December 5, 2017 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was pre￾pared independently by The QED Group, LLC. Authors: Wilfred Owen, Ahmed Assran, Wafaa Attia, Taissir Hosam Eldin, Mohamed Kotb, Nesma Ali Mohamed EVALUATION End-of-Term Performance Evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP): Citizen Service Centers (CSCs) and Capacity Building Program END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVE PLANNING AND SERVICES PROJECT (EPSP): CITIZEN SERVICE CENTERS (CSCs) AND CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM December 5, 2017 Task Order AID-263-1-15-00001/AID-263-TO-17-00004 COVER PHOTO: Employees of the Dewan Citizen Service Center in Aswan Governorate process customers’ requests. Photo courtesy of AECOM International Development. DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation (SIMPLE) evaluation team was tasked with conducting the end-of-term performance evaluation of USAID/Egypt’s Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). We would like to thank all those organizations and individuals who contributed to our understanding of this USAID-funded project. In particular, the team would like to thank AECOM International Development’s EPSP implementing team for its support in coordinating site visits and introducing the evaluation team to key project-related stakeholders in Cairo, Aswan, and Beheira. The team wishes to thank the members of the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) who made themselves available to explain to the team their vision, roles and responsibilities, and experiences with EPSP. The partnership between the USAID/Office of Democracy and Governance, AECOM, and MoPMAR has been a model of cooperation and exchange. We wish them the best as they continue to lead administrative reforms in government. The evaluation team spent two to three days at each of the seven targeted Citizen Service Centers. The enthusiasm and determination of CSC staff to satisfy customers and to continuously improve their system was encouraging. The secretaries general and senior officials in the governorates graciously introduced us to the key officers in the districts. We were well informed by the district executives, center managers, customer service representatives, and back-office technical officers. The support and guidance for the evaluation team from USAID was invaluable. We would like to thank especially Salwa Tobbala (EPSP Activity Manager, Office of Democracy and Governance), Nancy El Molla (Project Management Assistant, Office of Democracy and Governance) and Kevin Dean (Deputy Director, Office of Democracy and Governance) who met with the evaluation team to provide background documentation on the project and coordinate, as needed, with the Ministry and implementing partner. The team also thanks Seba Auda (Program Office Senior M&E Specialist, SIMPLE COR and Evaluation Manager) and Hanan Abbas (Program Office M&E Specialist and COR for this Evaluation Task Order) for their guidance and direction for the team. Finally, the evaluation team thanks the devoted CSC managers, staff, back office technicians and the district executives for showing us how their local administration operates and sharing with us their concerns about improving public sector performance. CONTENTS ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................................................................... I BIOGRAPHIES............................................................................................................................................................................ II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... III INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................................14 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................16 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................21 ANNEXES...................................................................................................................................................................................35 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK................................................................................................36 ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS.................................................................................54 ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS..................................................................................................60 ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE..........................................................................................................99 ANNEX V: DATA TABLES AND GRAPHS ............................................................................................................... 100 ANNEX VI: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SCORECARDS................................................................................. 197 ANNEX VII: ANALYSIS OF TRANSACTION TIME............................................................................................... 223 ANNEX VIII: BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................ 225 ANNEX IX: PROJECT-RELATED PERSONNEL CONSULTED......................................................................... 227 ANNEX X: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.....................................................................231 ANNEX XI: EVALUATION TIMELINE ........................................................................................................................ 232 i ACRONYMS ADS Automated Directives System AECOM AECOM International Development AMIDEAST America-Mideast Educational and Training Services, Inc. AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative CAOA Central Agency for Organization and Administration CDS Center for Development Services COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CSC Citizen Service Center DEC USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse ECTD Egyptian Council for Training and Development EDI Egyptian Decentralization Initiative EDI II Egyptian Decentralization Initiative II EIS Engineering for Integrated Systems EPSP Effective Planning and Services Project EQ Evaluation question FY Fiscal year GIZ German International Development Agency GOE Government of Egypt INP Institute of National Planning IR Intermediate Result KII Key informant interview KSA Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes M&E Monitoring and evaluation MoLD Ministry of Local Development MoPMAR Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform MSAD Ministry of State for Administrative Development n= Expresses total number NGO Non-governmental organization ODG USAID/Egypt Office of Democracy and Governance PFM Public finance management RFTOP Request for task order proposals SDS Sustainable Development Strategy Egypt 2030 SIMPLE Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluating SOW Statement of Work SPAAC Social Planning, Analysis and Administration Consultants SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences TOEIC Test of English for International Communication USAID U.S. Agency for International Development ii BIOGRAPHIES Wilfred Owen, EPSP evaluation team leader, is a specialist in organizational and community development and has over 30 years of experience in capacity-building, institutional strengthening of public and private agencies, and coalition-building to improve performance at the organizational and village levels. Owen has served as chief of party, team leader, and technical advisor for projects funded by USAID, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and UNDP. Owen has conducted project evaluations in the U.S., Ghana, and Nigeria. He has worked in Egypt on USAID-funded projects including Local Development II from 1988 to 1990, for which he designed management training for local officials; and the Greater Cairo Wastewater Project from 1990 to 1993, for which he managed and delivered trainings. Owen is the owner and director of a private school in Ghana. Taissir Hosam El-din holds a Ph.D. in resources management and a masters in demography. Dr. El￾din has over 20 years’ experience working with international organizations in the Middle East, including USAID contractors. She has extensive experience in monitoring and evaluation (M&E), conceptualizing, planning, and implementing projects in social development, education, health, and economic development. From 2012 to 2014, she worked as a senior M&E advisor for the USAID-funded Egypt Civil Society Support Program. She was a member of the evaluation team for USAID’s Civic Education Program in Egypt from 2006 to 2012. Wafaa Attia has over 20 years of experience in the fields of civil society strengthening, civic education, education reform, human rights education, and gender research. She is experienced in managing M&E projects and establishing linkages between NGOs, local councils, and governmental bodies. She has extensive experience in integrating development methodologies, advocacy, and rights-based approaches into development programs. She has managed several advocacy, capacity-building, networking, voter education, and human rights education programs and projects funded by USAID and the European Union. Mohamed Kotb is a senior democracy and governance specialist with over 25 years of experience in democracy and governance, management, M&E, and institutional development. He has provided technical assistance in rights-based approaches, conflict resolution, peacebuilding, communication, and leadership. Kotb has led or participated in more than 50 evaluations, assessments, and research activities for national and international organizations including USAID, the World Bank, UNICEF, the Canadian International Development Agency, Islamic Relief of Yemen, Sudan’s Ministry of International Cooperation, the Arab Institute of Human Rights, Oxfam, and the Egyptian Swiss Development Fund. Ahmed Assran is an experienced democracy and governance specialist with over 24 years’ experience with international and local governmental and non-governmental bodies in Egypt and the Mideast. He has experience in conflict areas such as Iraq and Yemen, where he worked on violent conflict and community empowerment. His expertise includes community development, institutional capacity-building, community needs assessments, participatory rapid appraisal, civil society, and project management. Nesma A. Saleh is an assistant professor of statistics at Cairo University, where she earned a bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. in statistics. Her primary area of interest is statistical quality control and improvement. She serves as a referee for several international scientific journals. Her publications have appeared in Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Journal of Quality Technology, and others. She has participated in numerous research activities for national and international organizations related to child and domestic abuse, maternal and child health, women’s health, and small and medium enterprises. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The $11.3 million USAID Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP), implemented by AECOM International Development from September 2012 through September 2017, supported Egyptian-led efforts to decentralize Egypt’s government in line with new provisions in Egypt’s Constitution. EPSP supported the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) and the Ministry of Local Development (MoLD) in implementing administrative improvements at the local level. Specifically, the project aimed to improve planning and service delivery at the sub-national level, as well as to strengthen the skills and responsiveness of members of Parliament and local government to meet the needs of local communities. EPSP provided a) technical assistance to the Government of Egypt’s (GOE) Sustainable Development Strategy Egypt 2030 (SDS 2030), b) financial support for constructing or upgrading five Citizen Service Centers (CSCs) in Aswan Governorate and two in Beheira Governorate, c) equipping CSCs with information systems for processing government service requests, and d) capacity￾building of CSC staff as well as leadership, management, and English language training for young professionals in MoPMAR. USAID/Egypt issued a Request for Task Order Proposals (RFTOP) for the final performance evaluation of EPSP and awarded the contract to the QED Group’s Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluating (SIMPLE) project on July 27, 2017. Field work was conducted from August 15 to 28, 2017. The primary audience for this evaluation report is USAID/Egypt, specifically the Office of Democracy and Governance (ODG). Secondary audiences include MoPMAR and AECOM, the implementing partner. USAID/Egypt will review and share the executive summary, final report, and recommendations with MoPMAR, and the general public via the Development Education Clearinghouse. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS The purpose of the EPSP end-of-project performance evaluation was twofold: 1. To examine the effectiveness of the interventions under EPSP, in particular the Citizen Service Centers and the capacity-building programs; and 2. To provide program lessons learned and recommendations to ensure that USAID￾supported activities have the highest potential to achieve their intended results in a sustainable manner. Per the statement of work, the evaluation examined a) the effectiveness of and degree of customer satisfaction with five EPSP-assisted CSCs in Aswan Governorate (Aswan City, Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira Governorate (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet), b) how the CSCs’ effectiveness has influenced the level of administrative corruption and community attitudes toward government, and c) the effectiveness of capacity￾building of CSC staff and young MoPMAR professionals. The evaluation team was tasked with answering the following questions: 1. To what extent are the participants and activity stakeholders satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs in Aswan and Beheira governorates? How did the satisfaction iv differ between men and women? If there are differences between men’s satisfaction and women’s satisfaction, what caused the differences? 2. How effective have the CSCs been with regard to creating more responsive governments? How effective have the CSCs been with regard to changing local communities’ attitudes towards the government? How effective have the CSCs been with regard to helping the public utilize the services better? How effective have the CSCs been with regard to reducing corruption? What factors contributed to success? What were the challenges? 3. How effective have the trainings been in improving knowledge? Which trainings were more effective and why? Were there gender differences in performance and/or knowledge as a result of participating in training sessions? PROJECT BACKGROUND According to the statement of work of the contract between USAID/Egypt and AECOM, EPSP was implemented under the 2005 Strategic Objective Grant Agreement Initiatives, the Governance and Participation Program, and Program Area 2: Good Governance. EPSP supported Development Objective 3.1, “improved governance through direct engagement with critical stakeholders contributes to political and social stability.” EPSP falls under intermediate result (IR) 2, to promote and support decentralization, assist with anti-corruption reforms, and strengthen public sector executive functions. Accordingly, EPSP supported GOE-led reforms to empower local authorities to provide enhanced services to citizens, thereby accelerating decentralization and heightening government accountability to the people. To do so, EPSP supported seven CSCs for the provision of effective and efficient public services. The CSCs process citizen requests for governmental assistance in the areas of land, property, construction, business, utilities, financial aid, employment and medical support, as well as file citizen suggestions and complaints. Citizens apply for government services through a CSC located in or near the district municipal building. CSCs are composed of “front offices” that collaborate with governmental “back office” staff representing the interests of a variety of central government departments. The CSC front offices collect all fees and forward them to the Ministry of Finance in Cairo. Introduced over the past decade by the MoLD, 160 CSCs are currently in operation, 36 of which were provided with Web-based information systems through support from USAID and the German International Development Agency (GIZ). USAID also assisted with the development of the national data center that provides information back-up support services. METHODOLOGY The performance evaluation design included triangulation to strengthen the validity, reliability, and integrity of findings and mitigate data limitations. Evaluators used a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to answer the evaluation questions. A desk review of approximately 84 project-related documents preceded the design of the qualitative and v quantitative tools for use in the field. The evaluation team used a total of 12 qualitative data￾collection tools and 2 survey instruments. Two evaluation sub-teams conducted two-day site visits to each of the seven EPSP-assisted CSCs. Each sub-team consisted of 1) one field team leader/democracy and governance specialist, 2) one monitoring and evaluation specialist, 3) one field coordinator, and 4) one enumerator. During site visits, sub-teams surveyed and interviewed a broad range of stakeholders, employees, and trainees in either key informant interviews (KIIs) or in group discussions (n=411). Specific methods included the following: 1. Quantitative: a. Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey, with a response rate of 96%, equivalent to 187 customer interviews conducted from a total of 195 visitors over the CSC data collection period August 15-28, 2017. All customers who came to the CSCs between 9:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. each day were asked to take the survey.1 b. CSC Service Representative Survey of 75 representatives from all seven CSCs. 2. Qualitative: a. Seven group discussions with front office staff and three group discussions with back office staff were conducted in Aswan, and two group discussions with front office staff and one group discussion with back office staff were conducted in Beheira. b. Interviews with 29 senior managers and governorate/district officials from Aswan and Beheira. c. Interviews with 26 key informants from a) MoPMAR (5); b) the EPSP implementing partner AECOM International Development (3); c) officials from USAID/Egypt’s ODG (3); d) training service providers from AMIDEAST, the Center for Development Services (CDS), the Institute of National Planning (INP), and the Egyptian Council for Training and Development (ECTD) (14); and the Web-based information system developer Engineering for Integrated Systems (EIS) (1). LIMITATIONS Data limitations that affected the evaluation and the evaluation team’s methods to compensate for them include the following: 1. Limitation: The team was unable to access and survey the 73 graduates of the MoPMAR Leadership and Management Skills Training Program. • Remedies: Interviews were conducted with 14 trainers from the MoPMAR training program who conducted post-training follow-up interviews with program graduates to understand the effect of training on job performance. Two key informant interviews with supervisors and one group discussion with five graduates of the training program were conducted. Analysis was conducted of pre- and post-training test scores provided by AMIDEAST, CDS, and INP. 2. Limitation: Pre- and post-training test scores were not available for CSC trainees. 1 Of the eight CSC visitors not surveyed, only one declined to be surveyed; the remaining seven were not surveyed because they were requesting information or application forms for services as opposed to submitting service requests. vi • Remedy: Group discussions and a survey were conducted involving CSC staff to capture CSC service representatives’ perceptions of changes in their knowledge and skills resulting from the training. 3. Limitation: No historical transaction data from stand-alone (non-Web-based) information systems were available for EPSP-assisted CSCs because data had not yet been migrated to the central database. However, in Aswan Governorate, Web-based transaction data were available from August 1, 2016, through July 31, 2017. • Remedy: Aswan paper-based records were reviewed. However, information was of little use because application and completion dates for each service were not recorded. 4. Limitation: No historical transaction data were available for EPSP-assisted CSCs in Beheira. EPSP began pilot installations of Web-based systems in Beheira in August 2017, at the time of the evaluation team’s field visits. Also, Beheira CSCs’ front office staff had limited availability due to ongoing system testing, CSC renovations, and attending customer service skills training. Finally, governorate and district staff were preoccupied with preparations for visits by dignitaries and ministers from Cairo, which limited their time and attention. 5. Limitation: CSC customer traffic in Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, Dewan, and Shobra Kheet was lower than estimated, requiring that the original sampling plan be dropped. • Remedies: Each customer willing to participate in the Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey was interviewed, without regard for categorization by customer type, to ensure data were collected from as large a customer sample as possible. Duration of site visits were extended from two to three days in the Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, Dewan, and Shobra Kheet CSCs. 6. Limitation: No objectively verifiable data or paper-based records were available for analysis of response rate or amount of time transpired for CSCs to monitor and evaluate responsiveness of local government to customer suggestions and complaints. • Remedy: The team used data from Customer Satisfaction Exit Surveys to measure local government responsiveness. 7. Limitation: Small sample sizes of male and female CSC customers did not allow for generalization of findings disaggregated by sex. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Evaluation Question 1a: To what extent are the participants and activity stakeholders satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs in Aswan and Beheira governorates? Conclusion 1a: CSC customers in both governorates are satisfied with the quality of services they received, CSC facilities and operations, and the CSC model. Satisfaction appears to be driven by the comfort, convenience, and efficiency of CSC facilities; as well as transparency of time limits and completion dates for processing service requests. By contrast, customers are comparatively least satisfied with the time CSCs take to deliver services. Aswan customers are relatively more satisfied than Beheira customers, especially with CSC efforts to reduce corruption. Finding 1a.1.1: Factors cited among participants in group discussions (n=19) and key informant interviews (n=29) for satisfaction with the quality of CSC services included air vii conditioning, comfortable seating, the queue system, the CSC Customer Window model, friendly/informed customer service, posted signs identifying services provided and legal time limits for processing service requests, receipts with a forecast completion date, and overall cleanliness and quality of CSC facilities. Evaluation Question 1b: How did the satisfaction differ between men and women? Evaluation Question 1c: If there are differences between men’s satisfaction and women’s satisfaction, what caused the differences? Conclusion 1b.1: The evaluation found no significant difference in satisfaction between men and women in either Aswan or Beheira, in part because the small sample sizes do not allow for generalization of findings disaggregated by sex. Finding 1b.1.1: 94% of key informant interviews and group discussions in Aswan and 100% in Beheira confirmed no significant differences in satisfaction between men and women. Evaluation Question 2a: How effective have the CSCs been with regard to creating more responsive governments? Conclusion 2a.1: CSC customer satisfaction is rated higher in Aswan than in Beheira. Government responsiveness is higher in Aswan than in Beheira. The differences, though small, can be attributed to the greater amount of training received by Aswan CSC staff and the longer period of time that the information system has been operational in Aswan. Finding 2a.1.1: 96% of surveyed Aswan customers (n=136) and 80% of Beheira customers (n=51) were satisfied with staff availability to attend to their service requests. Finding 2a.1.2: 100% of key informant interviews and group discussions with CSC staff in Aswan (n=12) and 78% in Beheira (n=17) said that district officials and CSC management are responsive to customer suggestions and complaints. By contrast, 60% of Aswan CSC staff (n=12) reported in key informant interviews and/or group discussions that district officials respond to citizen suggestions and complaints. Beheira CSC staff made no such observations. Finding 2a.1.3: 24% of Aswan CSC staff (n=12) reported in key informant interviews and/or group discussions that customers received new/more services instead of going to ministries to acquire these services. No such observations were noted in Beheira. Finding 2a.1.4: 84% of Aswan customers (n=136) and 48% of Beheira customers (n=51) reported that they have greater confidence in government. Conclusion 2a.2: Customers rated CSC staff as highly committed to complete their requests for services within the prescribed timeframe. The positive Aswan customer ratings, however, were contradicted by evidence showing that most applications were not completed on time. The customer opinions suggest that the current processing time may actually be a reduction in time as compared to prior experiences. In fact, the high percentage of delayed issuance of licenses and permits brings into question the reasonableness of the national time limits established by the relevant ministries. Finding 2a.2.1: 97% of the customers in Aswan and 86% in Beheira agreed that the CSC staff was committed to completing their requested services within the prescribed timeframe. viii Finding 2a.2.2: Of 16 different types of Aswan CSC service requests processed during the August 1, 2016-July 31, 2017, timeframe, a) 28% (n=935) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 34% (n=1,142) were processed within a one-month delay of the legal limit, c) 17% (n=561) were processed within a two-month delay of the legal limit, d) 8% (n=265) were processed within a three-month delay of the legal limit, and e) 13% (n=425) required more than three months to complete the transaction. Evaluation Question 2b: How effective have the CSCs been with regard to changing local communities’ attitudes towards the government? Conclusion 2b.1: Customers’ attitudes have improved towards government following the installation of Customer Service Centers. Finding 2b.1.1: 95% of Aswan staff at the CSCs (n=56) and 100% of Beheira CSC staff (n=18) reported that citizen attitudes towards using government services improved since the introduction of the CSCs. Finding 2b.1.2: 96% of Aswan CSC customers (n=186) and 86% of Beheira customers (n=51) were willing to recommend to others that they approach CSCs for processing their government services. Finding 2b.1.3: 70% of key informant interviews and/or group discussions in Beheira (n=17) and 100% in Aswan (n=12) with CSC staff, managers, governorate and district officials said that CSC customers were satisfied with CSC staff attitudes and behavior, which demonstrated to the customer that he/she was valued and respected. Evaluation Question 2c: How effective have the CSCs been with regard to helping the public utilize the services better? Conclusion 2c.1: The CSC model is more effective in helping the public utilize services better given the improved guidance provided by CSC staff resulting from customer service training. Finding 2c.1.1: 100% of Aswan customers (n=119) and 87% of Beheira customers (n=51) surveyed were satisfied with guidance CSC staff provided on how to utilize services. Finding 2c.1.2: 88% of Aswan CSC staff (n=136) and 87% of Beheira CSC staff (n=51) surveyed reported, as a result of customer service training they received, they are able to provide guidance to customers to better utilize CSC services. Evaluation Question 2d: How effective have the CSCs been with regard to reducing corruption? Conclusion 2d.1: While both CSC staff and customers in Aswan and Beheira are satisfied with the CSC model for reducing corruption, citizens are less satisfied than staff. Finding 2d.1.1: 90% of CSC customers surveyed in Aswan (n=136) and 62% of customers in Beheira (n=51) were satisfied with the effectiveness of the CSC model for reducing corruption. Finding 2d.1.2: 97% of the CSC staff in Aswan (n=57) and 100% of the staff in Beheira (n=18) were satisfied with the effectiveness of the CSC model for reducing corruption. ix Conclusion 2d.2: Same-day completion of service requests requiring site visits suggests possible corruption in that site visits are unlikely to be completed on the same day as the application for the license or permit. Finding 2d.2.1: From August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, 4.7% of all transactions (n=3,328) had been completed in one day in the Aswan CSCs, according to information system reports; equivalent to 156 transactions. Evaluation Question 2e: What factors contributed to success? Evaluation Question 2f: What were the challenges? The following list of success factors and challenges to the effective implementation and sustainability of the CSC model are drawn from: • key informant interviews (54) with key stakeholders in MoPMAR; AECOM implementing partner staff; Aswan and Beheira governorate senior officials; Citizen Service Center managers, supervisors and staff; Aswan and Beheira governorate CSC customers; and service providers for the MoPMAR Leadership and Management Skills Training Program; as well as • group discussions (21) with Aswan and Beheira governorate officials; Citizen Service Center managers, supervisors and staff; and young MoPMAR professionals trained in the Leadership and Management Skills Training Program. The total number of KII and group discussion respondents in Aswan was 87, consisting of 47 males and 40 females. The total number of KII and group discussion respondents in Beheira was 43, consisting of 22 males and 21 females. The success factors and challenges listed in the table below are ranked according to the frequency with which they were mentioned. Success Factors Challenges 2e.1 Efficiency of CSC model 2f.1 Limited financial incentives for CSC staff and lim￾ited budget for facility operations and maintenance 2e.2 Effective communication between staff and senior management 2f.2 Lack of public awareness of role of CSCs 2e.3 Improvement of CSC staff skills and attitudes as a result of training 2f.3 Back office staff resistance and direct service delivery between back office and customers 2e.4 Governorate responsiveness to citizens’ com￾plaints and suggestions 2f.4 Back office field visit interactions with customers lend themselves to opportunities for continued corruption 2e.5 Equipment and facilities for processing service re￾quests 2f.5 Absence of CSC internal bylaws Evaluation Question 3a: How effective have the trainings been in improving knowledge? Conclusion 3a.1 (CSC Staff Training): The training programs provided to CSC staff and management were relevant to their needs and improved their job performance. Finding 3a.1.1: 95% of the CSC staff surveyed in Aswan (n=56) and 100% of the CSC staff surveyed in Beheira (n=18) agreed that the courses they received improved their knowledge of customer service and computer skills. x Conclusion 3a.2 (MoPMAR Training): The trainings provided to MoPMAR young professionals were relevant to their needs and improved their knowledge and job performance. Finding 3a.2.1: In a group discussion with MoPMAR graduates of the Leadership and Management Skills Training Program, the feasibility course was noted as relevant to their needs with newly acquired skills being applied immediately to day-to-day work assignments. Finding 3a.2.2: The average improvement in MoPMAR trainee knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA) was a 20% improvement for Project Feasibility Study Module I; registering a 21% improvement in knowledge, a 45% improvement in skills and a 3% improvement in attitude (n=68). Finding 3a.2.3: The average improvement in MoPMAR trainee KSA was 30% for the Feasibility Study Module II registering a 30% improvement in knowledge, a 93% improvement in skills, and a 4% improvement in attitude (n=37). Finding 3a.2.4: The average improvement in KSA for the Leadership and Management Training Course was 60% (n=70; 37 males and 33 females). Finding 3a.2.5: A review of TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) test results for measuring improvement on English proficiency skills of the MoPMAR trainees (n=73 of 80 trainees tested) revealed significant improvements for both men and women that varies according to the level of English proficiency being tested; a) greater improve￾ments are observed among male trainee Basic Users (men 47% and women 28%), no signifi￾cant differences between males and females are observed on Independent Users (men 38% and women 43%), and c) greater improvements are observed among female trainee Profes￾sional Users (men 15% and women 28%). Evaluation Question 3b: Which trainings were more effective and why? Conclusion 3b.1a (MoPMAR Training): Project Feasibility Study training was the most effective and most relevant to the needs of MoPMAR staff. Finding 3b.1a.1: According to key informant interviews and group discussions with officials, supervisors and trainers, the Project Feasibility Study Training Program was the most effective of the three training components (1, Project Feasibility Studies Modules I and II; 2, Leadership and Management Skills; and 3, English Proficiency) for MoPMAR young professionals. Finding 3b.1a.2: Key informant interviews with MoPMAR supervisors (n=2) and graduates (n=5) of the Leadership and Management Skills Training Program referred to the Project Feasibility Study Training as well-designed and ranked as the most effective of the three training components. Finding 3b.1a.3: MoPMAR supervisors (n=2) and graduates (n=5) reported that the strengths of the Project Feasibility Study modules included a) the detailed needs analysis, b) the use of facilities and instructors internal to the Ministry (Institute of National Planning), c) the support of senior officials, and d) supervisor and instructor monitoring on-site applications of feasibility assessment tools on real work in real time. xi Evaluation Question 3c: Were there gender differences in performance and/or knowledge as a result of participating in training sessions? Conclusion 3c.1 (MoPMAR Training): In general, little difference was observed in the level of improvement of men as compared to the level of improvement of women across the three Leadership and Management Skills Training Program components. Finding 3c.1.1: The average MoPMAR trainees’ improvement (n=69) on the KSA indicator for Feasibility Study Module I is 18% for men (n=34) and 22% for women (n=39). Finding 3c.1.2: The average MoPMAR trainees’ improvement (n=69) on the KSA indicator for Feasibility Study Module II is 32% for men (n=34) and 27% for women (n=39). Finding 3c.1.3: The average MoPMAR trainees’ improvement (n=69) on the KSA indicator for the Leadership and Management Training Module was59% for men (n=34) and 60% for women (n=39). Finding 3c.1.4: A review of TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) test results reveal significant improvements for both men and women that varies according to the level of English proficiency being tested; a) greater improvements are observed among male trainee Basic Users (men 47% and women 28%), no significant differences between males and females are observed on Independent Users (men 38% and women 43%), and c) greater im￾provements are observed among female trainee professional users (men 15% and women 28%). OVERALL CONCLUSION The EPSP interventions in Cairo, Aswan and Beheira have successfully established both an effective CSC model and capacity-building programs for CSC staff and young MoPMAR professionals, resulting in improved job performance and increased citizen satisfaction with government services. In so doing, the USAID-funded EPSP interventions a) supported progress towards the achievement of the Government of Egypt’s decentralization efforts, b) advanced the objective of reducing corruption in public service administration at the governorate and district level, and c) improved knowledge of public sector employees by providing training in customer service, leadership, and management skills necessary to empower local authorities to provide improved local services to their citizens, thereby, accelerating decentralization reforms and heightening the accountability of government to the public in an effort to move towards a more democratic, responsive, and decentralized governance model. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are drawn from a review of KII and group discussion meeting notes from among Aswan and Beheira CSC staff and senior governorate officials as well as from evaluation team field observations. xii Governorate and District Level The evaluation team recommends that: 1. District authorities organize periodic public awareness campaigns to a) fight corruption, b) make citizens aware of the full range of CSC services available, and c) help citizens utilize CSC/government services more effectively and in a cost-effective, timely manner. 2. District and governorate authorities collaborate to share the experience of the five CSCs in Aswan with those in Beheira through a visit, seminar, or teleconferencing. In this way, the level of customer satisfaction in Beheira might increase to be more in line with Aswan averages. 3. District authorities, along with the Secretary General, organize a series of meetings to better capture lessons learned to inform ongoing improvements in the municipal administration and CSC practices. Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reforms The evaluation team recommends that MoPMAR: 1. Provide the necessary software applications, training, equipment and access rights for back office personnel to process service requests electronically. 2. Revise system specifications for back office automated processing of CSC service requests to include a requirement that licenses and permits be electronically date and time-stamped upon finalizing said transactions to be issued by the CSCs. 3. Enable different ministries to connect to the CSC Web-based portal to provide necessary responses to CSC inquiries that otherwise result in unwarranted delays in services delivery; for example, automate a Ministry of Finance online accounting system, thereby eliminating the current practice of requiring that CSCs emit and retain paper receipts to document daily transactions. 4. Increase the number of CSC Web-enabled services. Note: As of the date of this evaluation, out of a total of 120 nationwide services, only 13 services are Web-enabled at district-level CSCs and 15 services were Web-enabled at governorate-level CSCs. 5. Explore acceptable self-financing models that will better enable municipalities and governorates to finance future anticipated costs of maintaining and operating CSC equipment and facilities. 6. Require that stand-alone and Web-based information systems store and retrieve CSC￾scanned service requests to further reduce opportunities for corruption and protect the integrity of the data/information. 7. Conduct ongoing CSC staff and manager training (customer services, computer skills, human development, and CSC Web-applications) to maintain and improve the skills of current staff as well as to train new personnel due to personnel turnover attributable to retirement, civil service staff transfers, short-term consultant contract expirations and resignations. xiii OVERALL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the factors for success, challenges, and recommendations identified in the EPSP-supported CSC model be applied to the Government of Egypt’s nationwide rollout of CSCs in order to ensure that similarly supported investments have the highest potential to achieve their intended results in a sustainable manner. 14 INTRODUCTION The $11.3 million USAID Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP), implemented by AECOM International Development from September 2012 through September 2017, supported Egyptian-led efforts to decentralize Egypt’s government in line with new provisions in Egypt’s Constitution. EPSP supported the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) and the Ministry of Local Development (MoLD) in implementing administrative improvements at the local level. Specifically, the project aimed to improve planning and service delivery at the sub-national level, as well as to strengthen the skills and responsiveness of members of Parliament and local government to meet the needs of local communities. EPSP provided a) technical assistance to the Government of Egypt’s (GOE) Sustainable Development Strategy Egypt 2030 (SDS 2030), b) financial support for constructing or upgrading five Citizen Service Centers (CSCs) in Aswan Governorate and two in Beheira Governorate, c) equipping CSCs with information systems for processing government service requests and d) capacity-building of CSC staff as well as leadership, management, and English language training for young MoPMAR professionals. USAID/Egypt issued a Request for Task Order Proposals (RFTOP) on June 22, 2017, for the final performance evaluation of EPSP and awarded the contract to the QED Group’s Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluating (SIMPLE) project on July 27, 2017. Field work was conducted from August 15 to 28, 2017. The primary audience of the evaluation report is USAID/Egypt, specifically the Office of Democracy and Governance (ODG). Secondary audiences include the Government of Egypt’s Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) and AECOM, the activity implementing partner. USAID/Egypt will share the executive summary, final report and recommendations with MoPMAR, and the general public via the Development Education Clearinghouse (DEC) within 90 days of report completion. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS The purpose of the EPSP end-of-project performance evaluation was twofold: 1. To examine the effectiveness of the interventions under EPSP, in particular the Citizen Service Centers and the capacity-building programs, and 2. To provide program lessons learned and recommendations to ensure that USAID-supported activities have the highest potential to achieve their intended results in a sustainable manner. As per the statement of work, the evaluation examines a) the effectiveness and degree of customer satisfaction with five EPSP-assisted CSCs in Aswan Governorate (Aswan City, Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira Governorate (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet), b) how the CSCs’ effectiveness has influenced the level of administrative corruption and community attitudes toward government, and c) the effectiveness of capacity￾building of CSC staff and young MoPMAR professionals. The evaluation team was tasked with answering the following questions: 15 1. To what extent are the participants and activity stakeholders satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs in Aswan and Beheira governorates? How did the satisfaction differ between men and women? If there are differences between men’s satisfaction and women’s satisfaction, what caused the differences? 2. How effective have the CSCs been with regard to creating more responsive governments? How effective have the CSCs been with regard to changing local communities’ attitudes towards the government? How effective have the CSCs been with regard to helping the public utilize the services better? How effective have the CSCs been with regard to reducing corruption? What factors contributed to success? What were the challenges? 3. How effective have the trainings been in improving knowledge? Which trainings were more effective and why? Were there gender differences in performance and/or knowledge as a result of participating in training sessions? BACKGROUND Egypt has long been governed under a centralized system in which all local government units operated as fiscal and administrative extensions of the central government. As a result, these units became bureaucratic and lacked the financial resources as well as the political mandate to involve citizens in the decision-making process. According to the statement of work of the contract signed between USAID/Egypt and AECOM (Section C of Contract No. AID-263-C-12-00003), the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP) was implemented under the 2005 Strategic Objective Grant Agreement Initiatives in the Governance and Participation Program, specifically under Program Area 2 (Good Governance) and Development Objective 3.1; improved governance through direct engagement with critical stakeholders contributes to political and social stability. The development hypothesis contends that a responsive decentralized government will eventually contribute to increased citizen participation and improved service delivery through effective, transparent resource management. The $11.3 million EPSP intervention began in October 2012, paused in July 2013 under a seventeen month stop work order due to political events, resumed in October 2014 and concluded on September 28, 2017. Accordingly, the USAID-funded EPSP was intended to support GOE-led reforms to sub-national governance that would empower local authorities to provide enhanced local services to their citizens thereby, accelerating decentralization reforms and heightening the accountability of government to the people to move towards a more democratic, responsive, and decentralized governance model. In an effort to contribute positively to a decentralized governance model, EPSP and its precursor Egypt Decentralization Initiative II (EDI II), established several Citizen Service Centers (CSC) for the provision of effective and efficient public services. Participants were to recognize and understand that the citizen is a holder of the right to obtain available, accessible and quality public services. The duty-bearer, being the government agencies at the central and local levels, has the obligation to fulfill this right. 