center (2015) South-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 32.47 35.32 41.52 37.52 36.63 41.99 52.29 36.04 23.29 38.01 44.44 33.85 12.35 41.03 28.10 23.23 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 Homosexuals Runs for public office South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 21.32 37.47 48.96 23.79 31.87 36.15 40.67 28.67 34.38 39.90 42.63 38.44 41.39 46.41 56.83 49.32 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 Homosexuals Runs for public office South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 28.19 34.09 43.75 26.52 33.04 41.52 42.26 33.25 39.74 45.83 51.92 37.20 28.63 32.14 42.31 37.81 36.32 40.95 53.30 43.78 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 Homosexuals Runs for public office South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 134 D6. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que las parejas del mismo sexo puedan tener el derecho a casarse? NICGEN1. Y ahora, pensando en las personas homosexuales ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo que las personas homosexuales participen en los cabildos en la defensa de sus derechos? 7.33 12.65 16.90 12.30 7.58 21.15 20.20 16.70 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Support same-sex marriage South-Center (2011) Caribbean-Center (2015) South-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 9.95 21.22 20.28 20.07 7.81 17.66 19.17 15.23 1.09 8.43 13.63 11.29 8.89 8.33 20.92 4.61 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Support same-sex marriage South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 4.39 17.05 19.19 7.66 8.31 14.03 14.89 9.82 8.28 18.13 22.15 18.51 6.48 25.82 16.60 21.57 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Support same-sex marriage South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 8.78 13.23 14.66 10.38 9.12 20.68 19.07 15.19 4.00 19.21 19.66 7.20 10.50 15.48 24.57 18.54 4.04 16.52 21.43 20.19 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Support same-sex marriage South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 57.71 55.20 61.43 57.82 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 ldos South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 57.76 52.78 61.19 61.79 62.96 52.89 47.86 44.44 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Gays South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 49.49 51.85 54.76 53.56 63.83 53.64 80.32 66.92 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Gays Should be Allowed to Participate in Municipal Cabildos South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 50.49 55.94 61.11 54.83 65.08 54.34 55.98 55.56 77.48 61.59 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Gays Should be Allowed to Participate in Municipal Cabildos South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 135 NICFT1. ¿Hasta qué punto diría Ud. que el gobierno nacional actual informa a los ciudadanos sobre el Presupuesto General de la República? NICFT2. ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual es transparente en la administración del Presupuesto General de la República? 50.95 51.09 60.70 46.74 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 National Government Informs about the General Budget of the Republic South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 58.17 49.50 57.41 44.79 49.65 47.22 64.58 45.24 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Nat. Gov. Informs about the General Budget of the Republic South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 59.31 52.97 50.00 44.78 55.11 50.87 62.63 49.81 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Nat. Gov. Informs about the General Budget of the Republic South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 60.53 47.40 53.54 44.92 57.2052.5649.51 53.2752.3849.51 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Nat. Gov. Informs about the General Budget of the Republic South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 49.64 52.66 58.97 49.22 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 National Government is Transparent Administering the General Budget of the Repub South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 56.00 51.77 55.88 42.22 50.23 50.26 77.78 54.44 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 National Government is Transparent Administering the General Budget of the Repub South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 55.56 51.56 50.86 50.00 55.11 53.79 61.27 47.48 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Nat. Gov. is Transparent Administering the General Budget South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 53.78 51.64 52.60 48.87 58.13 53.33 55.9746.57 51.3349.28 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Nat. Gov. is Transparent Administering the General Budget South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 136 NICMUNI18. ¿Usted sabe que significa la auditoría social? (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde NICMUNI19. ¿Considera que las acciones de rendición de cuentas que hace la Alcaldía, son: (1) Muy transparentes (2) Algo transparentes (3) Poco transparentes (4) Nada transparentes (88) NS (98) NR 13.38 17.83 17.46 12.10 12.50 10.81 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Knows that Social Audit Means South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 10.48 7.55 8.21 14.48 15.67 20.27 12.96 28.57 15.79 10.00 15.38 0.00 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Knows that Social Audit Means South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 5.13 11.36 6.25 5.74 9.56 5.05 12.84 19.35 9.87 42.50 29.41 32.95 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Knows that Social Audit Means South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 5.15 9.20 9.29 3.61 14.47 6.67 14.81 10.20 12.00 22.22 25.00 15.69 46.15 22.86 30.43 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Knows that Social Audit Means South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 44.33 50.60 44.08 49.32 58.20 40.92 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Municipality's Accountabilty Actions are Transparent South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 50.17 55.11 44.47 45.98 52.44 42.36 43.81 55.73 37.39 49.63 62.13 33.00 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Municipality's Accountabilty Actions are South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 34.55 48.57 29.53 45.21 49.48 37.56 50.39 61.33 46.05 52.03 54.39 44.51 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Municipality's Accountabilty Actions are Transparent South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 40.03 48.48 38.46 46.24 55.31 40.53 50.00 55.47 43.61 51.02 59.35 51.38 53.39 58.18 44.46 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Municipality's Accountabilty Actions are Transparent South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 137 HONMUN37a. ¿Conoce usted el presupuesto de su municipio? (1) Sí (2) No 88) No Sabe (98) No Responde NICMUNI6. Que confianza tiene que la municipalidad maneja los fondos bien? [Leer Alternativas] (3) Mucha (2) Poco (1) Nada (88) NS (98) NR 10.06 4.71 6.33 5.73 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Knows the Municipal Budget South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 5.41 7.25 8.82 3.95 12.28 3.95 7.69 5.88 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Knows the Municipal Budget South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 4.44 6.25 7.09 3.00 13.83 6.25 2.86 4.55 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Knows the Municipal Budget South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 8.89 5.56 7.59 3.33 2.00 7.69 10.71 3.85 13.89 4.23 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Knows the Municipal Budget South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 33.53 38.92 31.89 34.99 38.68 31.23 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Trust in the Municipality Managing the Budget South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 36.65 37.62 36.71 31.30 38.13 30.23 32.60 36.37 24.90 23.10 69.27 43.50 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Trust in the Municipality Managing the Budget South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 26.84 39.75 30.39 23.64 35.73 31.28 37.21 38.77 34.96 34.77 46.29 35.00 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Trust in the Municipality Managing the Budget South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 26.72 37.52 31.30 31.83 37.11 34.75 37.19 38.72 35.08 39.86 37.67 28.42 37.21 48.75 36.37 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Trust in the Municipality Managing the Budget South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 138 Annex 6: Statistical Compendium IDIO2. ¿Considera usted que su situación económica actual es mejor, igual o peor que la de hace doce meses? (1) Mejor (2) Igual (3) Peor (88) NS (98) NR 49.53 48.60 51.43 47.66 50.00 53.78 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Perception of Personal Economic Situation