16 The objective of the CSCs is to implement a comprehensive strategy for improved service provision based on a) the comfort and satisfaction of both the citizen requesting the service and the public servant providing the service, b) the competence of the service provider, and c) the improved processes and procedures for efficient and effective provision of services. The customer service centers assist citizens in complying with laws regarding land, property, construction, business, utilities, financial aid, employment, medical support and filing suggestions and/or complaints. Introduced over the past decade by the MoLD, 160 CSCs are currently in operation, 36 with Web-based information systems. Seven of these CSCs received assistance under EPSP. Citizens apply for government services through a CSC located in or near the district municipal building. CSCs are composed of “front offices” that collaborate with governmental “back office” staff representing the manageable interests of a variety of central government ministries. “Front offices” consist of customer service representatives, some with networked computers, who assist citizens in applying for an average of 40 government services although more than 160 services are supported nationwide. “Back offices” consist of a variety of departments that review, process, approve or reject the citizen’s service requests. Representatives of technical departments within a host of central government ministries (concerned with licensing, state￾owned property, citizen and investor services, property affairs, legal affairs, etc.) that process the applications are generally situated in a district administration block behind CSC facilities or in offices in nearby buildings. USAID envisions that strengthening CSCs will improve the effectiveness of services, thus contributing to USAID/Egypt’s Intermediate Result 2, which is intended to promote and support decentralization, assist with anti-corruption reforms, and strengthen public sector executive functions. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS Methods The end-of-term performance evaluation of EPSP focused on a) customer satisfaction with CSC service delivery, b) the effectiveness of the EPSP-assisted interventions on CSCs in Aswan and Beheira governorates, and c) capacity-building activities in CSCs as well as among young MoPMAR professionals, as measured by outcomes and perceptions of participants and stakeholders. The evaluation design included triangulation of methods, data sources, and evaluators to examine the same subject under study from different vantage points, thereby broadening understanding and strengthening the validity, reliability, and integrity of the findings. Evaluators used a mixed-methods approach to answer the evaluation questions following the principles and guidelines for high-quality evaluations outlined in the USAID Evaluation Policy (https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf) updated October 2016. Primary and secondary quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated to validate findings, draw conclusions, and develop short term and longer-term recommendations 17 for future project design and implementation that are actionable, practical, specific, and with a defined responsibility. By mixing both quantitative and qualitative results, the evaluation team gained a deeper understanding and corroboration of the subjects under study, offsetting weaknesses inherent in using a single approach. In addition, the use of mixed methods enabled triangulation through the use of several means (methods, data sources and evaluators). A desk review of approximately 84 project-related documents preceded the design of the qualitative and quantitative tools for use in the field. In the course of data collection activities (August 15-28, 2017), a broad range of stakeholders, employees and trainees were surveyed and interviewed in either key informant interviews or in group discussions (n=411). Refer to Annex VIII for a bibliography of project-related documents consulted, Annex IV for the data collection/field visit schedule, and Annex IX for a list of project-related personnel consulted. The primary source of quantitative data/information about customer satisfaction and CSC effectiveness was the results of the Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey conducted at all seven of the EPSP-assisted CSCs. Separate group discussions were conducted for CSC “front office”/customer service staff and government “back office” staff. The evaluation team interviewed a total of 29 senior managers and governorate and district officials from Aswan and Beheira. In order to travel to Aswan and Beheira within the required timeframe, it was necessary to form two field teams. Each field team consisted of 1) one field team leader/democracy and governance specialist, 2) one monitoring and evaluation specialist, 3) one field coordinator, and 4) one enumerator. Two-day site visits were conducted in all seven of the EPSP-assisted CSCs. In Cairo, the evaluation team interviewed key informants from key stakeholder organizations; including 1) MoPMAR; 2) the EPSP implementing partner AECOM International Development; 3) officials from USAID/Egypt’s ODG; 4) training service providers from AMIDEAST, the Center for Development Services (CDS), the Institute of National Planning (INP), and the Egyptian Council for Training and Development (ECTD); and 5) the Web-based information system developer Engineering for Integrated Systems (EIS). The evaluation team used a total of 12 qualitative data-collection tools and 2 survey instruments. Refer to Annex III for a copy of the quantitative and qualitative data collection tools used in the evaluation. Quantitative and Qualitative Data Sources The evaluation team analyzed both primary and secondary quantitative and qualitative data collected from a variety of sources. Quantitative Data Primary quantitative data were gathered using 1) the Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey (designed and administered to measure citizens’ satisfaction with CSC services and staff) and 2) the Citizen Service Center Staff Survey (designed and administered to measure staff members’ points of view on CSCs’ effectiveness and the extent to which the training programs improved 18 their knowledge and job performance). The technical proposal recommended that the evaluation team would use a systematic sampling frame to target every fifth customer leaving the targeted CSCs in Aswan and Beheira governorates over a two-day (four hours per day) survey period per CSC to conduct a 5-7 minute Citizen Satisfaction Exit Survey and that a weighting adjustment would be used to ensure that the sample would be balanced in terms of male and female, business owners, civil society organizations, and non-governmental organizations. However, as noted in the section on limitations, in an effort to offset the low visitation traffic, each customer who would voluntarily participate in the Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey was interviewed without regard for categorization by customer type so as to ensure that a maximum number of customers’ perspectives would be collected. As reported in the Limitations section below, a third survey, the MoPMAR Trainee Survey, and group discussion protocols designed to measure the effectiveness of the training programs, were not conducted due to the inability of the evaluation team to access and survey the 73 graduates. Data from the aforementioned surveys were coded and entered into a database file. The database file was extracted to an Excel sheet and imported to SPSS software to be analyzed. For the Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey and the CSC Staff Surveys, different descriptive analysis techniques (e.g., frequency tables, cross tabulation/contingency tables, and graphical representations) were used to measure CSC customers’ level of satisfaction, CSC customers’ and staff’s perspectives towards CSCs’ effectiveness, and the staff’s assessment of the training programs received. Data from the citizens’ survey was also used to construct a set of Customer Satisfaction Scorecards that provide a snapshot of customer satisfaction levels with CSC services. Refer to Annex VI for Customer Satisfaction Scorecards at the EPSP project level, governorate level, and disaggregated by CSC and gender. Secondary quantitative data were gathered from 1) MoPMAR trainee pre- and post-test score training data as reported by the CDS, INP, AMIDEAST training service providers and 2) Aswan Governorate CSC license and permit transaction data as provided by EIS, the company that developed and hosts the Web-based CSC information system. MoPMAR young professional trainees’ improvement was analyzed by calculating the percent of change on the trainees’ performance based on pre- and post-test score results for each training program, i.e.,1) English Proficiency, 2) Leadership and Management Skills and 3) Project Feasibility Studies (Modules I and II). Aswan Governorate CSC license and permit transaction data, covering August 1, 2016, through July 31, 2017, were analyzed in response to a special request from the USAID/Egypt Office of Democracy and Governance (ODG). Aswan CSC license and permit transactions data were analyzed to measure the amount of time that transpired between the customer’s date of application for a given license or permit and the actual date that the license or permit was issued. The results of this analysis demonstrated the extent to which CSC service requests were being processed within the time limits required by law. No such data were available for analysis for Beheira Governorate, as the Web-Based information system was being installed and 19 tested at the time of the evaluation team’s site visit. Refer to Annex VII for a summary of results for the Aswan transaction data. Qualitative Data A purposive sampling methodology was followed for conducting key informant interviews (KIIs) and group discussions among the key stakeholders and beneficiaries of the EPSP interventions in Cairo, Aswan, and Beheira governorates. The first source of qualitative information was a series of key informant interviews and group discussions that were conducted in Cairo with the ODG, the implementing partner (AECOM staff), MoPMAR project-related senior officials; Leadership and Management Skills Training Program service providers, graduates of the training program, individual trainers/instructors and the information technology company responsible for the development and installation of the CSC Web-based information system in the EPSP-assisted CSCs. A second source of qualitative information was a series of key informant interviews and group discussions conducted in the seven CSC locations in Aswan and Beheira governorates with governorate senior officials and CSC managers, supervisors, and customer service representatives. The evaluation team conducted content analysis on the qualitative information by tabulating recurrent themes observed in evaluator meeting notes. Content analysis of key stakeholder individual interviews and group discussions provided insight into the interpretation of quantitative data by contextualizing reported survey findings. Beyond identifying lessons learned, this analysis also helps to identify what actionable recommendations could be proposed to establish best practices for future project designs. The qualitative data were coded and analyzed using Excel tally sheets. Approximately 411 project-related personnel were consulted through 22 group discussions, 32 key informant interviews and 267 persons surveyed. The evaluation team systematically met after site visits to consolidate findings and confer on lessons learned while ensuring that the quality of the data met USAID standards. LIMITATIONS 1. The evaluation team was not able to access or survey the 73 graduates of the MoPMAR Leadership and Management Skills Training Program. In an effort to offset the loss of primary quantitative data, the evaluation team interviewed 14 trainers from the MoPMAR training program who had conducted post-training follow-up interviews with the graduates of said program to better understand the effectiveness of training on improved job performance. This information supplemented the information gathered from two key informant interviews with supervisors and one group discussion with five graduates of the training program. In addition, training service provider pre- and post-test scores, provided by AMIDEAST, CDS, and INP, were analyzed to further inform the evaluation’s findings. 2. As no pre- and post-test scores were available for evaluating the improved knowledge of CSC trainees, the evaluation’s findings rely on CSC service representatives’ perceptions 20 captured in group discussions and the CSC Staff Survey as opposed to a more objectively verifiable indicator of improved knowledge and skills. 3. Although Aswan Web-based transaction data were available for analysis of completed service requests for August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, historical data from the governorate’s stand-alone (non-Web-based) information systems, representing seven to nine years of transactions data for four of the seven EPSP-assisted CSCs, were not integrated into the central database and therefore unavailable for analysis. Had the stand-alone data been available for analysis, the evaluation team would have been able to compare CSC license and permit processing time over an extended period of time. It is important to note that stand-alone information systems (non-Web-based) were installed in the Nasr El-Nuba, Abu Homous, and Shobra Kheet CSCs effective 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. Web-based systems were installed in all five EPSP￾assisted CSCs in Aswan Governorate in August 2016 followed by pilot installations of Web￾based systems in the two EPSP-assisted CSCs in Beheira Governorate in August 2017. In an effort to compare current performance with historical performance, the evaluation team reviewed paper-based records. The team concluded that the limited information was of little use given the failure to record the dates associated with the date of application and the completion date of services. 4. The Web-based information system was being installed and tested in the Beheira Governorate CSCs at the time of the field visit. Consequently, the Beheira Governorate CSCs’ “front office” staff had limited availability to engage with the evaluation team due to a) ongoing information system testing, b) concluding CSC facility renovations, and c) CSC staff attending customer service skills training. Accordingly, much of the focus of governorate and district staff was elsewhere, thus limiting the time and attention they gave to the evaluation process. 5. CSC customer traffic in 1) Nasr El-Nuba, 2) Daraw, 3) Dewan, and 4) Shobra Kheet was lower than estimated, requiring that the original sampling plan of the technical proposal be dropped. In an effort to offset the low visitation traffic, each customer who would voluntarily participate in the Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey was interviewed without regard for categorization by customer type so as to ensure that a maximum number of customers’ perspectives would be collected. In addition, in order to compensate for low traffic volumes, the evaluation team extended the duration of site visits from two to three days in the four aforementioned service centers. However, the small sample sizes do not allow for generalization of findings disaggregated by sex. 6. No objectively verifiable data was available for analysis on the response rate or time transpired for CSCs to effectively address customer suggestions and/or complaints. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions contained herein are based solely on customer perceptions captured in the CSC Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey. 21 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Evaluation Question 1a: To what extent are the participants and activity stakeholders satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs in Aswan and Beheira governorates? Conclusion 1a: CSC customers in both governorates are generally satisfied with the services they received, CSC facilities and operations, and the CSC model. Satisfaction appears to be driven by the comfort, convenience, and efficiency of CSC facilities; as well as the transparency of time limits for processing service requests. By contrast, customers are comparatively least satisfied with the time CSCs take to deliver services. In general, Aswan CSC customers are more satisfied than Beheira customers, especially with CSC efforts to reduce corruption and the accessibility of CSC facilities for the elderly and people with disabilities. CSC managers, governorate and district officials in both Aswan and Beheira were satisfied with the system for processing service requests. Finding 1a.1.1: 95% of CSC customers in Aswan (n=136) were satisfied with the quality of services received at the CSCs (64% very satisfied, 35% were satisfied). Refer to Figure 1. Finding 1a.1.2: 76% of CSC customers in Beheira (n=51) were satisfied with the quality of services received at the CSCs (41% were very satisfied, 35% were satisfied). See Figure 1. Finding 1a.1.3: 96% of CSC customers in Aswan (n=136) were satisfied with the cost of CSC services (55% very reasonable, 42% reasonable). Finding 1a.1.4: 80% of CSC customers in Beheira (n=51) were satisfied with the cost of CSC services (36% very reasonable, 44% reasonable). Finding 1a.1.5: 64% of Aswan CSC customers (n=136) indicated that they were “very satisfied” with the operating hours, while 58% of Beheira CSC customers (n=51) indicated that they were merely “satisfied.” The overall satisfaction level in Aswan was 97% as compared to 82% in Beheira. Refer to Figure 2. Finding 1a.1.6: 79.4% of Aswan CSC customers (n=136) indicated that they were “very satisfied” with accommodations for the elderly and for persons with disabilities, whereas 17.6% of Beheira CSC customers (n=51) indicated that they were “very satisfied.” The overall satisfaction level in Aswan was 96% as compared to 53% in Beheira. Refer to Figure 3. Finding 1a.1.7: 97% of the CSC customers in Aswan (n=136) were satisfied with the CSC model (58% very satisfied; 39% satisfied) and agreed that the CSC model should be replicated in other districts. Finding 1a.1.8: 90% of the CSC customers in Beheira (n=51) were satisfied with the CSC model (54% very satisfied; 35% satisfied) and agreed that the CSC model should be replicated in other districts. Finding 1a.1.9: Factors cited among male (n=69) and female (n=61) participants in group discussions (n=19) and KIIs (29) for customer satisfaction with the quality of CSC services 22 FIGURE 1 CSC Customers’ Satisfaction with Quality of Service Provided by Gender and Governorate (a) Aswan Governorate Number of CSC customers: males=90; females=29 (b) Beheira Governorate Number of CSC customers: males=38, females=4 included air conditioning, comfortable seating, the queue system, the CSC Customer Window model, friendly/informed customer service, posted signs identifying services provided and legal time limits for processing service requests, receipts with a forecast completion date, and overall cleanliness and quality of CSC facilities. Finding 1a.1.10: 100% of interviews with CSC managers and governorate and district officials in Aswan and 91% in Beheira were satisfied with the CSC operating system for processing service requests (n=27 individual and group interviews). Finding 1a.1.11: 100% of interviews with Aswan and Beheira CSC supervisors (n=7) confirmed that CSC customers were satisfied with waiting areas and the respect shown to them by CSC staff, e.g., “treated with dignity.” Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 66.7% n=60 25.6% n=23 4.4% n=4 3.3% n=3 0.0% n=0 51.7% n=15 48.3% n=14 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 Male Female Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 44.7% n=17 34.2% n=13 10.5% n=4 5.3% n=2 5.3% n=2 50.0% n=2 25.0% n=1 25.0% n=1 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 Male Female 23 With regard to customer satisfaction with CSC overall service provision, responses from the CSC Customer Satisfaction Exit Surveys were also used to construct Customer Satisfaction Scorecards. The scorecards are constructed based on 10 survey variables that correspond to 7 different attributes of customer satisfaction; including: accessibility, quality, adequacy, efficiency, accountability, timeliness, and transparency. A “Comparative Analysis: Aswan and Beheira Governorate Customer Satisfaction Scorecard” is listed below. Refer to Annex VI for a comprehensive set of scorecards disaggregated by CSC, governorate, and sex. The overall weighted averages between Beheira and Aswan varies by a reasonably small margin of 12%; that is to say that they are fundamentally in agreement. The overall average satisfaction score for the seven EPSP-assisted CSCs is 86.8%. However, the attribute on which Beheira differs most from Aswan is “transparency” as measured by customer satisfaction with the CSC process for reducing corruption; equivalent to 71.6% for Beheira and 90.3% for Aswan. Customers in both governorates were most satisfied with the convenience of CSC locations. Beheira customers were relatively least satisfied with accessibility for the elderly and disabled people, cost and timeliness of service delivery. Aswan customers were also relatively least satisfied with the cost and timeliness of service delivery. FIGURE 2 Customers’ Satisfaction with Operating/Working Hours of CSCs by Governorate (a) Aswan Governorate Total number of citizen respondents=133 (b) Beheira Governorate Total number of citizen respondents=50 Very Satisfactory(2 Satisfactory(5 4.0%); n=12 8.0%); n=29 Neutral (12.0%); n=6 Unsatisfactory (4.0%); n=2 Very Unsatisfactory (2.0%); n=1 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory Very Satisfactory (63.9%); n=85 Satisfactory (33.1%); n=44 Neutral (2.3%); n=3 Unsatisfactory (0.8%); n=1 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 24 FIGURE 3 CSC Customers’ Satisfaction with Accommodations for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Number of citizen respondents: Aswan=135; Beheira=51 Evaluation Question 1b: How did the satisfaction differ between men and women? Conclusion 1b.1: Although the level of reported satisfaction with the quality of services was a) slightly higher among women than among men in Aswan and b) slightly higher among men than among women in Beheira, given the relatively small sizes of surveyed groups, neither finding represents a significant difference between Aswan and Beheira or between men and women in either governorate. Finding 1b.1.1: The Aswan Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey identified 94% of men (n=92) as satisfied with the quality of services (67% very satisfied, 26% satisfied) and 100% of women (n=33) as satisfied with the quality of CSC services (52% very satisfied, 48% satisfied). Finding 1b.1.2: The Beheira Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey identified 79% of men (n=39) as satisfied with the quality of services (45% very satisfied, 34% satisfied) and 75% of women (n=5) as satisfied with the quality of CSC services (50% very satisfied, 25% satisfied). Conclusion 1b.2: The level of satisfaction with the cost of services was slightly higher among women than among men in Aswan but slightly lower among women than among men in Beheira. However, as noted above, the minor percentage differences are not considered significant given the relatively small number of observations. Finding1b.2.1: 96% of male CSC customers in Aswan (n=92) were satisfied with the cost of CSC services (57% very reasonable; 39% reasonable) and 100% of female CSC customers (n=33) were satisfied with the cost of CSC services (52% very reasonable; 49% reasonable). Finding1b.2.2: 82% of male CSC customers in Beheira (n=39) were satisfied with the cost of CSC services (37% very reasonable; 45% reasonable) and 60% of female CSC customers (n=5) were satisfied with the cost of CSC services (20% very reasonable; 40% reasonable). Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 69.6% n=94 27.4% n=37 0.7% n=1 2.2% n=3 0.0% n=0 17.6% n=9 35.3% n=18 27.5% n=14 11.8% n=6 7.8% n=4 Aswan Beheira 25 Evaluation Question 1c: If there are differences between men’s satisfaction and women’s satisfaction, what caused the differences? Conclusion 1c.1: No significant gender differences in levels of satisfaction between men and women are observed, in part, because the small sample sizes do not allow for generalization of findings disaggregated by sex. Finding 1c.1.1: 94% of key informant interviews and group discussions in Aswan and 100% in Beheira confirmed no significant gender differences in satisfaction between men and women. TABLE 1 Comparative Analysis: Aswan and Beheira Governorate Customer Satisfaction Scorecard Attributes Variables Satisfaction Percent Beheira Satisfaction Subtotal Aswan Satisfaction Subtotal Overall Satisfaction Accessibility Accessible for Elderly & Disabled People 68.6% 92.9% 85.9% Convenience of CSC Location 91.8% 97.0% 95.2% Accessibility Satisfaction 80.2% 95.0 90.6% Quality Quality of Services Provided 80.4% 91.2% 88.9% Quality of Waiting Area 81.6% 95.3% 90.1% Quality Satisfaction 81.0% 93.2% 89.5% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests 82.0% 91.8% 89.3% Operating Hours 79.6% 92.0% 87.9% Adequacy Satisfaction 80.8% 91.9% 88.6% Efficiency Cost of Service 79.2% 89.7% 85.8% Successful Model and Should be Replicated 87.9% 90.6% 89.9% Efficiency Satisfaction 83.6% 90.1% 97.8% Accountability Staff Provide Adequate Guidance 80.6% 94.3% 90.0% Accountability Satisfaction 80.6% 94.3% 90.0% Timeliness Staff Deliver Services Within Legal Time 70.4% 78.8% 76.5% Timeliness Satisfaction 70.4% 78.8% 78.7% Transparency Process to Reducing Corruption 71.6% 89.1% 84.2% Transparency Satisfaction 71.6% 90.3% 84.2% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction Within a Given CSC/Governorate 78.3% 90.3% 86.8% 26 Evaluation Question 2a: How effective have the CSCs been with regard to creating more responsive governments? Conclusion 2a.1: Governmental responsiveness, as measured by CSC customer satisfaction with a) CSC staff being available and b) committed to complete their requested services within the prescribed timeframe as well as being responsive to customer complaints and suggestions. CSC customer satisfaction is rated higher in Aswan than in Beheira. Results from Customer Satisfaction Exit Surveys, key informant interviews and group discussions with CSC staff indicate that customers from Aswan are more satisfied with government responsiveness than customers from Beheira. Although differences in satisfaction with government responsiveness are relatively small, they can be attributed to the greater amount of training received by Aswan CSC staff and the longer period of time that the information system has been operational in Aswan. Finding 2a.1.1: 96% of Aswan customers (n=136) were satisfied (64% very satisfied, 32% satisfied) with staff availability to attend to their requests for service. Finding 2a.1.2: 80% of Beheira customers (n=51) were satisfied (40% very satisfied, 40% satisfied) with the availability of CSC staff to attend to their requests for service. Finding 2a.1.3: 100% of key informant interviews and group discussions with CSC staff in Aswan (n=12) and 78% in Beheira (n=17) said that district officials and CSC management are responsive to customer suggestions and complaints. Finding 2a.1.4: The management and customer service training and course on the Web￾based application software did not start in Beheira until July 2017, whereas the CSC staff in Aswan had had 15 months during which to practice the skills they had learned and adjust to the new system before the evaluation team arrived. Finding 2a.1.5: 24% of Aswan CSC staff (n=12) reported in key informant interviews and/or group discussions that customers received new/more services instead of going to ministries to acquire these services. No such observations were noted in Beheira. Conclusion 2a.2: Customers rated CSC staff as highly committed to complete their requests for services within the prescribed timeframe. The positive Aswan customer ratings, however, were contradicted by evidence showing that most applications were not completed on time. The customers’ opinions suggest that the current processing time actually may be a reduction in time as compared to prior experiences. In fact, the high percentage of delayed issuance of licenses and permits brings into question the reasonableness of the national time limits established by the relevant ministries. Finding 2a.2.1: 97% of the customers in Aswan (n=136) confirmed that the CSC staff was committed to completing their requested services within the prescribed time. Finding 2a.2.2: 86% in Beheira (n=51) confirmed that the CSC staff was committed to completing their requested services within the prescribed time. Finding 2a.2.3: Of 16 different types of Aswan CSC service requests processed during the August 1, 206, to July 31, 2017, timeframe, a) 28% (n=935) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 34% (n=1,142) were processed within a one-month delay of the legal limit, c) 17% (n=561) were processed within a two-month delay of the legal limit, d) 8% (n=265) were processed within a three-month delay of the legal limit, and e) 13% (n=425) required more than three months to complete the transaction. 27 Finding 2a.2.4: Analysis of the Aswan Governorate “Site Validity Statement” permit data (1,329 observations) from August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, reveals that a) 11% (n=135) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 43% (n=574) were processed within a one-month delay of the legal limit, c) 16% (n=217) were processed within a two-month delay of the legal limit, d) 8.3% (n=110) were processed within a three-month delay of the legal limit, and e) 22.0% (n=293) required more than three months to complete the transaction. Finding 2a.2.5: Of the 16 types of services, the sum of the 1) Site Validity Statement, 2) Building Construction Permit, 3) Demolition/Destruction Permit and 4) Permanent Facilities licenses/permits represent 89% of all transactions processed in the five Aswan CSCs during the August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, timeframe. Finding 2a.2.6: Analysis of the Aswan Governorate “Building Construction” permit data (610 observations) from August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, reveals that a) 41.3% (n=252) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 21.1% (n=129) were processed within a one-month delay of the legal limit, c) 19.8% (n=121) were processed within a two-month delay of the legal limit, d) 6.9% (n=42) were processed within a three-month delay of the legal limit, and e) 10.8% (n=66) required more than three months to complete the transaction. Finding 2a.2.7: Analysis of the Aswan Governorate “Demolition/Destruction” permit (85 observations) data for August 2016 to July 31, 2017, reveals that a) 12.9% (n=11) were processed within the legal time limit, b) 30.6% (n=26) were processed within a month of the legal limit, c) 22.4% (n=19) were processed within a two-month delay of the legal limit, d) 12.9% (n=11) were processed within a three-month delay of the legal limit, and e) 21.2% (n=18) required more than three months to complete the transaction. Finding 2a.2.8: Analysis of the Aswan Governorate “Permanent Facilities” permit data (937 observations) from August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, reveals that: a) 44.6% (n=418) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 30.7% (n=288) were processed within a one-month delay of the legal limit, c) 13.2% (n=124) were processed within a two-month delay of the legal limit, d) 9.3% (n=87) were processed within a three-month delay of the legal limit, and e) 2.1% (n=20) required more than three months to complete the transaction. Evaluation Question 2b: How effective have the CSCs been with regard to changing local communities’ attitudes towards the government? Conclusion 2b.1: Customers’ attitudes have improved towards government following the in￾stallation of Customer Service Centers. Finding 2b.1.1: 96% of Aswan customers at the CSCs (n=186) were willing to recommend to others that they approach CSCs for processing their government services. Finding 2b.1.2: 86% of Beheira customers at the CSCs (n=51) were willing to recommend that others approach CSCs for processing their government services. Finding 2b.1.3: 95% of Aswan staff at the CSCs (n=56) and 100% of Beheira staff at the CSCs (n=18) reported that citizen attitudes towards using government services improved. Finding 2b.1.4: 70% of key informant and group interview sessions (n=17) in Beheira and 100% (n=12) in Aswan with CSC staff, managers, governorate and district officials reported 28 that CSC customers were satisfied with CSC staff attitudes and behavior, which demonstrated to the customer that he/she was valued and respected. Finding 2b.1.5: 100% of interviews conducted with CSC staff in Aswan (n=12) and 90% in Beheira (n=17) reported that government is more transparent and accountable. Finding 2b.1.6: 84% of Aswan customers (n=136) and 48% of Beheira customers (n=51) reported that they have greater confidence in government. Evaluation Question 2c: How effective have the CSCs been with regard to helping the public utilize the services better? Conclusion 2c.1: The CSC model is more effective in helping the public utilize services better given the improved guidance provided by CSC staff resulting from customer service training. Finding 2c.1.1: 100% of Aswan customers (n=119) and 87% of Be￾heira customers (n=31) surveyed were satisfied with guidance CSC staff provided on how to utilize services. See Figure 4. Finding 2c.1.2: 88% of Aswan CSC staff (n=136) and 87% of Beheira CSC staff (n=51) surveyed reported, as a result of customer service training, they are able to provide guidance to customers to better utilize CSC services. Evaluation Question 2d: How effec￾tive have the CSCs been with regard to reducing corruption? Conclusion 2d.1: While both CSC staff and customers in Aswan and Be￾heira were satisfied with the CSC model for reducing corruption, citi￾zens are less satisfied than staff. Finding 2d.1.1: 90% of CSC cus￾tomers in Aswan (n=132) were satisfied (56% very satisfied, 34% satisfied) with the CSC model re￾ducing corruption. See Figure 5. Finding 2d.1.2: 62% of CSC cus￾tomers in Beheira (n=50) were sat￾isfied (12% very satisfied, 50% satis￾fied) with the CSC model for re￾ducing corruption. See Figure 5. FIGURE 4 CSC Customers’ Satisfaction with Guidance/Instruction Provided by CSC Staff by Governorate: (a) Aswan Governorate Number of customers surveyed=119 (b) Beheira Governorate Number of customers surveyed=31 Very Satisfactory (71.40%); n=85 Satisfactory (28.60%); n=34 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Satisfactory (29.0%); n=9 Satisfactory (58.1%); n=18 Unsatisfactory (12.9%); n=4 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 29 Finding 2d.1.3: 97% of the CSC staff in Aswan (n=57) and 100% of the staff in Beheira (n=18) were satisfied with the effectiveness of the CSC model for reducing corruption. See Figure 6. FIGURE 5 CSC Customers’ Satisfaction with CSC Process for Reducing Corruption by Level of Satisfaction and Governorate. (a) Aswan Governorate Number of CSC customers: Aswan = n=132; Beheira=50 FIGURE 6 CSC Staff Level of Belief that CSC Model Minimizes Corruption by Governorate Aswan Governorate b) Beheira Governorate Number of CSC staff surveyed=56 Number of CSC staff surveyed=18 Finding 2d.1.4: 97% of the CSC staff in Aswan (n=57) and 100% of the staff in Beheira (n=18) were satisfied with the effectiveness of the CSC model for reducing corruption. See Figure 6. Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 56.1% n=74 34.1% n=45 9.1% n=12 0.8 %… 0.0% n=0 12.0% n=6 50.0% n=25 24.0% n=12 12.0% n=6 2.0% n=1 Aswan Beheira Yes (57.1%); n=32 No (3.6%); n=2 To Some Extent (39.3%); n=22 Yes No To Some Extent Yes (50.0%); n=9 To Some Extent (50.0%); n=9 Yes No To Some Extent 30 Conclusion 2d.2: Same-day completion of service requests requiring site visits suggests possi￾ble corruption in that site visits are unlikely to be completed on the same day as the application for the license or permit. Finding 2d.2.1: During the August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, timeframe, 5% of all transactions (n=3,328) had been completed in one day in Aswan according to information system reports; equivalent to 166 transactions. Evaluation Question 2e: What factors contributed to success? Evaluation Question 2f: What were the challenges? The following list of success factor and challenges to the effective implementation and sustainability of the CSC model are drawn from: a) key informant interviews (54) with key MoPMAR stakeholders, AECOM implementing partner staff, governorate senior officials, CSC managers, supervisors and staff, Aswan and Beheira CSC customers, and MoPMAR Leadership and Management Skills Training Program service providers; as well as 2) group discussions (21) with Aswan and Beheira governorate officials, CSC managers, supervisors and staff, and young MoPMAR professionals trained in the Leadership and Management Skills Training Program. The total number of KII and group discussion respondents in Aswan was 87; equivalent to 47 males and 40 females. The total number of KII and group discussion respondents in Beheira was 43; equivalent to 22 males and 21 females. The success factors and challenges listed in the table below are in ranked order according to the frequency with which each was mentioned. TABLE 2 Factors and Challenges that Affected EPSP2 Success Factors Challenges 2e.1 Efficiency of CSC model 2f.1 Limited financial incentives for CSC staff and limited budget for facility operations and mainte￾nance 2e.2 Effective communication between staff and senior management 2f.2 Lack of public awareness of role of CSCs 2e.3 Improvement of CSC staff skills and attitudes as a result of training 2f.3 Back office staff resistance and direct service delivery between back office and customers 2e.4 Governorate responsiveness to citizens’ com￾plaints and suggestions 2f.4 Back office field visit interactions with customers lend themselves to opportunities for continued corruption 2e.5 Equipment and facilities for processing service requests 2f.5 Absence of CSC internal bylaws Evaluation Question 3a: How effective have the trainings been in improving knowledge? Conclusion 3a.1 (CSC Staff Training): The training courses provided to CSC staff and management were relevant to their needs and improved their job performance. 2 The key words (e.g., “efficiency,” “effective communication,” “limited,” etc.) in this table are the words of the interviewees. 31 Finding 3a.1.1: 95% of the CSC staff surveyed in Aswan (n=56) and 100% of the CSC staff surveyed in Beheira (n=18) agreed that the courses they received improved their knowledge of customer service and computer skills. Refer to Figure 7 for a breakdown of training courses received by CSC staff in each governorate. FIGURE 7 Training Courses Received by CSC Staff by Type and Governorate Number of CSC Staff Surveyed: Aswan= n=54; Beheira=15 Conclusion 3a.2 (MoPMAR Training): The trainings provided to young MoPMAR professionals were relevant to their needs and improved their knowledge and job performance. Finding 3a.2.1: In a group discussion with MoPMAR graduates of the Leadership and Man￾agement Skills Training Program, the feasibility course was noted as relevant to their needs with newly acquired skills applied immediately to day-to-day work assignments. Finding 3a.2.2: The average improvement in knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) for the Leadership and Management Training Program was 60% (n=70; 37 males and 33 females). Finding 3a.2.3: The average improvement in MoPMAR trainee KSA was a 20% improve￾ment for Project Feasibility Study Module I; registering a 21% improvement in knowledge, a 45% improvement in skills and a 3% improvement in attitude (n=68). Finding 3a.2.4: The average improvement in MoPMAR trainee KSA was 30% for the Feasi￾bility Study Module II registering a 30% improvement in knowledge, a 93% improvement in skills, and a 4% improvement in attitude (n=37). Finding 3a.2.5: The average improvement in KSA for the Leadership and Management Training Course was 60% (n=70; 37 males and 33 females). Finding 3a.2.6: A review of TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) test results for measuring improvement on English proficiency skills of the MoPMAR trainees (n=73 of 80 trainees tested) reveal significant improvements for both men and women that varies according to the level of English proficiency being tested; a) greater improvements are observed among male trainee Basic Users (men 47% and women 28%), no significant dif￾ferences between males and females are observed on Independent Users (men 38% and Customer Service Computer Skills Human Development System/ Supervising the System 70.4% n=38 66.7% n=36 66.7% n=36 7.5% n=4 33.3% n=5 66.7% n=10 13.3% n=2 46.7% n=7 Aswan Beheira 32 women 43%), and c) greater improvements are observed among female trainee profes￾sional users (men 15% and women 28%). Evaluation Question 3b: Which trainings were more effective and why? Conclusion 3b.1a (MoPMAR Training): Project Feasibility Study training was the most ef￾fective and relevant to the needs of MoPMAR staff. Finding 3b.1a.1: According to key informant interviews and group discussions with officials, supervisors and trainers, the Project Feasibility Study Training Program was the most effec￾tive of the three training components (1-Project Feasibility Studies Modules I and II, 2-Lead￾ership and Management Skills and 3-English Proficiency) for young MoPMAR professionals. Finding 3b.1a.2: Key informant interviews with MoPMAR supervisors (n=2) and graduates (n=5) of the Leadership and Management Skills Training Program referred to the Project Fea￾sibility Study Training as well-designed and ranked as the most effective of the three training components. Finding 3b.1a.3: MoPMAR supervisors (n=2) and graduates (n=5) reported that the strengths of the Project Feasibility Study modules included a) the detailed needs analysis, b) the use of facilities and instructors internal to the Ministry (Institute of National Planning), c) the support of senior officials, and d) supervisor and instructor monitoring on-site applica￾tions of feasibility assessment tools on real work in real time. Evaluation Question 3c: Were there gender differences in performance and/or knowledge as a result of participating in training sessions? Conclusion 3c.1 (MoPMAR Training): In general, little difference was observed in the level of improvement of men as compared to the level of improvement of women across the three Leadership and Management Skills Training Program components. Finding 3c.1.1: The average MoPMAR trainees’ improvement (n=69) on the KSA indicator for Feasibility Study Module I is 18% for men (n=34) and 22% for women (n=39). Finding 3c.1.2: The average MoPMAR trainees’ improvement (n=69) on the KSA indicator for Feasibility Study Module II is 32% for men (n=34) and 27% for women (n=39). Finding 3c.1.3: No significant gender-differentiated results are observed on MoPMAR men and women trainee improvement. The average MoPMAR trainees’ improvement (n=69) on the KSA indicator for the Leadership and Management Training Module is 59% for men (n=34) and 60% for women (n=39). Finding 3c.1.4: A review of TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) test results for measuring improvement on English proficiency skills of the MoPMAR trainees (n=73 of 80 trainees tested) reveals significant improvements for both men and women that varies according to the level of English proficiency being tested; a) greater improvements are observed among male trainee Basic Users (men 47% and women 28%), no significant differ￾ences between males and females are observed on Independent Users (men 38% and women 43%), and c) greater improvements are observed among female trainee Professional Users (men 15% and women 28%). 33 Finding 3c.1.5: No statement can be made regarding differences in job performance be￾tween men and women one year following the completion of the Leadership and Manage￾ment Skills Training Program. The evaluation team was unable to either survey the MoPMAR graduates (n=73) or conduct group discussions with the graduates’ job supervisors. OVERALL CONCLUSION The EPSP interventions in Cairo, Aswan and Beheira successfully established both an effective CSC model and capacity-building programs for CSC staff and young MoPMAR professionals resulting in improved job performance and increased citizen satisfaction with government services. In so doing, the USAID-funded EPSP interventions have a) supported progress towards the achievement of the Government of Egypt’s decentralization efforts, b) advanced the objective of reducing corruption in public service administration at the governorate and district level (as measured by CSC customer and CSC staff perceptions), and c) improved knowledge of public sector employees by providing training in customer service, leadership and management skills necessary to empower local authorities to provide improved local services to their citizens. The interventions thereby accelerated decentralization reforms and heightened the accountability of government to the public in an effort to move toward a more democratic, responsive, and decentralized governance model. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based upon the evaluation findings and conclusions. A. Governorate and District Level: The evaluation team recommends that: 1. District authorities organize periodic public awareness campaigns to a) fight corruption, b) make citizens aware of the full range of CSC services available and c) help citizens utilize CSC/government services more effectively and in a cost-effective, timely manner. 2. District and governorate authorities collaborate to share the experience of the five CSCs in Aswan with those in Beheira through a visit, seminar or teleconferencing. In this way, the level of customer satisfaction in Beheira might increase to be more in line with Aswan averages. 