South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 139 POL1. ¿Qué tanto interés tiene usted en la política: mucho, algo, poco o nada? (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR 45.23 43.17 42.94 37.91 32.27 36.64 35.01 33.76 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Political Interest South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 38.75 39.93 38.97 35.83 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Political Interest South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 140 PN4. En general, ¿usted diría que está muy satisfecho(a), satisfecho(a), insatisfecho(a) o muy insatisfecho(a) con la forma en que la democracia funciona en Nicaragua? (1) Muy satisfecho (a) (2) Satisfecho (a) (3) Insatisfecho (a) (4) Muy insatisfecho (a) (88) NS (98) NR 55.50 49.25 52.73 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Satisfaction with Democracy South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 54.52 49.82 52.52 56.52 48.68 52.94 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Satisfaction with Democracy South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 141 NP1. ¿Ha asistido a un cabildo abierto o una sesión del concejo municipal durante los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí [Pase a NP1B] (2) No [Siga] (88) No Sabe [Pase a NP1C] (98) No Responde [Pase a NP1C] 18.75 19.75 13.54 12.65 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Attended a Municipal Meeting South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 20.00 25.63 15.10 14.17 17.50 13.84 11.98 11.14 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 Attended a Municipal Meeting South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 142 NP2. ¿Ha solicitado ayuda o ha presentado una petición a alguna oficina, funcionario, concejal o síndico de la alcaldía durante los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pase a PMP3] (88) NS [Pase a PMP3] (98) No responde [Pase a PMP3] 19.44 20.69 18.11 21.54 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Demand-Making on Municipal Government South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 21.25 19.25 15.71 21.50 17.61 22.15 20.53 21.58 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Demand-Making on Municipal Government South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 143 SGL1. ¿Diría usted que los servicios que la alcaldía está dando a la gente son: [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy buenos (2) Buenos (3) Ni buenos ni malos (regulares) (4) Malos (5) Muy malos (pésimos) (88) NS (98) NR 52.79 59.35 52.63 59.11 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Satisfaction with Local Government Services South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 50.81 57.95 50.53 58.34 54.83 60.74 54.78 59.88 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Satisfaction with Local Government Services South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 144 CP5. Ahora, para cambiar el tema, ¿en los últimos doce meses usted ha contribuido para ayudar a solucionar algún problema de su comunidad o de los vecinos de su barrio o colonia? Por favor, dígame si lo hizo por lo menos una vez a la semana, una o dos veces al mes, una o dos veces al año, o nunca en los últimos 12 meses. 15.17 15.81 18.25 20.62 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 19.41 18.48 23.25 22.54 10.94 13.10 13.24 18.70 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 145 Una vez a la seman a Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca NS NR CP6. ¿Reuniones de alguna organización religiosa? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 63.53 63.56 56.33 50.28 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Participation in Meetings of any Religious Group South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 59.56 63.17 48.95 45.59 67.51 63.95 63.71 54.96 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Participation in Meetings of any Religious Group South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 146 Una vez a la semana Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca CP7. ¿Reuniones de una asociación de padres de familia de la escuela o colegio? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 26.83 30.64 31.82 31.86 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Participation in Meetings of a Parents Association South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 19.19 24.00 24.77 24.38 34.46 37.44 38.88 39.33 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Participation in Meetings of a Parents Association South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 147 Una vez a la seman a Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca NS NR CP8. ¿Reuniones de un comité o junta de mejoras para la comunidad? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 15.01 13.04 12.38 21.13 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Participation in Meetings of a Committee for Community Improvements South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 15.15 15.37 14.79 20.29 14.88 10.66 9.97 21.98 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Participation in Meetings of a Committee for Community Improvements South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 148 Una vez a la seman a Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca NS NR CP13. ¿Reuniones de un partido o movimiento político? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 11.67 7.85 7.57 15.03 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participation in Political Party Meetings South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 13.63 9.85 9.81 14.83 9.71 5.82 5.33 15.22 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participation in Political Party Meetings South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 149 Una vez a la seman a Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca NS NR NICCP14. ¿Reuniones de un CPC o Consejo del Poder Ciudadano? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 7.15 5.01 4.07 14.84 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 Participation in Gabinetes de Familia South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 6.81 4.13 2.94 13.80 7.48 5.91 5.19 15.88 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Participation in Gabinetes de Familia South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 150 Una vez a la semana Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca NS NR 3.85 3.76 3.72 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Meeting of Gabinetes de Familia South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 3.83 3.71 3.72 3.88 3.81 3.72 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Meeting of Gabinetes de Familia South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 151 NICCP15. ¿Reuniones de los Gabinetes de la Familia? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 Una vez a la seman a Una o dos veces al mes Una o dos veces al año Nunca NS NR CP20. [Solo mujeres] ¿Reuniones de asociaciones o grupos de mujeres o amas de casa? Asiste… 1 2 3 4 88 98 99 6.41 8.37 8.44 7.49 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Participation in Meetings of Women Association or Group South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 6.41 8.37 8.44 7.49 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Participation in Meetings of Women Association or Group South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 152 IT1. Ahora, hablando de la gente de por aquí, ¿diría que la gente de su comunidad es: [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy confiable (2) Algo confiable (3) Poco confiable (4) Nada confiable (88) NS (98) NR 58.46 64.32 52.23 61.48 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Interpersonal Trust South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 60.34 66.72 55.74 64.65 56.57 61.92 48.63 58.32 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Interpersonal Trust South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 153 VIC1EXT. Ahora, cambiando el tema, ¿ha sido usted víctima de algún acto de delincuencia en los últimos 12 meses? Es decir, ¿ha sido usted víctima de un robo, hurto, agresión, fraude, chantaje, extorsión, amenazas o algún otro tipo de acto delincuencial en los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pasar a VIC1HOGAR] (88) NS [Pasar a VIC1HOGAR] (98) NR [Pasar a VIC1HOGAR] 17.19 16.59 25.52 17.21 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Crime Victimization South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 20.00 18.65 27.08 19.82 14.38 14.50 23.96 14.60 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Crime Victimization South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 154 AOJ8. Para poder capturar delincuentes, ¿cree usted que las autoridades siempre deben respetar las leyes o en ocasiones pueden actuar al margen de la ley? [No leer alternativas] (1) Deben respetar las leyes siempre (2) En ocasiones pueden actuar al margen de la ley (88) NS (98) NR 88.31 88.16 86.31 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Support for the rule of Law South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 88.31 86.96 84.87 88.31 89.39 87.77 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Support for the rule of Law South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 155 AOJ11. Hablando del lugar o el barrio/la colonia donde usted vive y pensando en la posibilidad de ser víctima de un asalto o robo, ¿usted se siente muy seguro(a), algo seguro(a), algo inseguro(a) o muy inseguro(a)? (1) Muy seguro(a) (2) Algo seguro(a) (3) Algo inseguro(a) (4) Muy inseguro(a) (88) NS (98) NR 32.92 36.47 48.29 41.26 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Perception of Insecurity South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 30.54 36.16 49.14 39.64 35.31 36.79 47.44 42.88 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Perception of Insecurity South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 156 AOJ12. Si usted fuera víctima de un robo o asalto, ¿cuánto confiaría que el sistema judicial castigaría al culpable? [Leer alternativas] Confiaría… (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR 42.90 58.49 53.73 54.47 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Judicial system would punish the guilty South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 41.78 56.46 50.06 53.09 44.03 60.56 57.39 55.84 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Judicial system would punish the guilty South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 157 B1. ¿Hasta qué punto cree usted que los tribunales de justicia de Nicaragua garantizan un juicio justo? (Sondee: Si usted cree que los tribunales no garantizan para nada la justicia, escoja el número 1; si cree que los tribunales garantizan mucho la justicia, escoja el número 7 o escoja un puntaje intermedio) 44.92 47.86 52.01 49.70 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Courts South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 46.87 44.59 52.46 49.15 42.92 51.26 51.57 50.27 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Courts South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 158 B2. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted respeto por las instituciones políticas de Nicaragua? 70.00 76.16 76.60 75.09 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Institutions South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 69.12 74.27 76.70 70.92 73.78 78.10 76.49 76.39 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Institutions South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 159 B3. ¿Hasta qué punto cree usted que los derechos básicos del ciudadano están bien protegidos por el sistema político nicaragüense? 52.31 57.89 54.34 54.39 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Basic Rights South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 51.34 55.48 56.60 53.80 53.33 60.43 52.04 54.99 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 Basic Rights South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 160 B4. ¿Hasta qué punto se siente usted orgulloso(a) de vivir bajo el sistema político nicaragüense? 55.01 65.07 63.06 61.98 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Pride in Political System South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 53.90 62.58 64.06 56.15 60.35 67.64 62.07 63.61 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Pride in Political System South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 161 B6. ¿Hasta qué punto piensa usted que se debe apoyar al sistema político nicaragüense? 65.25 66.56 68.17 67.74 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Political System South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 64.56 65.38 69.91 66.95 65.97 67.74 66.40 68.53 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Political System South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 162 B10A. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza en el sistema de justicia? 46.52 53.78 51.27 54.52 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Justice System South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 46.75 50.21 51.39 52.61 46.27 57.41 51.15 56.44 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Justice System South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 163 B13. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Asamblea Nacional? 41.14 47.47 52.20 49.39 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 National Assembly South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 41.13 43.93 54.57 47.91 41.16 51.14 49.82 50.89 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 National Assembly South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 164 B18. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Policía Nacional? 53.55 55.64 48.09 58.10 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 National Police South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 53.85 56.94 49.48 57.03 53.25 54.32 46.70 59.18 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 National Police South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 165 B20. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Iglesia Católica? 74.92 73.53 52.18 58.36 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Catholic Church South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 75.63 72.71 55.82 60.42 74.20 74.37 48.47 56.32 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Catholic Church South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 166 B21A. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en el presidente? 47.21 58.81 62.89 61.19 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 President South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 49.58 55.03 65.10 59.08 44.77 62.69 60.67 63.31 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 President South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 167 B32. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted confianza en su alcaldía? 48.02 60.11 48.83 55.11 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Municipal Goverment South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 48.75 59.12 48.78 54.23 47.26 61.11 48.87 55.98 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Municipal Goverment South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 168 ING4. Puede que la democracia tenga problemas, pero es mejor que cualquier otra forma de gobierno. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? 73.11 63.82 62.95 68.43 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Support for Democracy South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 74.89 64.68 63.92 69.13 71.14 62.95 61.96 67.71 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Support for Democracy South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 169 D1. Hay personas que siempre hablan mal de la forma de gobierno de Nicaragua, no sólo del gobierno de turno, sino del sistema de gobierno, ¿con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted el derecho de votar de esas personas? Por favor léame el número de la escalera: [Sondee: ¿Hasta qué punto?] 63.81 48.75 50.52 53.13 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Vote South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 60.16 50.45 52.09 55.40 67.57 46.92 48.91 50.85 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Vote South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 170 D2. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted que estas personas puedan llevar a cabo manifestaciones pacíficas con el propósito de expresar sus puntos de vista? Por favor léame el número. 67.75 54.90 52.96 56.80 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Protest South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 66.81 59.94 54.28 59.22 68.72 49.63 51.61 54.40 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Protest South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 171 D3. Siempre pensando en los que hablan mal de la forma de gobierno de Nicaragua. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted que estas personas puedan postularse para cargos públicos? 48.63 39.48 40.76 36.63 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Run for Office South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 48.61 41.22 40.35 38.40 48.66 37.64 41.18 34.83 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Run for Office South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 172 D4. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted que estas personas salgan en la televisión para dar un discurso? 53.67 44.05 45.59 40.49 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Free Speech South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 52.35 46.08 46.60 44.02 55.02 41.94 44.56 36.96 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Free Speech South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 173 D5. Y ahora, cambiando el tema, y pensando en los homosexuales. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que estas personas puedan postularse para cargos públicos? 