3. District authorities, along with the Secretary General, organize a series of meetings to better capture lessons learned to inform ongoing improvements in the district administration and CSC practices. Of immediate value would be an exchange of information between municipal authorities and CSC managers in the two newly-upgraded Beheira CSCs and their counterparts in Aswan. 34 B. Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform: The evaluation team recommends that MoPMAR: 1. Provide the necessary software applications, training, equipment and access rights for back office personnel to process service requests electronically. 2. Revise system specifications for back office automated processing of CSC service requests to include a requirement that licenses and permits be electronically date- and time-stamped, as opposed to manually, upon finalizing the transactions to be issued by the CSCs. 3. Increase the number of CSC Web-enabled services. Note: As of the date of this evaluation, out of a total of 120 nationwide services, only 13 services are Web-enabled at district-level CSCs and 15 services are Web-enabled at governorate-level (Dewan) CSCs. 4. Enable different ministries to connect to the CSC Web-application portal to provide necessary responses to CSC inquiries that otherwise result in unwarranted delays in services delivery; for example, automate a Ministry of Finance online accounting system, thereby eliminating the current practice of requiring that CSCs emit and retain paper receipts to document daily transactions. 5. Explore acceptable self-financing models that will better enable municipalities/governorates to finance future anticipated costs of maintaining and operating CSC equipment and facilities. 6. Require that stand-alone and Web-based information systems store and retrieve CSC￾scanned service requests to further reduce opportunities for corruption and protect the integrity of the data/information. 7. Conduct ongoing CSC staff and manager training (customer services, computer skills, human development and CSC Web-applications) to maintain and improve the skills of current staff as well as to train-up new personnel due to personnel turnover attributable to retirement, civil service staff transfers, short-term consultant contract expirations, and resignations. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the factors for success, challenges and recommendations identified in the EPSP-supported CSC model be applied to the Government of Egypt’s nationwide rollout of CSCs in order to ensure that similarly supported investments have the highest potential to achieve their intended results in a sustainable manner. 35 ANNEXES 36 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK I. Evaluation Rationale A. Evaluation Purpose The USAID/Egypt Mission is conducting an end of project performance evaluation of its Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation will examine the effectiveness of the interventions under EPSP, in particular the citizen service centers and the capacity building programs, as measured both by outcomes and perceptions of participants and stakeholders. B. Audience and Intended Uses The primary audience of the evaluation report will be USAID/Egypt, specifically the Of￾fice of Democracy and Governance (ODG). Secondary audiences include the Govern￾ment of Egypt’s Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) and AECOM the activity implementing partner. USAID/Egypt will review and share the executive summary, final report and recommenda￾tions with the MoPMAR, and the general public via the Development Education Clearing￾house (DEC). II. Summary Information Activity Name Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP) Implementer AECOM Cooperative Agreement # AID-263-C-12-00003 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Activity (TEC) $11,229,247 Life of Activity September 2012- September 2017 Active Geographic Regions Aswan, Cairo, and Beheira in Egypt Development Objective(s) (DOs) 3.1 Improved governance through direct engagement with critical stakeholders contribute to political and social stabil￾ity USAID Office Office of Democracy and Governance, USAID/Egypt 37 III. Background The USAID Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP) supports Egyptian-led efforts to decen￾tralize Egypt's government in line with provisions under Egypt's constitution. The project specifi￾cally supports the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MOPMAR) and the Ministry of Local Development’s (MoLD) efforts to implement fiscal, administrative, and political decentralization reforms. The project’s activities aim to improve effective planning and service delivery at the sub-national level, as well as improving the skills and responsiveness of members of Parliament and local government to meet the needs of local communities. Governance Decentralization Strategic Objective and IRs: This activity is implemented under the 2005 Strategic Objective Grant Agreement Initiatives in the Governance and Participation Program, specifically under Program Area 2: Good Governance and these two IRs: • Strengthen legislative, lawmaking, and legal reform processes, as well as legislative man￾agement, administration, accountability, and transparency by providing training on policy analysis, bill drafting, budgeting, constituent relations, administration, and oversight. • Promote and support decentralization, assist with anti-corruption reforms, and strengthen public sector executive functions by providing training on financial planning and manage￾ment, strategic planning, decision-making, policy reform, accountability and oversight. Prior activities to the EPSP: The EPSP builds on two other activities, the Egyptian Decentrali￾zation Initiative (EDI; 2006-2012; USD 24,032,335 funded by USAID) and the Egyptian Decen￾tralization Initiative II (EDI II; 2012-2017; $11,229,247 funded by USAID) EDI informed key stakeholders about the issues and options for increased democratization through administrative reform; key stakeholders included decision-makers such as parliamentarians and po￾litical parties; youth activists; NGOs and other groups as well. This effort resulted in changes man￾dated in the 2012 and 2014 Constitutions that will accelerate decentralization reform within a five￾year transition period and increase the accountability of government to the people. The EPSP builds directly on EDI II. The assistance that began under EDI was continued, in order to improve the effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of local government by providing tech￾nical and financial assistance to GOE Ministries, institutions, and local governorates enabling fiscal, administrative, and political decentralization reforms. EDI II focused on three areas to achieve this objective: (1) increasing local financial resources; (2) establishing participatory mechanisms to plan, allocate, and monitor the use of resources; and (3) strengthening administrative capacity to build a legal framework for local government to ensure effective and transparent management of resources. 38 EPSP: the currently funded activity is supporting the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Adminis￾trative Reform (MoPMAR) through September 28, 2017. EPSP started its activities in October 2012 and was under Stop Work Order from July 21, 2013 then it resumed its activities on Octo￾ber 15, 2014 focusing its technical assistance to MoPMAR with a current total funding of USD11,229,247. The overall objectives of EPSP continue to emphasize administrative improvements at the local level, particularly since both the 2012 and 2014 renditions of the Egyptian Constitution opened the door to the most significant reforms in more than forty years at the subnational levels. EPSP is supporting the Ministry’s efforts to bring these changes to fruition, working toward implementing the following objectives: • Increasing Egyptian financial resources available to local government for responding to community priorities; • Enhancing participatory mechanisms to plan, allocate, and monitor the use of resources; • Strengthening administrative capacity and legal framework for local government to ef￾fectively and transparently manage resources; • More responsive and inclusive local council members through support for initiatives by the Ministry to provide capacity building for members of the planning and budgeting com￾mittees on roles and responsibilities (election of local council members expected during the second year of EPSP implementation; • Improvements in public finance management (PFM) at the local level through capacity build￾ing, support for local budget implementation and selected anti-corruption practices; and • Parliamentary outreach through technical assistance to various select committees of the House of Representatives (expected to be elected and seated during the initial year of EPSP implementation). Main activities: o Support key local administration reforms, including a new Planning Law, Local Administration Law, and executive regulations for the new Civil Service Law. o Provide technical assistance for planning and service delivery at the national and sub-national lev￾els and strengthening citizen participation around local decision-making. o Inform elected and appointed local officials on the compelling need and benefits of local admin￾istration reform, decentralized governance and a participatory budgetary process. o Expand and upgrade Citizen Service Centers (CSC): Within the still highly centralized govern￾ment in Egypt, the citizen service center stands as the primary institution linking much of the population to their government locally. The CSC in Beheira and Aswan were chosen in coordi￾nation with the GOE national plan for CSCs during 2006 and 2014. In 2006, USAID selected Pi￾lot governorates representing the diverse Localities to work in two districts in the Governorates of: Beheira, Assiut and Qena. In 2014, USAID preferred to use the resources to complete one 39 small Governorate as a model for the GOE to implement, therefore Aswan was selected. See Annexes 3 and 4 for locations of Citizen Service Centers. o Leadership Training: The Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform has orga￾nized a cadre of some 80 relatively new and young employees working in different sectors within the Ministry who represent the potential up and coming leadership in government positions. To assist in the growth of these individuals the Ministry requested EPSP to provide capacity building for this group. Accordingly, the activity contracted AMIDEAST for English language training, Na￾tional Planning Institute for training on feasibility studies for public sector projects and the Cen￾ter for Development Services (CDS) in February 2016 to present a comprehensive 100-hour program to develop and enhance leadership and managerial skills within this group, and com￾puter skills training. Seventy of the participants completed all requirements of the training. The main objective of the training program is to enhance the soft skills and leadership traits of these employees in order to strengthen their capabilities, and improve productivity to help them to lead the activities of the Ministry in the future and contribute more effectively to the develop￾ment of Egypt. IV. Development Hypothesis For many years, Egypt has been governed under a highly centralized system where all local govern￾ment units operated as fiscal and administrative extensions of the central government. As a result, these units became more bureaucratic, lacking the financial resources as well as the political man￾date necessary to involve citizens in the decision-making process. To facilitate Egypt’s will to promote a decentralized model of governance, USAID in cooperation with the GOE established the EPSP project (EDI previously). The project’s overall objective is to offer technical assistance, training, and policy support to improve the effectiveness, transparency and accountability of local government to respond to citizen's priorities. The Effective Planning and Services Project support Egyptian-led efforts to decentralize Egypt’s government in line with provisions under Egypt’s constitution. As a result of this, having a responsive decentralized gov￾ernment, will eventually contribute to increased citizen participation as well as improved service delivery through effective and transparent resource management. Critical Assumptions - The bilateral relationship between the GOE and the USG remains positive and fully collaborative; - The GOE maintains trained employees and do not lose them to private sector; and - Funding/resources are available to implement planned activities. V. Relevant Documentation 40 The AOR, through USAID/Egypt’s Democracy and Governance Office, will provide relevant activity documents within 10 days of award of contract. These documents include: 1. Original agreement and amendments 2. Available quarterly and annual reports 3. Activity work plan 4. Activity monitoring and evaluation plan and results 5. EDI I and EDI II Final Reports 6. EPSP Gender Assessment and Gender Action Plan: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MKH5.pd In addition to the above list, the evaluator document review shall consider other sec￾ondary literature determined relevant by the evaluation team. VI. Evaluation Questions The evaluation will answer the following questions focusing on Capacity Building and Citizen Service Centers in Beheira and Aswan: Questions Suggested Data Sources (*) Suggested Data Collec￾tion Methods Data Analy￾sis Meth￾ods 1. To what extent are the participants and activity stakeholders satisfied with the services pro￾vided by the CSCs in the Aswan and Beheira gov￾ernorates? How did sat￾isfaction differ between men and women? If there were differences be￾tween men’s satisfaction and women’s satisfaction, what caused the differ￾ences? − Gender assessment and gender action plan. − Performance moni￾toring data. − Male and Female us￾ers of the citizen ser￾vice centers. − Desk review − Survey − Key informant in￾terviews. − Use desk review to determine to con￾ceptualize and define “satisfaction” as well as to determine key facets of the services provided by the CSCs. − Analyze results of survey, disaggregate results by sex, geog￾raphy and other im￾portant characteris￾tics. 41 Questions Suggested Data Sources (*) Suggested Data Collec￾tion Methods Data Analy￾sis Meth￾ods 2. How effective have the CSCs been with re￾gard to: i) creating more responsive gov￾ernments, ii) changing local communities’ atti￾tudes towards the gov￾ernment, iii) helping the public utilize the ser￾vices better, and iv) re￾ducing corruption? What factors contrib￾uted to success? What were the challenges? − Activity progress re￾ports. − Literature on subna￾tional government service delivery. − Public opinion sur￾veys on issues of corruption; activity participants and Min￾istry staff. − Desk review − Survey − Key informant interviews. − Analyze results of survey and key in￾formant interviews, and disaggregate re￾sults by geography and other important characteristics where needed. 3. How effective have the trainings been in im￾proving knowledge? Which trainings were more effective and why? Were there gender dif￾ferences in performance and/or knowledge as a result of participating in training sessions? − Staff delivering train￾ings − Employees (80): se￾lected for 100 hours of Leadership Train￾ing working in differ￾ent sectors within the Ministry. − Activity monitoring data including docu￾ments from trainings, with any pre- and post-assessments. − Desk review − Survey − Key informant in￾terviews. − Define and determine “effectiveness”. − Analyze results of survey and key in￾formant interviews, and disaggregate re￾sults by sex and ge￾ography and other important character￾istics where needed. VII. Evaluation Design and Methodology Evaluators will use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to an￾swer the questions of interest in this evaluation. All person-level data should be disaggregated by sex. Data Collection Methods: The evaluation team must develop data collection tools that are consistent with the evaluation questions to ensure high quality analysis. The evaluation team is required to share data collection 42 tools with the USAID Evaluation Program Manager for review, feedback and/or discussion with sufficient time for USAID’s review before they are applied in the field. The evaluation team must complete the review of all debriefing materials cited in the “Relevant Documentation” section prior to the team leader’s arrival in Egypt.” The evaluation team may also review additional re￾sources to the extent necessary to perform its work. The local evaluation team members must also complete the document review prior to the external evaluation team’s arrival. Data collection methods may include a combination of the following: • Desk review of relevant documentation: USAID/Egypt will provide the Evaluation Team with soft copies of the activity related documents before arrival to Cairo. All team mem￾bers shall review these documents in preparation for the initial team planning meeting. • Key informant interview– - sample size will be determined by the evaluation team; and • Group discussions with beneficiaries and other counterparts and stakeholders. • Case Studies to include success stories with the beneficiaries who received services from the Citizen Service Centers. Interviews and Site Visits: Fieldwork will take place in Cairo, Beheira and Aswan. Key Informant and Group Interviews will include, but may not be limited to: • USAID/Egypt Office of Democracy and Governance Activity Manager. • CSC staff from the three new centers and the two upgraded centers in the Governorate of Aswan; i.e., Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, Edfu and the Aswan Citizen Service Center. • MoPMAR staff. • Staff from Aswan Governorate. • CSC staff from the two centers upgraded in the Governorate of Beheira; i.e. Abu Hom￾ous and Shobra Kheet. • Beneficiaries: local citizens, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local business women and men. • Employees (80) selected for 100 hours of Leadership Training working in different sectors within the Ministry. The evaluation team must provide a more detailed explanation of the proposed methodology for collecting data. A list of interviewees and key stakeholders will be provided by USAID prior to the assignment’s inception. Data Analysis Plan: 43 Prior to the start date of data collection, the evaluation team must develop and present, for USAID/Egypt review and approval, a data analysis plan that details how focus groups and key in￾formant interviews will be transcribed and analyzed; what procedures will be used to analyze quali￾tative and quantitative data from key informant and other stakeholder interviews; and how the evaluation will weigh and integrate qualitative data from these sources with quantitative data from performance indicators and the activity performance monitoring records to reach conclusions about the effectiveness and efficiency of both activities; i.e., Expand and Upgrade Citizen Service Centers and Leadership Training. Data will be disaggregated by sex when applicable, to identify how the activity benefitted women. VIII. Evaluation Products A. Deliverables o USAID Team Planning Meeting: A team planning meeting must be held in Egypt at the outset of the evaluation. This meeting will allow USAID/Egypt to discuss the purpose, expectations, and agenda of the assignment with the Evaluation Team. In addition, the team will: - Finalize team members’ roles and responsibilities; - Review and make recommendations for improving the precision of evaluation questions; - Review and finalize the assignment timeline; - Present and discuss data collection methods, instruments, tools and guidelines; and - Review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment. o Work Plan: A well-written, detailed methodology and data analysis plan (evaluation design, data analysis steps and detail, operational work plan) must be prepared by the team and discussed with USAID during the planning meeting. An interview schedule will be submitted as part of the work plan. USAID will provide the evaluation team with an initial list of interviewees, from which the evaluation team can work to create a more comprehensive list. The evaluation team will construct an interview schedule that includes different stakeholders, and then share with USAID the updated lists of interviewees and schedules as meetings/interviews take place and informants are added to/deleted from the schedule. A final list must be sent to USAID within three working days after the USAID Team Planning Meeting. The evaluation team should submit the Work Plan and evaluation methodology to the Evaluation Manager for approval. o Evaluation Design: The evaluation team must submit to the Evaluation Manager an evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will in￾clude: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; (2) draft questionnaires and other data col￾lection instruments or their main features; (3) the list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include calculations and a justification of sample size, plans as to how the sampling frame will be developed, and the sam￾pling methodology); (4) known limitations to the evaluation design; and (5) a dissemination 44 plan. Data collection instruments will be shared with USAID’s Evaluation Program Manager for review, feedback and/or discussion and approval prior to start of fieldwork. o Final Exit Briefing: The evaluation team is expected to hold a final exit briefing prior to leaving the country to discuss the status of data collection and preliminary findings. This presentation will be scheduled as agreed upon during the Team Planning Meeting. This briefing is mainly for the DG Office and is to present preliminary findings, conclusions and emerging recommenda￾tions. o Final presentation: The evaluation team must present their final findings to USAID/Egypt within 15 business days after conducting the field visits. The Mission debriefing must include a discus￾sion of achievements and issues as well as recommendations for the future activities designs and implementation. The team must consider any USAID/Egypt comments and revise the draft report as appropriate. o Draft Report: The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX: Final Report Format. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers having a bearing on the objectives of the evalua￾tion. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with USAID. The team leader will submit a draft report of findings as per the attached timeline, conclusions and recommendations to QED/SIMPLE for review and comment. QED will submit the draft eval￾uation report to the USAID Evaluation Manager within 15 business day of the team leader’s de￾parture. The written report must clearly describe findings, conclusions and recommendations for future programming. The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, it must un￾dergo a peer review and the Mission will have 10 business days in which to review and com￾ment on the initial draft, after which point the Evaluation Manager will submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. o Final Report and data sets: The final report must be submitted within seven business days from receiving USAID’s comments. The final report must not exceed 30 pages in length (not includ￾ing appendices, lists of contacts, etc.). The format must include an executive summary, table of contents, glossary, methodology, findings, and conclusions. The report must be submitted initially in English, electronically, and later, an Arabic translation of the Executive Summary must be submitted within seven business days. All project data and records will be submitted in full and should be in electronic form in easily readable format, organized and doc￾umented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. At the time of submission, the final English language report, the survey instruments, interviews and data sets must be submitted on a flash drive to the evaluation program man￾ager. USAID/Egypt intends to disseminate the report within USAID and to stakeholders. All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must be provided in machine-readable, non- 45 proprietary formats as required by USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579). The anonymized data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the ac￾tivity or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed. o Debriefing with partners: A debriefing with partners will be take place after the evaluation team has submitted the final report. The Evaluation Team will present the major findings of the evaluation to the GOE project counterparts and other relevant stakeholders. IX. Evaluation Report Requirements FINAL REPORT FORMAT The evaluation final report should include an abstract; executive summary; background of the local context and the strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation purpose and main evaluation questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; find￾ings, conclusions, and recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evalua￾tion Reports” and ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit. The executive summary should be 6-8 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recom￾mendations and lessons learned (if applicable). The executive summary should also be translated to Arabic. The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evalua￾tion shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.) The annexes to the report shall include: • The Evaluation SOW; • All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; • All sources of information, properly identified and listed, including secondary literature re￾view; and • Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either at￾testing to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts. • Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by fun￾ders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team. • Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, ex￾perience, and role on the team. In accordance with ADS 201, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly avail￾able through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within three months of USAID formal 46 written approval of the final report (English only), executive summary (English and Arabic) and corresponding infographics (English and Arabic). Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation re￾port1 . • Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. • Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, dis￾tinctly, and succinctly. • The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate state￾ment of the most critical elements of the report. Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID • . • Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. • Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular at￾tention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). • Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. • Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. • If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. • If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. The final evaluation report must be submitted to USAID/Egypt’s Evaluation Program Manager in electronic format (Microsoft Word) as well as printed and bound copies (five copies in English and five in Arabic for the executive summary. The Arabic translation of the executive summary must be submitted to USAID within 7 working days after USAID formal written approval of the evaluation report. The entire report must be no longer than 30 pages, single- spaced in Times New Roman font, size 12 type font. The evaluation report is not to exceed the 30-page and will serve as the document of reference for creating an Infographics version (English and Arabic) of the evaluation report. All data and materials are to be surrendered to and will remain the prop￾erty of USAID. 1 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Re￾view Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. 47 X. Evaluation Management A. Logistics USAID will provide overall direction to the evaluation team, identify key documents, and assist in facilitating a work plan. USAID will assist in arranging meetings with key stakeholders identified by USAID prior to the initiation of field-work. The evaluation team is responsible for arranging other meetings as identified during the course of this evaluation and advising USAID/ Egypt prior to each of those meetings. The evaluation team is also responsible for arranging transportation as needed for site visits in and around Cairo and other governorates. USAID can assist with hotel arrangements if necessary but the evaluation team will be responsible for arranging its own work/office space, computers, internet access, printing, and photocopying. The evaluation team is also responsible for procuring and paying for translation services for interviews, reports and any other evaluation related task. Evaluation team members will be required to make their own lodging and travel payments. USAID personnel will be made available to the team for consultations regarding sources and technical issues, before and during the evaluation process. B. Scheduling Work is to be carried out over a period of approximately 16 weeks. Each week will be a 6- working day week. 1. Desk Review 2. Preparation for data collection tools 3. Team planning meeting with USAID including submission of the draft schedule of data col￾lection interviews, draft methodology, and data analyses plan 4. Submission of final methodology, final schedule of data collection interviews and data analysis plan 5. Conduct data gathering 6. Conduct compilation and analysis 7. Oral Debriefing session with USAID 8. Draft Report and Executive Summary in English 9. USAID will provide written comments to the evaluation team as the per the draft report peer review outcome. USAID reviews within 10 business days from draft report submis￾sion 10. Final Report in English 11. Executive Summary in Arabic 12. Infographic in English 13. Infographic in Arabic 48 C. Team Composition: The team shall include the following personnel and all efforts should be made for the team to be compromised of a balanced number of male and female members. Evaluation Team Leader: The team leader should be an international expert with extensive experience in leading evalua￾tion teams, and conducting monitoring and evaluation for Good Governance activities. Previous experience in conducting evaluations in the Middle East region is highly desirable. The team leader should have 10 years of experience in designing monitoring and evaluation systems, lead￾ing data collection teams, analyzing data and summarizing findings. Team members: 1) Senior Democracy and Local Governance Expert: The Evaluation Team shall include a local DG expert. It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the DG Expert: fluency in Arabic language; 8-10 years of past experience in monitoring and evaluation of DG development projects; extensive field experience in Egypt or the MENA region; strong writ￾ten and verbal communication skills. 2) Mid-level Monitoring and Evaluation Expert: The Evaluation Team shall include a local monitoring and evaluation expert. The following character￾istics must be reflected in the monitoring and evaluation expert in in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: fluency in Arabic and English language; 4-5 years past experi￾ence in monitoring and evaluation of Democracy and Governance development projects focusing on Local Governance; extensive field experience in Egypt; and strong written and verbal communi￾cation skills. 3) The Local Logistics Coordinator: A local consultant will serve as local logis￾tics coordinator. The person should be fluent in written and spoken Arabic. He/she will provide logistical, administrative, and clerical support to the team. He/she will have at least four years of experience in an administrative support role. XI. Estimated LOE Task/Deliverable Team Leader DG & Lo￾cal Gov￾ernance Expert M&E Local Expert Logistical Sup￾port Coordinator Travel to Egypt 2 days 0 0 0 49 Review background documents, draft work plan, methodology and data collection tools 5 days 5 days 5 days 0 Team Planning meeting and meeting with USAID/Egypt 2 days 2 days 2 days 0 Data collection. Includes interviews with key stake￾holders (stakeholders and USAID staff) and site visits 15 days 15 days 15 days 15 days Discussion, analysis, and draft evaluation report in country 7 days 7 days 7 days 0 Exit briefing with the DG Team and Debrief meeting with USAID and key stake￾holders (preliminary report due to USAID); and presentation to Mission 2 days 2 days 2 days 0 Depart Egypt/travel to US 1 day 0 0 0 USAID/Egypt provides consolidated comments on draft report 10 days 0 0 0 Team revises draft report and submits final to USAID 5 days 5 days 5 days 0 Translation of Executive Summary and Infographics 0 3 days 3 days Submission of final report to the USAID DEC 1 day 1 day 1 day Total estimated LOE 50 days 40 days 40 days 15 days 50 Annex 1 Results to Date: EPSP activity results crisscross Egypt’s layered governmental system and stakeholders. Project suc￾cess was achieved through technical assistance to line ministries, support for national and sub-national policy development and rollout and through the prioritization of citizen engagement. EPSP provided technical assistance for the Sustainable Development Strategy Egypt 2030 (SDS Egypt 2030), which was introduced to the public in 2016. Extensive outreach has resulted in more than 280,000 hits to-date on the USAID-supported SDS Web site and Facebook pages. The SDS Egypt 2030 is an important component of the Government policy statement through which the path for new reforms are set. The activity supported the development of the executive regulations of the 2016 Civil Service Law, which applies to approximately four million public sector employees. EPSP provided selected sup￾port to prepare the infrastructure for the new system, including design of an employee perfor￾mance appraisal system and technical assistance on the civil service examination process to be ad￾ministered by the Central Agency for Organization and Administration (CAOA). EPSP and the Ministry of State for Administrative Development (MSAD) developed three new Citi￾zen Service Centers and upgraded two existing centers in Aswan Governorate. These centers link the population to their local government while reducing opportunities for administrative corrup￾tion. Since opening in 2016, the new centers have processed nearly 7,700 citizen inquiries and ser￾vice requests. EPSP supported the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform to complete lead￾ership training for a cadre of 70 young employees working in different sectors within the Ministry. The training aimed to enhance their soft skills and leadership traits to help them lead the Ministry’s activities in the future and to contribute more effectively to the development of Egypt. 51 EPSP Results Framework 52 53 54 ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The end-of-term performance evaluation of EPSP focused on a) customer satisfaction with CSC ser￾vice delivery, b) the effectiveness of the EPSP-assisted interventions on Citizen Service Centers (CSCs) in Aswan and Beheira governorates and c) capacity-building activities in both CSCs as well as among young MoPMAR professionals as measured by outcomes and perceptions of participants and stakeholders. Evaluators used a mixed-methods approach to answer the evaluation questions follow￾ing the principles and guidelines for high quality evaluations outlined in the USAID Evaluation Policy (Updated October 2016) https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDEvaluation￾Policy.pdf Primary and secondary quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated to cross-validate findings, draw conclusions and develop short term and longer-term recommendations for future project de￾sign and implementation that are actionable, practical, specific and with a defined responsibility. By mixing both quantitative and qualitative results, the evaluation team gained a deeper understanding and corroboration of the subjects under study; offsetting weaknesses inherent in using either single approach. This use of mixed methods enabled triangulation through the use of several means (meth￾ods, data sources and evaluators) to examine the same subject under study from different vantage points, strengthening, thereby, the validity, reliability and integrity of the observed findings. A desk review of approximately 84 project-related documents preceded the design of the qualitative and quantitative tools for use in the field. In the course of site visits, a broad range of stakeholders, employees and trainees were surveyed and interviewed in either key informant interviews or in group discussions (n=411). The primary source of quantitative information about customer satisfaction and CSC effectiveness was based on the results of the Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey conducted at all seven of the tar￾geted CSCs. The response rate was 96%, equivalent to 187 interviewees conducted from a pool of 195 visitors. It is worthy to note that of the 8 CSC visitors not surveyed, a) only one declined being surveyed and b) the remaining 7 were not surveyed because they were requesting information or ap￾plication forms for services as opposed to processing service requests. A total of 75 service representatives from all seven CSCs were surveyed. Apart from participating in the CSC Staff Survey, CSC staff also joined in group discussions and key informant interviews. Two￾day site visits were conducted in all 7 of the EPSP-assisted CSCs. The evaluation team used a total of 12 qualitative data-collection tools and 2 survey instruments. Separate group discussions were conducted for CSC “front office”/customer service staff and government back office staff. The two evaluation field teams consisted of 1) one field team leader/democracy and governance specialist, 2) one monitoring and evaluation specialist, 3) one field coordinator, and 4) one enumerator). The evaluation team interviewed a total of 29 senior managers and governorate/district officials from Aswan and Beheira. In Cairo, the evaluation team interviewed 26 key informants from a) MoPMAR (5); b) the EPSP implementing partner AECOM International Development (3); c) officials from USAID/Egypt’s Office of Democracy and Governance (ODG) (3); d) training service providers from AMIDEAST, the Center for Development Services (CDS), the Institute of National Planning (INP), and the Egyptian Council for Training and Development (ECTD) (14); and e) the Web-based information system developer Engineering for Integrated Systems (EIS) (1). The data collection tools for the quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews and group discussions drew on a prior five-day desk review of USAID project-related documents conducted by the team leader/international consultant and key personnel/subject matter experts. A total of 3 survey and 12 key informant and group discussion protocols were used in the evaluation, including: 55 1. Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey 2. Citizen Service Center Staff Survey 3. Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reforms Trainee Survey 4. Key Informant Protocol for District Officials, 5. Key Informant Protocol for Community Leaders 6. Key Informant Protocol for Individual Trainers 7. Key Informant Protocol for Governor and Information System Manager 8. Key Informant Protocol for Citizen Service Center Staff 9. Key Informant Protocol for MOPMAR Project Related Personnel 10. Key Informant Protocol for USAID Office of Democracy and Governance and Program Office Personnel 11. Group Discussion Protocol for Training Service Providers 12. Group Discussion Protocol for Citizen Service Staff 13. Group Discussion Protocol for CSC Managers, 14. Group Discussion Protocol for AECOM Implementing Partner Team, 15. Group Discussion Protocol for MoPMAR Trainees of the Leadership and Management Skills Training Program Refer to Annex III for a copy of the quantitative and qualitative data collection tools used in the eval￾uation and Annex VIII for a bibliography of project-related documents consulted. 1. Quantitative Data The quantitative data collection included primary and secondary data sources. Primary quantitative data were gathered using the three survey tools described below: a. Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey: This questionnaire was designed and administered to measure citizens’ satisfaction levels toward CSC services and staff. This questionnaire aimed mainly to gather data in response to the first two evaluation questions, which related to a) citizens’ satisfaction and b) CSC effectiveness. The survey began with some questions to determine respondents’ demographic profile; e.g. gender, age, educational attainment. The subsequent questions varied among a) 5-Likert Scale-type questions to measure levels of satisfaction or agreement, b) yes or no questions, c) multiple-response ques￾tions, and d) open-ended questions for respondents to specify a non-predetermined response. At the end of the survey, an additional open-ended question allowed for citizens’ recommendations and opinions for improving CSCs in line with the objectives of the EPSP expansion and upgrading of CSCs. 56 b. Citizen Service Center Staff Survey: This questionnaire was designed and administered to measure staff members’ points of view on CSCs’ effectiveness and to measure the extent which the training programs they completed improved their knowledge and job performance. This questionnaire aimed mainly to answer evaluation questions 2 and 3. Similar to the Cus￾tomer Satisfaction Exit Survey, the questionnaire for staff started with questions to generalize the demographic profiles of CSC staff; e.g. gender, age, educational attainment, years em￾ployed in civil service. The subsequent questions varied among a) a 5-Likert Scale-type ques￾tions to measure levels of satisfaction or agreement, b) yes/no questions, c) multiple-response questions, and d) open-ended questions for respondents to specify a non-predetermined re￾sponse. A section about the training CSC staff completed inquiries about the types of the training received, the types of training that the respondent would like to receive in the future, and the sufficiency of the training for improving their job performance. c. Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reforms Trainee Survey: This questionnaire was designed and administered in order to measure the significance and effec￾tiveness of the three training programs received by MoPMAR employees related to leader￾ship, feasibility studies, and English language proficiency. Similar to the above two surveys, the survey began with questions related to respondents’ demographic profiles; e.g. gender, age, educational attainment. The rest of the questionnaire consisted of 5-Likert Scale-type ques￾tions to measure the level of agreement with statements on the effectiveness of the trainings, efficiency of trainers, and the extent that the training increased the respondents’ knowledge and for improving their job/career performance. The end of the survey provided respondents with an opportunity to suggest possible improvements to the training programs through an open-ended question. Secondary sources of quantitative data consisted of the following sources: a. AECOM Training Data: This data relates to trainees from MoPMAR as well as CSC staff, supervisors and system supervisors. Apart from documents from EPSP’s training service providers (CDS, INP, AMIDEAST, ECTD, and Social Planning, Analysis and Administration Consultants (SPAAC)), including inception reports, midterm reports, and/or final reports, the evaluation team also analyzed the pre- and post-test score results for all MoPMAR trainees across the three subject areas as reported by CDS, INP, and AMIDEAST in order to determine improvements on knowledge, skills and attitudes among the trainees as well as to account for gender-differentiated results. b. Citizen Service Center License and Permit Transaction Records: These represent a one-year record (covering the period of August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017) of transaction data related to all 16 services requested (including pending and completed) at each of the 5 CSCs evaluated in Aswan Governorate. This data were obtained from EIS, the company that devel￾oped and hosts the CSC central data warehouse. 2. Qualitative Data The fieldwork took place in Cairo, Aswan, and Beheira governorates. A purposive sampling method￾ology was followed for conducting key informant interviews (KIIs) and group discussions among the key stakeholders and beneficiaries of the EPSP interventions that are the subject of this evaluation. 57 The evaluators were well received in all of the service centers. In both Aswan and Beheira governorates, the team started their field visits by meeting the governorate secretary-general and/or the deputy secretary-general who supported the evaluation teams and introduced them to the CSC management and staff. The participants seemed eager to relate their experiences and points of view and freely responded to the team’s questions. The second major source of qualitative information was a series of KIIs in Cairo with MoPMAR offi￾cials; training service providers, individual trainers/instructors, and consultants involved in the capac￾ity-building for young MoPMAR professionals as well as the company that developed the CSC Web￾based information system and trained CSC staff to use it, i.e., Engineering for Integrated Systems (EIS). a. Key Informant Interviews The evaluation team conducted KIIs during two days in each of the seven CSCs studied in the evalua￾tion. In addition, the evaluation team conducted a series of KIIs in Cairo with MoPMAR personnel over a two-week period. The following respondents were interviewed: • USAID/Egypt ODG Activity Manager, Alternative Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR), and ODG Deputy Director • MoPMAR senior managers and supervisors of the Leadership and Management Training Pro￾gram • AECOM implementing partner staff • Aswan and Beheira governorate senior officials • CSC managers, supervisors, and customer service representatives • Aswan and Beheira governorate CSC customers (male and female customers and business owners) • Leadership and Management Skills Training Program service providers and individual instruc￾tors. b. Group Discussions: The evaluation team conducted group discussions during two days in each of the seven CSCs in￾cluded in the evaluation. In addition, the evaluation conducted one group discussion in Cairo with a group of MoPMAR trainees. Participants included: • Aswan and Beheira governorate officials • CSC managers, supervisors, and citizen service staff • Young professionals trained in the Leadership and Management Skills Training Program Data Analysis Methods As previously noted, by mixing both quantitative results and qualitative results, the evaluation pro￾vides a deeper understanding and corroboration of the subject, offsetting weaknesses inherent in us￾ing a single approach. This use of mixed methods enables triangulation using several means (methods, 58 data sources, and evaluators) to examine the same subject under study from different vantage points, thus strengthening the validity, reliability, and integrity of the observed findings. 