32.19 38.80 45.82 34.73 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Homosexuals Runs for public office South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 28.51 36.32 43.75 34.34 35.93 41.32 47.89 35.14 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Homosexuals Runs for public office South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 174 D6. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba que las parejas del mismo sexo puedan tener el derecho a casarse? 7.46 16.86 18.56 14.50 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Support same-sex marriage South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 7.33 12.65 16.90 12.30 7.58 21.15 20.20 16.70 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Support same-sex marriage South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 175 E16. Que las personas hagan justicia por su propia cuenta cuando el Estado no castiga a los criminales. ¿Hasta qué punto aprueba o desaprueba? 1-10, 88,98 33.90 34.27 40.65 33.82 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Approval of citizens enforcing the Law South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 40.01 36.09 44.16 35.09 27.74 32.42 37.15 32.54 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Approval of citizens enforcing the Law South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 176 INAP No trató o tuvo contacto No Sí NS NR EXC2. ¿Algún agente de policía le pidió una mordida o soborno en los últimos 12 meses? 0 1 88 98 7.50 2.84 7.83 8.61 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Police Demand Bribe South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 13.13 4.38 7.81 12.34 1.88 1.27 7.85 4.91 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Police Demand Bribe South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 177 2.19 0.94 5.21 4.79 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Public Employee Bribe South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 3.13 1.86 5.73 6.22 1.25 0.00 4.69 3.36 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Public Employee Bribe South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Southern Caribbean (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 178 Annex 7: Responses to Specific Questions Asked by USAID/ Nicaragua Note: This annex responds to a series of questions that were developed by USAID/Nicaragua. The question numbers reflect the list prepared by USAID, however, each “question” is often made up of several sub-questions. Rather than deviating from the USAID list of questions, we list each “question” at the top of each set of responses, followed by the specific “sub-question.” It draws on the full report to respond to virtually all of those questions, but is organized in this appendix in one composite location for ease of access. The reader will see at the top of each section the question asked shown in green type. Immediately following each question will be found the reply. The questions are grouped by outcomes and outputs. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 179 Has citizen participation at the local level increased as a result of USAID programs? Owing to Mission budget constraints, the control group of municipalities surveyed in the 2011 baseline were not surveyed again in 2015. This means that while we can compare the “before and after” impact of the program (i.e., Round 1 [2011] vs. Round 2 [2015]) for the treated municipalities. Furthermore, we do not have a control group that would have enabled us to rule out the impact of other influences on the outcome. Specifically, unlike our studies of CARSI, we do not have for the Nicaragua MGP a control group of municipalities to allow us to use the “Difference-in-Difference” methodology to measure the program’s impact. Without the control group of municipalities, we are not able to know how the municipalities that did not receive the program performed, compared to those that did receive treatment. Despite these limitations, ones that we do not want to minimize, we are able to follow the treated municipalities over time and therefore compare indicators over time. In the case of the municipalities that were added to the program after the baseline, our objective was to collect information that could be used later to evaluate the over-time performance of the program in these additional municipalities. One good way of getting some idea of the level of citizen participation is to look at the LAPOP country data, as revealed by the AmericasBarometer series of surveys, supported in part by USAID, especially for USAID-presence countries. Nicaragua ranks relatively high when we compare citizen participation in local council or municipal meetings, as shown in Figure 11 below. Note that figure numbers in this appendix are based on the number used in the main body of the report. As can be seen, in Nicaragua, for the country as a whole, 12.6% of voting-age adults participate in such meetings. Outcome: Question 1  Has citizen participation at the local level increased as a result of USAID programs? How effective are the initiatives to promote citizen participation in decision making and oversight supported by USAID? What are the challenges and opportunities? Are the USAID projects creating synergies with other donor programs or other actors? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 180 Figure 32. Participation in Council/Municipal meetings across the Americas We then turn to a comparison of national-level data to participation levels in council meetings or cabildos in the MGP project areas covered by the LAPOP special study. The results show that the South –center municipalities are above the national average, which, we remind the reader, were already quite high compared to other nations in the Americas, although between 2011 and 2015 has been a decrease in participation, going from 17.78% to 15.99% (see Figure 10). Participation in council meetings in the Southern Caribbean, however, are lower than in the South–Center municipalities and the national average, with only 10.21% of the residents attending these meetings. 4.9% 6.1% 6.3% 6.4% 6.7% 6.8% 8.3% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 9.3% 9.4% 9.6% 10.0% 10.8% 11.1% 11.4% 11.7% 12.6% 13.1% 13.3% 14.0% 14.2% 15.2% 15.5% Argentina Panama Chile El Salvador Guyana Costa Rica Trinidad & Tobago Jamaica Uruguay Brazil Guatemala Mexico Colombia Honduras Dominican Republic Peru Bolivia Paraguay Nicaragua Ecuador Venezuela Canada Belize United States Haiti 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Attended Municipal Meeting 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, 2014; v.GM14_0912 Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 181 Figure 33. Participation in Different Types of Organizations We next look at a comparison of four types of local-level participation: cabildos, referenda, asambleas de pobladores and other meetings. Civil society participation in referenda is around 10%, with little variation across the three areas being studied. In the Southern Caribbean municipalities participation in the asambleas de pobladores is more prevalent than participation in than in the South-Center municipalities, which in the period 2015 have not experienced a significant change from the levels in 2011. Civil society participation in other types of meetings have increased in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015, going from 14.20% to 28.53%. In the Southern Caribbean, where we have only one measurement, the percentage in 2015 is similar to that in the South-Center (30.29%). With regards to meetings of political organizations (see Figure 15), we observe a statistically insignificant decline in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015 (from 11.67 to 7.85) and a score of 7.57 in the Southern Caribbean. The national average level of participation in a political organizations is 15.03 points. Also, participation in meetings of the CPCs14 is 2 points lower in 2015 than in 2011 in the South, although the difference is not statistically significant. The Southern Caribbean scores a low 4.07 in 2015 in participation in the CPCs. At the national level, participation in CPCs score higher than the implementing municipalities (14.84 points).Finally, participation in meetings of Gabines de la Familia is almost 3 points higher in the Southern 14 CPCs (or Consejos de Poder Ciudadano) and Gabinetes de Familia are community organizations created by the government of Nicaragua. They are both recognized for their partisan nature. 