1. Statistical Analysis Data from the quantitative surveys were coded and entered into a database file. The database file was extracted to an Excel sheet and imported to SPSS software to be analyzed. For the Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey and the CSC Staff Surveys, different descriptive analysis techniques (e.g., fre￾quency tables, cross tabulation/contingency tables, and graphical representations) were used and ap￾plied to measure CSC customers’ level of satisfaction, CEC customers’ and staff’s perspective to￾wards CSCs’ effectiveness, and the staff’s assessment of the training programs received. Data from the citizens’ survey was also used to construct a set of Customer Satisfaction Scorecards that provide a snapshot of customer satisfaction levels with CSC services disaggregated by locality and gender. Trainees’ average improvement related to the training was calculated using the pre- and post-tests results for each training program. The progress was analyzed by calculating the percent of change in the trainees’ performance as follows: Percent of change = 100*) Pre score Post score Pre score ( − . For these, percent of changes (the mean, median, minimum, and maximum values) were computed, aggregated and disaggregated by gender. Also, the mean, median, minimum, and maximum values for each test score were computed on all levels. Time-series frequency tables were provided to analyze CSC service delivery transaction times and to list the types of requested services for each of the five CSCs in Aswan Governorate as well as across CSCs in Aswan Governorate. No such data was available for the Beheira CSCs. 2. Content Analysis The evaluation team quantified the collected qualitative data by tabulating recurrent themes and ana￾lyzing them in what is referred to as “tally sheets.” The evaluation team systematically met after site visits to consolidate findings and confer on lessons learned while ensuring that the quality of the data met USAID standards. Content analysis of key stakeholder individual interviews and group discus￾sions provided insight into the interpretation of quantitative data by contextualizing reported survey findings. Beyond identifying lessons learned, this analysis also considered what actionable recommen￾dations could be proposed to establish best practices for future project designs. The qualitative data were coded and analyzed using Excel tally sheets. The contacts included approximately 411 consulta￾tions, through 22 group discussions and 32 KIIs and 267 persons surveyed. LIMITATIONS Due to a lack of MoPMAR senior official approvals, the 73 graduates of the MoPMAR Leadership and Management Skills Training Program were not surveyed. In an effort to offset the loss of primary quantitative data, the evaluation team interviewed 14 trainers from the MoPMAR training program to better understand the effectiveness of training on improved job performance. This information supplemented the information gathered from two key informant interviews with supervisors and one five-trainee group discussion with graduates of the training program. In addition, training service provider pre- and post-test scores were analyzed to further inform the evaluation’s findings. 59 As no pre and post-test scores were available for evaluating the improved knowledge of CSC train￾ees, the evaluation’s findings rely on CSC service representatives’ perceptions capture in group dis￾cussions and the CSC Staff Survey as opposed to a more objectively verifiable indicator of improved knowledge/skills. Although Aswan Web-based transaction data was available for analyses of completing service requests for the timeframe of August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, historical data from the governorate stand-alone information systems, representing from seven to nine years of transactions data for four of the seven EPSP-assisted CSCs were not yet available for analysis. It is important to note that stand alone information systems (non-Web-based) were installed in the Nasr El-Nuba, Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet CSCs effective 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. Web-based systems were installed in all five EPSP-assisted CSCs in Aswan Governorate in August 2016 followed by pilot installations of Web-based systems in the two EPSP-assisted CSCs in Beheira Governorate in August 2017. In an effort to compare current performance with historical performance, the evaluation team reviewed paper-based records. The evaluation team concluded that the limited information was of little use given the failure to record the dates associated with the date of application and the completion date of services. The Web-based information system was being installed and tested in the Beheira Governorate CSCs at the time of the field visit. Consequently, the Beheira Governorate CSCs’ “front office” staff had limited availability to engage with the evaluation team due to a) ongoing information system testing, b) concluding CSC facility renovations and c) CSC staff attending customer service skills training. Ac￾cordingly, much of the focus of governorate and district staff was on the visit of dignitaries and Minis￾ters from Cairo, thereby, limiting the time and attention they gave to the evaluation process. CSC customer traffic in 1) Nasr El-Nuba, 2) Daraw, 3) Dewan and 4) Shobra Kheet was lower than anticipated requiring, thereby, that the original sampling plan of the technical proposal be dropped. In an effort to offset the low visitation traffic, each customer who would voluntarily participate in the Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey was interviewed without regard for categorization by customer type so as to ensure that a representative size sample would be collected. In addition, in order to compensate for low traffic volumes, the evaluation team extended the duration of site visits from two to three days in the four aforementioned service centers. No objectively verifiable data was available for analysis on the response rate or time transpired for CSCs to effectively address customer suggestions and/or complaints. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions contained herein are based solely on customer perceptions captured in the CSC Cus￾tomer Satisfaction Exit Survey. 60 ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Following is the full text (translated into English) of the surveys, interview protocols, and discussion protocols used by the evaluation team during data collection. Below the question numbers, parenthe￾tical notations such as (1a), (2a), etc., refer to the relevant Evaluation Question (EQ) from USAID’s Statement of Work. Those EQs were: (1a) To what extent are the participants and activity stakeholders satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs in Aswan and Beheira governorates? (1b) How did satisfaction differ between men and women? (1c) If there were differences between men’s satisfaction and women’s satisfaction, what caused the differences? (2a) How effective have the CSCs been with regard to creating more responsive governments? (2b) How effective have the CSCs been with regard to changing local communities’ attitudes towards the government? (2c) How effective have the CSCs been with regard to helping the public utilize the services better? (2d) How effective have the CSCs been with regard to reducing corruption? (2e) What factors contributed to success? (2f) What were the challenges? (3a) How effective have the trainings been in improving knowledge? (3b) Which trainings were more effective and why? (3c) Were there gender differences in performance and/or knowledge as a result of participating in training sessions? 1. Citizen Satisfaction Survey Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs, and b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effective and more responsible local government responsive to community needs. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys in five CSCs in Aswan (Aswan City Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet) governorates. In addition, the evaluation teams will interview project related governorate and district officials, com￾munity leaders, citizen users of CSC services, project-related officials in the Ministry of Planning, Mon￾itoring and Administrative Reform, training service providers as well as the AECOM project team. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. 61 Interviewer Data Quality Reviewer Data Entry Name Date ___ Aug 17 ___ Aug 17 ___ Aug 17 CSC Name: ______________________________ CSC Location: ____________________________ Questionnaire ID: __________________________ # Question Answer Notes 1 Age (Years Completed) 2 Gender Male (1) Female (2) 3 Formal Educational Attain￾ment Illiterate (1) Can read and write (2) Primary Education (3) Preparatory/Secondary Education (4) Intermediate Education (5) Above Intermediate Education (6) University Education (7) Above University Education (8) Other (Specify: ……………….) (9) 4 How did you learn about CSC services? My family (1) Work colleagues (2) Community Leaders (3) Newspaper (4) Radio / TV Announcements (5) Other (Specify: …………..) (6) 5 Private citizen related service (1) Business related service for self (2) 62 What type of service have you requested/ applied for today? Business related service for em￾ployer (NGO/Private Sector Firm) (3) 6 Specify service(s) re￾quested for today. 6a (1a) (2c) How would you qualify the service you received to￾day? Very Satisfactory (1) Satisfactory (2) Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatis￾factory (3) Unsatisfactory (4) Very Unsatisfactory (5) 7 (2c) (2d) Specify up to 6 services for which you have completed your request from your community CSC. Specify the name of each service completed, the ap￾proximate amount of time transpired (expressed in hours or days) to be com￾pleted, and its total cost (including any solicited or offered “facilitation” fees). Also, list similar service time and costs incurred for services prior to the CSC model, Specify “NA” if the re￾spondent has not re￾quested/received similar services prior to the CSC model in his/her commu￾nity. Service Name Current CSC Prior to CSC Time Cost Time Cost a. b. c. d. e. f. 8 (1a) How would you characterize the location of the CSC in your community? Very Convenient (1) Somewhat Convenient (2) Neither Convenient nor Incon￾venient (3) Somewhat Inconvenient (4) Very Inconvenient (5) 63 9 (1a) How would you characterize the cost of services provided by the CSC in your commu￾nity? Very Reasonable (1) Reasonable (2) Neither Reasonable nor Unrea￾sonable (3) Unreasonable (4) Very Unreasonable (5) 10 (1a) (2b) In your experience, do the CSC staff deliver the re￾quested services within the prescribed timeframe? Yes (1) Skip to Q11 No (2) 10a If the answer is “No”, provide an explanation as to why. 11 (1a) How would you characterize the CSC waiting area? Very Satisfactory (1) Satisfactory (2) Neither Satisfactory nor Unsat￾isfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (4) Very Unsatisfactory (5) 12 (1a) (2c) To what extent is the CSC facility equipped to comforta￾bly accommodate the elderly and persons with disabilities (e.g. ramp, special service window, public bathroom fa￾cility access, et.al.)? Very Satisfactory (1) Satisfactory (2) Neither Satisfactory nor Unsat￾isfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (4) Very Unsatisfactory (5) Don’t Know / Not Applicable (98) 13 (2c) In your experience, does the CSC provide ade￾quate instructions on what steps should be fol￾lowed for applying for a service? Yes (1) No (2) Skip to Q15 14 (2c) If yes, how would you qualify the instruction or guidance provided by the CSC staff? Very Satisfactory (1) Satisfactory (2) Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfac￾tory (3) Unsatisfactory (4) 64 Very Unsatisfactory (5) 15 (2b) How satisfied are you with the CSC operating hours? Very Satisfactory (1) Satisfactory (2) Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfac￾tory (3) Unsatisfactory (4) Very Unsatisfactory (5) 16 (2d) (2b) How satisfied are you with the CSC staff’s avail￾ability to attend your ser￾vice request? Very Satisfactory (1) Satisfactory (2) Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfac￾tory (3) Unsatisfactory (4) Very Unsatisfactory (5) 17 (2d) (2b) The cost you pay for having your service at￾tended to in a timely manner include: (Multiple Choices is allowed) Service Fees (1) Transportation Costs (2) Other (Specify: ……….) (3) 18 Have you ever used the CSC suggestion and complaint system? Yes No (1) (2) Skip to Q20 19 (2a) If yes, to what extent are you satisfied with the amount of time that the CSC takes to respond to your suggestion or com￾plaint? Very Satisfactory (1) Satisfactory (2) Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfac￾tory (3) Unsatisfactory (4) Very Unsatisfactory (5) 20 Yes (1) 65 Have you ever requested a service from the CSC by telephone? No (2) Skip to Q21 20a (1a) (2b) (2c) If yes, how satisfied were you with processing your service request by tele￾phone? Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfac￾tory Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 21 (2b) Have you ever accessed the CSC Web site for processing your service request? Yes No (1) (2) Skip to Q22 21a (1a) (2a) (2b) (2c) If yes, how would you qualify your experience with processing your service request on the CSC Web site? Very Satisfactory (1) Satisfactory (2) Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfac￾tory (3) Unsatisfactory (4) Very Unsatisfactory (5) 22 (2b) (2d) To what extent are you satisfied with the CSC process for reducing corruption? Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfac￾tory Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 23 (1a) (2b) To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “This CSC is a successful model and it should be replicated in other dis￾tricts” Totally Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Totally Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 24 Would you advise other people (family, friends, Yes (1) 66 Thank you for your valued contributions. (2b) (1a) associates, etc.) to go to the CSC to process their government services? Maybe No (2) (3) 25 Do you have any recom￾mendations on how to improve the services that the CSC provides? Yes (1) No (2) Skip to Q26 25a If yes, please explain or provide examples. 26 (1a) (2d) If you are a business owner, how satisfied are you with the CSC for processing permits and licenses. Very Satisfactory (1) Satisfactory (2) Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (4) Very Unsatisfactory (5) Not Applicable (98) End the survey 27 (1a) Has the CSC impacted your business favorably? Yes (1) No (2) 27a Explain why? 67 2. Citizen Service Center Staff Survey Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team contracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activ￾ities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs, and b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effective and more responsible local government responsive to com￾munity needs. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys in five CSCs in Aswan (Aswan City Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet) governorates. In addition, the evaluation teams will interview project related governorate and district officials, community leaders, citizen users of CSC services, project-related officials in the Ministry of Plan￾ning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform, training service providers as well as the AECOM project team. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclu￾sions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. Interviewer Data Quality Reviewer Data Entry Name Date ___ Aug 17 ___ Aug 17 ___ Aug 17 The CSC Name: ……….……………..…. The CSC Location: ………….………….. Questionnaire ID: ..…………………….. # Question Answer Notes 1 Age (Years Completed) 2 Gender Male (1) 68 Female (2) 3 Educational Attainment Intermediate Education (1) Above Intermediate Education (2) University Education (3) Above University Education (4) Other (Specify: ……….) (5) 4 Indicate your current po￾sition in the CSC 5 Do you have a clear job description? Yes (1) No (2) Don’t Know (3) 6 How long have you been working in the center? (…..…..) years 7 Are you familiar with all the services provided by this center? Yes (1) No (2) 8 Is your work space appro￾priate (e.g., adequate space, sufficiently venti￾lated, clean bathroom fa￾cilities, … etc.)? Yes (1) No (2) To some extent (3) 9 (2a) In your opinion, is the number of staff members sufficient to accomplish most or all daily re￾quested services? Yes (1) No (2) To some extent (3) 10 (2a) (2c) Do you have the appro￾priate equipment (e.g. computers, printers, scan￾ners, … etc.) to enable you to accomplish your work assignments? Yes (1) No (2) Skip to Q12 To some extent (3) 11 (2a) (2c) Would you qualify this equipment as efficient? Yes (1) No (2) To some extent (3) 12 (2a) (2b) (2c) Do you use technological tools (e.g. e-mails – Web sites – mobile phone ap￾plications – …. etc.) to provide services to citi￾zens? Yes (1) No (2) Sometimes (3) Not Available (4) 13 (2a) What recommendations would you provide for im￾proving the current sys￾tem for citizens’ sugges￾tions/complaints regarding the CSC services? 69 14 Do you participate in pro￾cessing customer sugges￾tions/ complaints regard￾ing the CSC services? Yes Sometimes (1) (2) No (3) Skip to Q17 15 (2a) (2d) How long does it usually take to respond to a com￾plaint? (…..…) days 16 (2a) (2b) How do you usually con￾tact the citizen to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint? (Multiple Choices are allowed) Sending letter via mail (1) Sending an e-mail (2) Calling him/her over the phone (3) Sending a text message over the phone (4) We ask him/her to come back after a specific period (5) Other (Specify: ……) (6) 17 (2b) In your opinion, have the CSCs succeeded in chang￾ing citizens’ willingness to use governmental services (i.e. attitudes toward the government)? Yes (1) No (2) To Some Extent (3) Can’t Determine (4) 18 (2b) (2d) Do you believe that the CSC model minimizes op￾portunities for corrup￾tion? Yes (1) No (2) To some extent (3) 19 (2b) To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “The CSC model is success￾ful and it should be repli￾cated in other different dis￾tricts” Totally Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Totally Disagree (5) 20 Have you received on-the￾job training at the CSC? Yes (1) No (2) Skip to Q27 21 (3a) If yes, how many training courses have you re￾ceived? Please list up to six courses. Number of training courses: (……….) Title of these training courses: a) …………………………………… …… b) ……………..…………………… ….… c) …………………………………… …… 70 d) …………………………………… …… e) …………………………………… …… f) ……………………………………. ...... 22 (3b) Which of the above-men￾tioned courses do you consider the most effec￾tive for you? Why? Course Name Reason 23 (3a) Do you believe that the training courses received are sufficient for you? Yes (1) No (2) To some extent (3) 24 (3a) Do you think you would like to take additional training courses to im￾prove your job perfor￾mance? Yes (1) No (2) Skip to Q26 25 (3a) If yes, specify what courses you would like to take. 26 (3a) Have the training courses received to date im￾proved your job perfor￾mance? Yes (1) No (2) To some extent (3) 27 (3a) Is a routine training needs assessment conducted to identify targeted training courses? Yes, on a regular basis (1) Yes, but not on a regular basis (2) No (3) Don’t Know (4) The Following Questions are Addressed to the Managers or Supervisors ONLY 28 (3a) Do you conduct a regular training needs assessment for your employ￾ees? If yes, specify how frequently. Yes, on a regular basis (1) Yes, but not on a reg￾ular basis (2) No (3) 29 (3a) Is there an annual professional train￾ing plan to improve the CSC staff ca￾pabilities and job performance? Yes (1) No (2) Don’t Know (3) Thank you for your valued contributions 71 3. Ministry of Planning, Monitoring, and Administrative Reform Trainee Survey Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team contracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of select activities of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will conduct key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys of the EPSP a) sub-contractors (AMIDEAST, the Center for Development Services, and the Institute of National Planning) that provided leadership and management skills training, b) the Ministry of Plan￾ning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) and Citizen Service Center (CSC) project￾related personnel who supervise trainees, c) as well as MoPMAR and CSC staff that successfully completed the training programs. The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate the training activities and the degree to which the EPSP training programs have improved knowledge and skills resulting in improved performance in the workplace. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. Interviewer Data Quality Reviewer Data Entry Name Date ___ Aug 17 ___ Aug 17 ___ Aug 17 Questionnaire ID: …………………. # Question Answer Notes 1 Age (Years Completed) 2 Gender Male (1) Female (2) 3 Educational Attainment University Graduate (1) MSc Holder (2) PhD Holder (3) 72 Other (Specify: ………………….) (4) 4 Job Title 5 How long have you been working at the Ministry? Less than one year (1) One – less than three years (2) Three – less than five years (3) Five – less than ten years (4) Ten years or more (5) 6 Do you have a clear job descrip￾tion? Yes (1) No (2) Don’t Know (3) 7 How regularly do you receive a performance appraisal? Annually (1) Every 6 months (2) Every 3 months (3) Monthly (4) Never (5) Other (Specify: ……………….) (6) 8 Have you dropped out from any of the Ministry-EPSP-related training workshops in which you registered? Yes (1) No (2) Skip to Q11 9 If yes, how many workshops have you attended before dropping? 10 Please list all the workshops that you have received before dropping. 73 11 Which of the Ministry-EPSP-related training workshops that you have received were the most relevant for performing your job at the Min￾istry? 