17.78% 15.99% 10.21% 0 10 20 30 40 Participation in Cabildos South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) Region 10.79% 12.23% 9.42% 0 10 20 30 40 Participation in referendums South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 11.64% 16.40% 18.32% 0 10 20 30 40 Participation in Asambleas de Pobladores South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 14.20% 28.53% 30.29% 0 10 20 30 40 Participation in other meetings South-Center (2011) South_Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 182 Caribbean (4.91) than in the South-Center (7.88). The national average is 9.3 points, higher than in the implementing municipalities. However this difference is not statistically significant. Figure 34. Participation in Different Types of Organizations III When looking at citizen awareness of municipal development committees, there is a big jump between 2011 and 2015 in the South, going from 10.5% to 47.45% points. In 2015, 39.36% of respondents in the Southern Caribbean knew of these organizations. Finally, almost one third of respondents in the South-Center and the Southern Caribbean in the 2015 knew of other municipal organizations. We conclude this discussion of change with one especially sharp increase. What is striking and perhaps notable for USAID is a significant increase in CPC organizations in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015. Citizen participation increased from 8.61% to 31.83% (Figure 17). 7.97 8.15 6.39 0 5 10 15 20 Professional, Labor, or Agricultural Group South-Center (2011) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2015) Region 11.67 7.85 7.57 15.03 0 5 10 15 20 Political Organization South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 7.15 5.01 4.07 14.84 0 5 10 15 20 Participation in CPC South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 4.91 7.88 9.30 0 5 10 15 20 Participation in Gabinetes de la Familia South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Av. (2014) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 183 Figure 35. Knowledge of Different Types of Organizations How effective are the initiatives to promote citizen participation in decision making and oversight supported by USAID? In our qualitative work, when we asked participants in focus groups about the role of external cooperation and different programs that promote civil society participation, they mentioned the training, workshops and activities organized by APRODER and USAID Global Communities as the ones that have promoted citizens’ participation. Participants also recognized that civil society participation, although it is conceived as being part of and driven by the public administration (through the institutions of municipal councils, etc.) it depends fundamentally on the willingness of civil society organizations to participate. As a community leader participating in a focus group pointed out: “el que empuja la participación ciudadana no es desde el gobierno, ni local ni nacional, son las organizaciones de sociedad civil, las que empujan la participación ciudadana de todo el municipio pensando en que es un derecho y que la gente no lo sabía y la ayuda de programas como el de USAID son esencial”. Focus group participants agreed that the participation in Cabildos and the Consejo de Desarrollo Municipal (CDM) are among the most effective mechanisms that civil society has to express its opinion and needs: “... creo que la participación en Cabildos es una de las formas más conocidas en que las personas podemos participar y que nuestra vos sea escuchada y…, y, creo que los programas de USAID han ayudado a la gente a participar a acercarse. Por ejemplo, en Muelle de los Bueyes, se hacen cabildos de jóvenes, donde hay una gran participación de la juventud. Han comenzado desde los niños pequeños hasta llegar a edades de secundaria. Se ha logrado una gran participación de jóvenes de todas las comunidades y en el municipio”. 55.78% 44.73% 58.71% 0 20 40 60 80 Knowledge of groups of women South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 63.11% 57.56% 39.14% 0 20 40 60 80 Knowledge of groups of farmers South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 10.51% 47.45% 39.36% 0 20 40 60 80 Knowledge of municipal development committees South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 8.61% 31.83% 32.87% 0 20 40 60 80 Knowledge of other municipal organizations South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 184 Another participant stated: “la excepción se ha dado en municipios parte del departamento de Chontales que – han sido beneficiarios del programa de Participación Ciudadana que impulsa y apoya USAID, donde la participación ciudadana era muy baja; sin embargo, mediante la estructura de los CDM han logrado una amplia participación en los cabildos que realizan cada tres meses.” What are the challenges and opportunities? LAPOP sees a number of challenges and opportunities. We enumerate those below: Increase women’s participation: numerous opportunities  Inform citizens about the existence of women’s groups and other civil society organizations.  Encourage and promote female participation in community and municipal meetings.  Greater efforts should be made toward female participation in local government in general, but not mere participation, but empowerment, especially in the Southern Caribbean region, where the male/female gap is especially marked. As shown in Figure 13 below, participation in community meetings varies systematically by gender across each of our units of analysis. Attendance at community meetings to solve problems in their community or decide about improvements in their communities is lower among women. This difference is statistically significant in the Southern Caribbean region and it is lower than the participation levels observed for the country and in the South-Center municipalities. This finding indicates that more efforts toward women participating and women empowerment should be carried out in all three regions, but especially in the Southern Caribbean region. Opinions collected during the focus groups confirm that women’s participation in community development meetings is lower than that of men. Several initiatives like the creation of “Oficinas de la Mujer” in Muelle de los Buelles and programs implemented by the CDMs were mentioned as examples of activities that promote the participation of women. Figure 36. Participation in Community Meetings by gender 19.41 18.48 23.25 22.54 10.94 13.10 13.24 18.70 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) National Average(2014) Region Male Female Gender 95 % Confidence Interval Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 185 Improve program’s targeting to reach less well-educated citizens Figure 18 shows that knowledge of CDMs varies by educational level. Those with higher education are more knowledgeable of the CDMs. This finding indicates that more efforts have to be made to reach people with limited educational achievement to increase civil society participation. This can be done in a variety of ways, but normally best done through systematic and target outreach. Figure 37. Knowledge of Municipal Development Committees by demographic characteristics Inform citizens of their rights Most of the participants in our in-depth interviews and focus groups are very active in their communities. However, they acknowledge that most citizens do not get involved either because they are not aware of their rights or because they see public officials as corrupt. As a person from Chontales stated: “Algunos porque desconocen de sus derechos, otras porque piensan que la persona o el Gobierno central o sea municipal está robando directamente porque “no vamos a tapar el sol con un dedo” entonces piensan y dice: para ser yo involucrado en eso, mejor no participo, mejor que se lo roben ellos” y la realidad de las cosas es que a veces pensamos de esa forma y lo mejor es pues la participación y ahí es donde nosotros nos damos cuenta cómo podemos evitar si está dando alguna fuga en la comunal o ya sea en la central.” In a number of countries, USAID has helped increase knowledge of rights. For example, in El Salvador there was a campaign to “get to know your local government.” It helped there to increase citizen knowledge. Perhaps comic-book like pamphlets could be prepared and distributed, along with discussion session in community centers. Extend program’s coverage to Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities 13.08 41.77 43.62 7.87 53.21 35.11 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 tees South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region Male Female Gender 5.95 48.65 48.12 12.30 44.70 39.74 13.64 53.45 26.67 14.29 38.46 23.53 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 es South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 3.70 31.11 18.18 6.60 42.34 28.28 9.52 59.38 31.43 41.67 52.94 56.47 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Municipal Development Committees South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 3.49 36.67 32.86 10.77 45.45 29.31 5.13 48.00 48.08 14.29 36.00 41.07 42.31 86.11 48.57 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Knowledge of Municipal Development Committees South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 186 While the type of work carried out thus far seems to be well designed and directed, more resources are needed to extend the coverage of the programs to indigenous and Afro descendants communities: “…se está empezando en la ciudad pero me gustaría que se extendiera a las comunidades indígenas para darle mayor conocimiento e influenciarlos a que hablen por ellos mismos, que digan sus proyectos y que participen en los cabildos municipales”. Improve program’s targeting to include LGBTI minorities and vulnerable groups Participants emphasized the importance of having the support in the future to frequently excluded groups. One person stated: “Es verdad que tenemos muchas herramientas para seguir adelante, pero creo que también necesitamos más apoyo para seguirnos capacitando, formar nuestra propia alianza y organizaciones que apoyen en la temática juvenil y LGBTI”. Are the USAID projects creating synergies with other donor programs or other actors? USAID program is contributing to the creation of synergies among different actors in the beneficiaries’ communities as well as organization and public institutions. We enumerate some of the ones our research uncovered here: Climate Change Component There was a general consensus among focus group participants that the programs funded by USAID represent offered practical solutions that were able to apply in their communities and allowed them to have an active role in their communities. For example, community leaders who participated in the training activities on climate change preventive measures, mentioned that after learning about climate change they were able to prepare contingency plans for their communities and actively participate as neighbors. Also there is evidence of how the program and the implementers are working with different actors in the communities. One respondent stated: “Por medio de BICU y URACCAN, y en Global Communities se ha ayudado a los distintos sectores/ al grupo de gabinetes de familia y otros autores locales como la cooperativa de turismo- los está apoyando para elaborar un plan de adaptación ante el cambio climático de la comunidad”. In addition to the training activities that were carried out under this component, the program has promoted several climate change activities and in-depth studies carried out beyond the scope of the program. These include a study of the quality of the water that was carried out in one of the implementing municipalities and was mentioned during the focus groups. Also, one focus group participant mentioned an assessment of the educational programs that was carried out in Bluefields related to climate change activities in school programs and to determine the need to incorporate issues pertaining to climate change in the school curriculum as a result of the impact that the activities funded by USAID were having in the municipality. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 187 Strengthening Disabled Persons Organization Component Organizations working with persons with disabilities highlighted how important it was for them to participate in the training and activities funded by USAID and how these activities help to increase their capacity to improve persons with disabilities lives and help to reach persons with disabilities that were not participating in any organization. As one of the program beneficiaries pointed out: “También nos empodero en liderazgo que nos ayudó bastante para las organizaciones saber cómo ser líder, cómo elaborar un proyecto, como echarlo andar.”…“Con la implementación del programa nosotros aprendimos muchas cosas que no las habíamos aprendidos o no las sabíamos: participación ciudadana como hacer las incidencias políticas. Ahora nosotros ya sabemos cómo elaborar un presupuesto írselo a presentar a la alcaldía y encontrar más persona con discapacidad porque se hizo también visita domiciliar casa en casa para encontrar personas con discapacidad de las que ya no estaban dentro de la organización”. Strengthening Civil Society Participation Focus group participants agreed that participation in Cabildos and the Consejo de Desarrollo Municipal (CDM) are among the most effective mechanisms that civil society has to express its opinion and needs. As one respondent stated: “… creo que la participación en Cabildos es una de las formas más conocidas en que las personas podemos participar y que nuestra vos sea escuhada y,… y, creo que los programas de USAID han ayudado a la gente a participar a acercarse. Por ejemplo, en Muelle de los Bueyes, se hacen cabildos de jóvenes, donde hay una gran participación de la juventud. Han comenzado desde los niños pequeños hasta llegar a edades de secundaria. Se ha logrado una gran participación de jóvenes de todas las comunidades y en el municipio”. As above, we sub-divide this cluster of questions into different responses, as enumerated as follows: Outcome: Question 2  To what extent are citizen participation mechanisms inclusive of and accessible to all citizens, regardless of political affiliation, ethnic background, race, membership in marginalized groups, etc.? Are local government officials responsive to all citizens’ needs, regardless of political affiliation? How do USAID-supported initiatives interact with FSLN-supported civic participation structures (i.e., CPCs and Family Cabinets)? Are there any changes to the programs that are necessary? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 188 To what extent are citizen participation mechanisms inclusive of and accessible to all citizens, regardless of political affiliation15, ethnic background, race, membership in marginalized groups, etc.? In general, levels of participation is lower among women, less well-educated and in the population age cohorts between 16 and 45 years old. Participation is also lower among the poor. As shown in the bottom-right graph Figure A-16 participation in municipal meetings and Community Development Meetings is lower for those who are poorer. Participation is also lower among the Indigenous population and Afro-Nicaraguenses as shown in Figure A1716. This indicates that more efforts in program implementation and targeting should be made to improve participation of these groups. 15 Due to limited space in the survey instrument, the standard LAPOP questions about political affiliation was not included in the questionnaire. Therefore, this perhaps crucial variable, discrimination by political affiliation, was not measured in this study. 16 Note that due to the small number of cases in some of the ethnic categories we cannot analyzed this data by region as in the previous graphs. 18.99 21.12 12.57 16.56 10.76 7.85 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Participation in Cabildos South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region Male Female Gender 14.42 12.50 10.87 18.37 15.44 9.15 20.37 25.86 12.16 30.00 7.69 5.88 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Participation in Cabildos South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 7.69 15.56 6.25 15.57 15.60 7.07 15.74 19.79 10.63 39.02 8.57 13.64 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Participation in Cabildos South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 15.00 15.56 11.19 19.28 11.39 1.64 13.73 12.00 17.31 25.45 19.30 11.76 15.38 24.32 9.86 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Participation in Cabildos South-Center(2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 189 Figure A386. Civil Society Participation by demographic characteristics Figure A397. Civil Society Participation by Ethnicity 19.41 18.48 23.25 22.54 10.94 13.10 13.24 18.70 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region Male Female Gender 16.36 15.66 18.70 15.59 13.17 16.66 19.86 20.34 17.42 15.36 16.97 25.90 19.80 10.15 5.82 21.15 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 16-25 26-45 46-65 66+ Age 7.62 11.00 18.00 13.10 13.04 13.61 10.59 20.91 16.05 19.65 20.45 21.10 26.63 22.66 22.91 24.18 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region None Primary Secondary Higher Education Level 11.97 9.80 16.31 17.45 16.96 18.01 17.34 19.80 12.22 13.88 14.60 23.56 18.04 19.74 20.33 21.65 24.15 24.11 21.42 22.54 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Participation Community Meetings South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) National Average (2014) Region 12345 Quintiles of wealth 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP 17.7% 62.4% 5.0% 14.2% 0.7% 0 20 40 60 Percentage Blanca Mestiza Indígena Afro-nicaragüense Otra Ethnicity Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Goverment Study, LAPOP South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) South-Center South-Center Southern Caribbean National Avg. (2011) (2015) (2015) (2014) Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 190 Are local government officials responsive to all citizens’ needs, regardless of political affiliation? Data collected during quantitative and qualitative interviews don’t allow us to answer this question. None of the focus groups participants raised this topic as an issue and the dynamic of the discussion evolved in a way that did not permit the focus group moderator to ask about this particular topic. How do USAID-supported initiatives interact with FSLN-supported civic participation structures (i.e., CPCs and Family Cabinets)? Focus group participants mentioned the politicized nature of some civic participation organizations like the CPCs and Gabinetes de Familia. But, this is to be exepcted in the charged political atmosphere of Nicaragua. In some cases, focus group participants highlighted conflicts between organizations: “No obstante que esas instancias de participación ciudadana están consagradas en la legislación, no cuentan con el respaldo y simpatía de las autoridades gubernamentales, que prefieren operar mediante la estructura del Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN) y que en la estrategia en la actual administración están apoyando y funcionando a nivel local, municipal, regional y nacional, mediante los Gabinetes de Familia que, en realidad son las células del partido en el gobierno.” However in Chontales, focus groups participants pointed out the important role that the activities funded by USAID and the implementing partner are carrying out are increasing coordination with other governmental organizations :“la excepción se ha dado en municipios parte del departamento de Chontales que – han sido beneficiarios del programa de Participación Ciudadana que impulsa y apoya USAID, donde la participación ciudadana era muy baja; sin embargo, mediante la estructura de los CDM han logrado una amplia participación en los cabildos que realizan cada tres meses. Participants highlighted their view that citizens’ participation in public matters is relatively low, especially among the youth and women. They recognized that participation is higher among population minorities, that they participate in the councils and municipal meetings to express their demands and needs. Participants claimed that decisions are made at the national level and that those decisions do not take into account their reality. They call for establishing consultative mechanisms: “… el Gobierno toma todas las decisiones relacionadas a la población negra, la población diversa Outcome: Question 3  Has civil society capacity to advocate for transparency and accountability increased? Are there tangible changes as a result of these efforts? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 191 sexual e inclusive sobre los temas de interés de las mujeres tales como el aborto terapéutico. Las autoridades del Gobierno central toman decisiones y deciden políticas de cumplimiento obligatorio en la región. Por lo general, no hay mecanismos de consulta y las decisiones se toman desde Managua de forma unilateral.” There is moderate agreement among respondents about how the government advocates and implements transparency and accountability. For example, there is a moderate agreement among respondents with the idea that the government informs citizens about the National Budget (average scores of 55.70 on a 0-100 scale in the South, 48.97 points in the Southern Caribbean, and 38.44 points in Managua). On the other hand, qualitative data from focus groups reveal a lack of knowledge of the General Budget of the Republic, as several of the participants in Managua stated: “…prácticamente no hay mucha publicidad”, “coincido con el otro compañero en el sentido de que es muy poca la información acerca de porque se definen estos tales montos para tales identidades, no hay una justificación por lo menos a las cuales sean de conocimientos que determine que estos montos son para estas identidades, ni se determina tal vez para que proyectos va, hay poca transparencia acerca de cómo se definen los montos y con qué fin.” In general, there is a perception of low transparency regarding accountability actions in the municipalities (below the mid-point on the 0-100 scale). For example, in Figure 30 we show, in the upper two graphs, little citizen participation in the drafting of municipal budgets and scarce knowledge of their content. Yet, participation has increased over time in the South-Center region from 4.39% to 8.44% (although the difference is not statistically significant), and it is almost 6% in the Southern Caribbean. Only 8.2% of respondents in the South-Center know their municipal budgets while this percentage drops to 5.22% in the Southern Caribbean. It is unrealistic, perhaps, to expect a dry subject like municipal budget making, to interest a higher proportion of the population. Finally, regarding trust in the municipality managing the budget, knowledge scores barely reach the mid-point on the 0-100 scale. Yet, we take note that there was a significant improvement in the South, where the score rose from 32.72 points to 38.80 points, while in the Southern Caribbean the average is 33.15 points. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 192 Figure 40. Municipal Budget Similarly, there is little knowledge of and participation in social audits across regions. The upper two graphs in Figure 26 show a low percentage of respondents having heard of social audits and an even lower one of those who have participated in those forums. In no case do we find differences by regions or over time. Fewer than 15% of respondents in any region report having heard of social audits. In 2010, 10% of respondents in the South-Center region reported having participated in a social audit, while this percentage dropped in 2015 to 2.13%. In the Southern Caribbean only 3.77% have participated in these social audits. Finally, the third graph shows the average score used to measure transparency of accountability actions in the municipality. Yet, despite these low numbers, there has been a significant change in respondents’ perceptions in the South-Center between 2011 and 2015. While in 2011 the average score was 46.61, in 2015 it is 54.28 on the 0-100 scale. We find the lowest score in the Southern Caribbean, with a 42.54 on the same transparency scale. The difference with the South-Center is statistically significant. In spite of low levels of participation in social audits or drafting municipal budgets, participants in our in-depth interviews highlight the benefits of these initiatives, as this person from Bluefields states: “Bueno para mí y para mi comunidad es importante porque así nos estamos dando cuenta nosotros de los presupuestos, de cómo va la municipalidad, en qué se está invirtiendo el fondo que entra como transferencia estamos viendo como se está distribuyendo lo que son los fondos, lo que son las transferencia que viene a la Alcaldía, lo que es el cobro de impuestos y estamos viendo cómo se está distribuyendo y estamos viendo que se esté dando la continuidad y que se esté trabajando conforme a la necesidad del municipio porque para eso es el dinero y lo que entra a la municipalidad”. 4.39% 8.44% 5.99% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Participated in the drafting of the Municipal Budget South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 8.20% 5.22% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Knows the Municipal Budget South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 32.72 38.80 33.15 0 10 20 30 40 50 Trust in the Municipality managing the budget South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Caribbean-Center (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Governance Study, LAPOP Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 193 Figure 41. Social Audits and Municipal Accountability Members of an organization representing the LGBTI community indicated that as a result of their involvement and participation in the workshops and activities organized under the program were able to work on a proposal that focused on their rights in areas related to economic activities, social, culture, health, etc. After working on the proposal they were able to present it in a formal hearing at the municipality proving that the program is helping them to reach local authorities and put their concern in the local agenda. Yet, it is difficult to trace a direct link from local participation to legislative action. Numerous studies in the U.S., for example, have attempted to make this link, but the reality is that there are so many factors that influence legislative outcomes it is perhaps impossible to trace out the impact of any one. 12.74% 15.21% 14.17% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Heard of Social Audit South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 10.00% 2.13% 3.77% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Participated in a Social Audit South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 46.61 54.28 42.54 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Municipality's accountabilty actions are transparent South-Center (2011) South-Center (2015) Southern Caribbean (2015) Region 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  Nicaragua Municipal Government Study, LAPOP Outcome: Question 4  Are the USAID-funded organizations representing marginalized constituencies (indigenous, LGBTI, women) successful in affecting local and national government policies and/or conducting government oversight? If not explain why. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 194   Data collected during quantitative and qualitative interviews don’t allow us to answer this question. None of the focus groups participants raised this topic as an issue and the dynamic of the discussion evolved in a way that did not permit the focus group moderator to ask about this particular topic. There are multiple examples of how USAID-supported initiatives have contributed to improve knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors among local officials or program beneficiaries. Civil Society Participation Participants in the training and workshops organized by Global Communities and BICU indicated that they have had the opportunity to receive training related to the civil society participation, participation in budgetary processes and discussion and consultations processes: “las actividades nos han permitido recibir talleres y capacitaciones relacionadas con los temas de participación ciudadana, consultas presupuestarias y temáticas que les convienen para el ejercicio de nuestro liderazgo como organización. Que son temas que conocíamos solo por sus nombres, pero no en su aplicación en la realidad social y política. Overall, opinions expressed in the focus groups about the implementing partner are very favorable: “…es muy importante porque en esos espacios es que nosotros nos damos cuenta cual es nuestro derecho, cuáles son las ventajas y desventajas, como podemos trabajar, como podemos incidir, nos está dando la enseñanza necesaria para poder apoyarnos mutuamente”. As per the areas for improvement respondents highlighted the need to extend the coverage and the targeting of the program to include Afro-descendants and indigenous populations in the region. While the type of work has been very well appreciatd, more resources are needed to extend the coverage of the programs to indigenous and Afro descendants communities: “…se está empezando en la ciudad pero me gustaría que se extendiera a las comunidades indígenas para darle mayor Output/Organizational: Question 2  To what extent are USAID-supported initiatives contributing to an improvement in civic knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors among local officials, partners and targeted beneficiaries? Where is there room for improvement? Output/Organizational: Question 1  In which ways are USAID-supported programs helping to redefine social contracts between government and citizens at the local level? What can be done to help advance this goal? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 195 conocimiento e influenciarlos a que hablen por ellos mismos, que digan sus proyectos y que participen en los cabildos municipales”. Focus group participants were aware that they must strengthen the capacity of their organizations. One young participant said “…nosotros nos hemos fortalecido con cada uno de los miembro de este concejo y hemos seleccionado jóvenes de diferentes organizaciones que trabajan con temas de juventud inclusive hemos incluido a los de la JS y a los liberales y de diferentes religión. Entonces queremos que cuando vayamos a plantear nuestras necesidades ante la autoridades no vayamos con JS ni con ningún partido político ya que los jóvenes en nuestra municipalidad debemos defender los interés de todos los jóvenes de nuestra municipalidad”. “En que la experiencia en el observatorio de BICU, nos ha permitido recibir talleres y capacitaciones relacionadas con los temas de participación ciudadana, consultas presupuestarias y temáticas que nos sirven para el ejercicio de liderazgo. Que son temas que conocíamos por sus nombres, pero no en su aplicación en la realidad social y política”. Addressing Persons with Disability Needs Component Participants emphasized the importance of having the support in the future: “Es verdad que tenemos muchas herramientas para seguir adelante, pero creo que también necesitamos más apoyo para seguirnos capacitando, formar nuestra propia alianza y organizaciones que apoyen en la temática juvenil y LGBTI”. Participants in the in-depth interviews agree that there have been improvements in the role of women in municipalities. As this person from Chontales mentioned: “…. hemos tenido más avances porque las mujeres se han apoderado, las mujeres saben cuáles son sus derecho y ahora las mujeres participan ahora si usted ve un cabildo, hace poco paso el cabildo las mujeres toman el micrófonos y comienzan a pedir sus demandas, o demandar lo que no se hizo, entonces esto de la participación ciudadana ha sido muy importante tanto para las mujeres como para el Gobierno municipal porque antes se miraba que solo el hombre se paraba frente a la mesa que estaba ahí y ellos hacían sus peticiones, mientras que hoy en día las mujeres participan y empiezan a pedir”. Social Inclusion: Question 1  How effective are the program activities in integrating gender considerations? Have partners’ or beneficiaries’ attitudes about gender-related issues changed after engagement in USAID-supported efforts? If so, how? Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 196 Note: Data limitations of this study In 2011 USAID/Nicaragua started implementing the Municipal Governance Program (MGP) in selected municipalities located in the North and South Corridors of Nicaragua. The goal of the program was to strengthen citizen participation and the capacity of civil society organizations at the local level to enable them to engage and influence decision makers in order to improve local governance and development. Since 2011, the program changed its area of implementation as well as its design. As new components were added to the program, USAID/Nicaragua began implementation in new municipalities. It also ceased implementation in some of the municipalities that were originally selected and were part of the baseline study conducted by the Latin American Public Opinion Program (LAPOP). As of 2015, the Municipal Governance Program has three components that focus on different aspects of local governance and development: (1) Local Governance (that includes Citizens Participation and Organizational Development), (2) Prepared Citizens for Climate Change and (3) Fiscal Transparency. The results presented in this report evaluate the performance of the interventions implemented in selected Nicaraguan municipalities, covering all of the four components mentioned above. In 2015, the USAID Mission in Nicaragua, asked LAPOP to conduct a performance evaluation of the MGP. To conduct this evaluation, and take into consideration the changes in the program made by USAID, LAPOP re-visited four of the municipalities surveyed in a 2011 baseline study, and added four additional municipalities (all located in the RACCN region of Nicaragua) in which USAID had begun implementing the MGP after 2011.17 In an attempt to accommodate the USAID Missions’ priorities (i.e., including the newly added municipalities) within the limited resources available, made it impossible to include in the 2015 round of surveys the control municipalities that had been surveyed in the 2011 baseline. Not having a control group prevents us from ruling out the impact of other influences on the outcomes even though we can compare the “before and after” impact of the program for the subset of the treated municipalities for which we have data. Specifically, not having the control group of municipalities prevents us from using impact evaluation methodologies like as was planned in the original design. Without the control group of municipalities, we are not able know how the municipalities that did not receive the program performed compared to those that did receive treatment. However, we are able to follow the 2011 treatment municipalities and the new 2015 municipalities over time. The data from the latter will presumably be compared with future rounds of surveys to measure program implementation performance.18 The mid-term evaluation results presented in this report includes the data from quantitative face-to-face interviews as well as focus groups and in-depth interviews with stake￾holders. 17 It is important to highlight that no baseline data are available for these municipalities added after LAPOP conducted the original baseline. This absence imposes another limitation on this evaluation since we cannot assess differences before and after the programs were implemented. 18 Although this evaluation strategy can provide important results, it is important to highlight its limitations. It might be the case that the results reported in this performance evaluation may be underestimated since the true achievements, if any, may have occurred prior to the baseline year. If, for example, the initial treatment raised the mean value of certain indicators, all or most of the gains may have occurred during that period and then leveled off. In that case, over time, the program may simply be retaining that initial achievement. In other words, if the evaluation finds no difference in the indicators between the baseline round of surveys and the next one, that should not be taken to mean that the counter-factual (the removal of the program) would mean levels would have stayed the same, since the main effect of the program could have occurred in its initial phase, for which we do not have data. Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program – Performance Evaluation 197