12 How were you selected to join the training program? Nominated by my direct supervi￾sor (1) Nominated by a higher-level manager (2) Nominated by the EPSP project (3) Other (Specify: ……………) (4) English Language Training Program by AMIDEAST Please respond to the following statements by putting the mark (√) in front of the level of agree￾ment reflecting your opinion. Note: If you have dropped this program, please insert “N/A” in the column entitled “Notes” Statement Totally Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Totally Disagree (5) Notes 13 The training program was based on our needs 14 The trainers treated all partici￾pants equally during the work￾shop 15 The training program helped me to improve my English lan￾guage skills 16 The training program helped me to more effectively com￾municate as a result of im￾proved language skills 17 The training program helped me to improve my job career 18 The Ministry provided equal training opportunities for both men and women Feasibility Study Training Program Conducted by INP Please respond to the following statements by putting the mark (√) in front of the level of agree￾ment reflecting your opinion. Note: If you have dropped this program, please insert “N/A” in the column entitled “Notes” Statement Totally Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Totally Disagree (5) Notes 74 19 The training program was based on our needs 20 The trainers treated all partici￾pants equally during the work￾shops 21 The training program helped me improve my work skills 22 The training program helped me to better plan my work 23 The training program helped me improve my job career 24 I am now capable of preparing and assessing a feasibility study 25 The Ministry provided equal training opportunities for both men and women Leadership Skills Training Program provided by CDS Please respond to the following statements by putting the mark (√) in front of the level of agree￾ment reflecting your opinion. Note: If you have dropped this program, please insert “N/A” in the column entitled “Notes” Statement Totally Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Totally Disagree (5) Notes 26 The training program was based on our needs 27 The trainers treated all partici￾pants equally during the work￾shops 28 The training program helped me to improve my leadership skills 29 The soft skills training (leader￾ship, time management, com￾munication, negotiation) has helped me to perform my Job more effectively. 30 The training program helped me to improve my job career 31 The Ministry provided equal training opportunities for both men and women 75 32) Do you have any comment / suggestion regarding improving the training programs? (1) Yes (Specify: …………………………………………………………………… ………..…………………………………………………………. ………..…………………………………………………………. ………..………………………………………………………….) (2) No Thank you for your valued contributions 76 4. Key Informant Interview Protocol for District Officials Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs, and b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effective and more responsible local government responsive to community needs. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys in five CSCs in Aswan (Aswan City Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet) governorates. In addition, the evaluation teams will interview project related governorate and district officials, community leaders, citizen users of CSC services, project-related officials in the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform, training service providers as well as the AECOM project team. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. Satisfaction: 1. In what way have you been involved in the EPSP Project? What was your role in CSC imple￾mentation and in the current management process? 2. Have the current CSC services improved as a result of the EPSP Project intervention? Ex￾plain. Can you provide examples? (1a) 3. Generally speaking, would you qualify citizens in your district as satisfied or dissatisfied with CSC’s services? Explain why? Can you provide examples? (1a) 4. Have you observed differences between men and women in their respective levels of satisfac￾tion with CSC services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (1b, 1c) Effectiveness of CSCs 5. Do you believe that the EPSP CSC model makes the government more responsive to the community’s needs? Explain. (2a) 6. Do you believe that the CSC staff are effective in helping citizens to use its services better? Explain. (2b) 7. Do you believe that the CSC model has changed community’s attitude towards the govern￾ment? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2b, 2c) 8. Do you believe that the CSC model decreases the opportunity for corruption? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2d) 77 9. Do you believe that there are additional opportunities for the CSC model to further decrease corruption? Explain. Can you provide examples or recommendations? (2d) 10.What factors have favorably or unfavorably impacted the implementation of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2e) 11.What are the major challenges facing CSC continuing operations and/or expanding services? Can you provide recommendations to overcome these challenges? (2f) 12.What are some key recommendations that you would make to improve service delivery and CSC sustainability? (2f) Training 13. How would you qualify the performance of the CSC staff as a result of the training? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 78 5. Key Informant Interview Protocol for Community Leaders Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs, and b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effective and more responsible local government responsive to community needs. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys in five CSCs in Aswan (Aswan City Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet) governorates. In addition, the evaluation teams will interview project related governorate and district officials, com￾munity leaders, citizen users of CSC services, project-related officials in the Ministry of Planning, Mon￾itoring and Administrative Reform, training service providers as well as the AECOM project team. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. 1. When and how did you first learn about the Citizen Service Center? 2. Did you participate in the implementation of any CSC-related activities; e.g., community dia￾logue, public awareness raising, planning, other)? Explain. Can you provide examples? 3. Have you used the services of the CSC? In the affirmative, what services have you used? If you have used CSC services, are you satisfied with the CSC’s overall performance? Explain. Can you give examples? (1a) 4. Have you observed differences between men and women in their respective levels of satisfac￾tion with CSC services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (1b, 1c) 5. In your view, does the CSC model represent a more responsive government toward the community? (2a) 6. Do you believe that the CSC model has changed the attitude of the community about government? Explain. Can you provide example? (2b) 7. Do you believe that the CSC model decreases the opportunity for corruption or abuse? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2d) 79 8. Do you believe that there are additional opportunities for the CSC model to further de￾crease corruption or abuse? Explain. Can you provide examples or recommendations? (2d) 9. Do you believe that the CSC model has successfully changed the ease of establishing a new business and/or for maintaining an existing business? (e.g., license/permit approvals, reduced cost, reduced time, fewer transactions/requirements to complete the approvals process?) Explain. Can you provide examples? (2a) 10. What factors have favorably or unfavorably influenced the implementation of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2e) 11. What are the major challenges still facing CSC for continuing operations and/or for ex￾panding services? Can you provide recommendations? (2f) 12. What are some key recommendations that you would make to improve service delivery and CSC sustainability? (2f) 13. Can you provide an example success story, lesson learned, challenge or outcome (in￾tended or unintended consequence) of how the CSC model may have impacted the com￾munity’s quality of life and/or level of engagement with the local municipal government? 80 6. Key Informant Interview Protocol for Individual Trainers Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of select activities of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will conduct key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys of the EPSP a) sub-contractors (AMIDEAST, the Center for Development Services, and the Institute of National Planning) that provided leadership and management skills training, b) the Ministry of Planning, Moni￾toring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) and Citizen Service Center (CSC) project-related per￾sonnel w supervise trainees, c) as well as MoPMAR and CSC staff that successfully completed the training programs. The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate the training activities and the degree to which the EPSP training programs have improved knowledge and skills resulting in improved performance in the workplace. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. 1. What were the training components for which you provided instruction? (3a) 2. How was the methodology/content identified? (3a) 3. Given your experience as a trainer, to what extent do you think the subject matter was rele￾vant to the participants’ needs? (3a) 4. Do you believe that the trainees were sufficiently qualified for participation in the training program? (3a, 3c) 5. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of CSC staff? Explain? (3b, 3c) 6. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of MoPMAR young professionals? Explain? (3b, 3c) 7. Did you observe significant differences in learning between men and women in the training program? In the affirmative, can you provide material evidence to support your observation; e.g., pre-post test score comparisons on gender-differentiated results? (3a, 3b) 8. Following the completion of the training program, was an after-action review conducted? In the affirmative, what were some of the most salient findings, conclusions and recommenda￾tions of the review? (3a) 9. Given lessons learned, what are some key recommendations that you would offer to improve a future training programs for MoPMAR and CSC personnel? (3f) 81 7. Key Informant Interview Protocol for the Governor and Information Center Manager Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are satisfied with the services provided by the CSCs, and b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effective and more responsible local government responsive to community needs. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys in five CSCs in Aswan (Aswan City Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet) governorates. In addition, the evaluation teams will interview project related governorate and district officials, com￾munity leaders, citizen users of CSC services, project-related officials in the Ministry of Planning, Mon￾itoring and Administrative Reform, training service providers as well as the AECOM project team. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. Senior Governorate Officials 1. Describe your role, if any, in the design and delivery of EPSP training activities and/or CSC service delivery? Note: If the interviewee was not involved in the CSC development, the training section will be skipped. Satisfaction 1. To what extent are you satisfied with the Web-enabled CSC service delivery? Explain. (1a) 2. Please explain your role in and the purpose of the weekly citizen meetings? 3. Is there a computer-based citizen suggestion and grievance system in your community? In the affirmative, describe the process and timeline for responding to citizen suggestions/com￾plaints. (1a, 1b) 4. Have you observed difference in the level of satisfaction between men and women and citi￾zens regarding CSCs services? (1c) Effectiveness of Citizen Service Centers 5. How have the CSC services improved as compared to service delivery under the former ser￾vice delivery system? Explain. Can you provide examples? (1a) 6. How would you rate overall citizen satisfaction with CSC service delivery? Explain. Can you provide examples? (1a) 82 7. Do you believe that the CSC model demonstrates improved government responsiveness to the community? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2a) 8. Do you believe that the community has changed its attitude towards government as a result of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2b) 9. How effective has the CSC been in helping the public to better utilize government services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2b, 2c) 10. To what extent are you satisfied that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corruption? (2d) 11. Do you believe that there are additional opportunities for the CSC model to further decrease corruption? Explain. Can you provide examples or recommendations? (2d) 12. What factors have favorably or unfavorably impacted the implementation of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2e) 13. What are the major challenges still facing CSC continuing operations and/or expanding services? Can you provide recommendations to mitigate risks, constraints and/or challenges that may be qualified as “mission critical”? (2f) Effectiveness of Training 14. How were CSC staff training needs identified? 15. Would you qualify the training of CSC staff as effective? In the affirmative, to what extent do you believe that improved CSC staff knowledge and skills are improving both job performance and citizen satisfaction? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 16. Have you observed significant differences in overall performance between men and women in the workplace that may be directly attributable to training? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 17. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of CSC staff? Explain? (3b, 3c) 83 8. Key Informant Interview Protocol for Citizen Service Center Staff Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are sat￾isfied with the services provided by the CSCs, and b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effective and more responsible local government responsive to community needs. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys in five CSCs in Aswan (Aswan City Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet) governorates. In addition, the evaluation teams will interview project related governorate and district officials, com￾munity leaders, citizen users of CSC services, project-related officials in the Ministry of Planning, Mon￾itoring and Administrative Reform, training service providers as well as the AECOM project team. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. Effectiveness of CSC Service Delivery 1. How long time you’ve been employed at the CSC? (2e) 2. Do you have previous job experience related to your current position at the CSC? (2e) 3. Did you receive any training or orientation prior to starting work at the CSC? (2e) 4. Do you have a clear job description? Is it relevant to the tasks that you actually perform? (2e) 5. Is your job performance routinely evaluated? In the affirmative, how often are you evaluated in a given year? (2e) 6. How frequently do you meet with your immediate supervisor? (2e) 7. How frequently do you meet with CSC senior management? (2e) 8. Does management consider your recommendations for improving CSC service delivery? (2e) 9. What protocols are in place to ensure the CSC effectively delivers services to your commu￾nity in terms of quality, time and cost? (2c) 10. Do you believe that the CSC model demonstrates improved government responsiveness to the community? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2a) 11. Do you believe that the community has changed its attitude towards government as a result of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2b) 84 12. How effective has the CSC been in helping the public to better utilize government services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2c) 13. To what extent are you satisfied that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corruption? (2d) 14. Do you believe that there are additional opportunities for the CSC model to further de￾crease corruption? Explain. Can you provide examples or recommendations? (2d) 15. Are there specific services used more by women than men? If yes, what are those? 16. What factors have favorably or unfavorably impacted the implementation of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2e) 17. What are the major challenges still facing CSC continuing operations and/or expanding ser￾vices? Can you provide recommendations to mitigate risks, constraints and/or challenges that may be qualified as “mission critical”? (2f) Effectiveness of CSC Staff Training 18. Did you actively participate in identifying CSC staff training needs? (3a) 19. Would you qualify the training of CSC staff as effective? In the affirmative, to what extent do you believe that improved CSC staff knowledge and skills are improving both job perfor￾mance and citizen satisfaction? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 20. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of CSC co-workers. Explain. (3b, 3c) 21. Given lessons learned, what are some key recommendations that you would offer to improve a future CSC staff training programs? (3f) 85 9. Key Informant Interview Protocol for MoPMAR Project-Related Personnel Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are sat￾isfied with the services provided by the CSCs, b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effec￾tive and more responsible local government responsive to community needs and c) the degree to which the EPSP training programs have improved knowledge and skills of trainees resulting in im￾proved performance in the workplace. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys with a) governorate and district officials b) EPSP-supported CSCs in Aswan and Beheira, c) community leaders, business associations and citizen users of CSC services d) sub-contractors that provided leadership and management skills training, e) MoPMAR and CSC staff that successfully completed the training programs and d) MoPMAR/CSC supervisors of staff trained. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. 1. Describe in what capacity you have been involved in the design and/or implementation of the EPSP Project? 2. Do you believe that you are well informed about EPSP, especially CSC service delivery? Note: If the interviewee was not involved in the CSC development, the Satisfaction Section will be skipped. The same applies to the training of the CSC staff. Satisfaction 3. To what extent are you satisfied with CSC service delivery? (1a) 4. To what extent do you believe that citizens are satisfied with the CSCs service delivery? What is the basis of your observation? (1a) 5. Have you observed a difference in the level of satisfaction between women and men citizens with CSCs services? In the affirmative, please explain. Can you provide examples? (1b, 1c) 6. Are there specific services used more by women than men? If yes, what are those? Effectiveness of Citizen Service Center Service Delivery 7. Do you believe that the CSC model demonstrates improved government responsiveness to the community? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2a) 8. Do you believe that the community has changed its attitude towards government as a result of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2b) 86 9. How effective has the CSC been in helping the public to better utilize government services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2c) 10. To what extent are you satisfied that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corruption? (2d) 11. Do you believe that there are additional opportunities for the CSC model to further de￾crease corruption? Explain. Can you provide examples or recommendations? (2d) 12. Have any cases of corruption in the CSCs been reported since the implementation of the EPSP project in 2012? In the affirmative, provide details of the corruption charges and the outcome of any subsequent investigations. (2d) 13. What factors have favorably or unfavorably impacted the implementation of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2e) 14. What are the major challenges still facing CSC continuing operations and/or expanding ser￾vices? Can you provide recommendations to mitigate risks, constraints and/or challenges that may be qualified as “mission critical”? (2f) Effectiveness of CSC Staff Training 15. How were CSC staff training needs identified? 16. Would you qualify the training of CSC staff as effective? In the affirmative, to what extent do you believe that improved CSC staff knowledge and skills are improving both job perfor￾mance and citizen satisfaction? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 17. Have you observed significant differences in overall performance between men and women in the workplace that may be directly attributable to training? Explain. Can you provide exam￾ples? (3a) 18. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of CSC staff. Explain. (3b, 3c) 19. Effectiveness of Training for MoPMAR Young Professionals 20. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of MoPMAR young professionals? Explain? (3b, 3c) 21. Do you believe that the trainings in English language proficiency, leadership and management skills training, and conducting project feasibility studies each achieved their intended objec￾tives? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 22. Given lessons learned, what are some key recommendations that you would offer to improve a future Leadership and Management Skills Training Program? (3f) 87 10.Key Informant Interview Protocol for the USAID Office of Democracy and Govern￾ance and Program Office Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are sat￾isfied with the services provided by the CSCs, b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effec￾tive and more responsible local government responsive to community needs and c) the degree to which the EPSP training programs have improved knowledge and skills of trainees resulting in im￾proved performance in the workplace. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys with a) governorate and district officials b) EPSP-supported CSCs in Aswan and Beheira, c) community leaders, business associations and citizen users of CSC services d) sub-contractors that provided leadership and management skills training, e) MoPMAR and CSC staff that successfully completed the training programs and d) MoPMAR/CSC supervisors of staff trained. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. 1. To what extent are you satisfied with the overall performance of the EPSP Project? (1a) Effectiveness of Citizen Service Center Service Delivery 2. How effective has the CSC been in helping the public to better utilize government services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2c) 3. Do you believe that the CSC model demonstrates improved government responsiveness to the community? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2a) 4. Do you believe that the community has changed its attitude towards government as a result of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2b) 5. To what extent are you satisfied that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corruption? (2d) 6. Do you believe that there are additional opportunities for the CSC model to further decrease corruption? Explain. Can you provide examples or recommendations? (2d) 7. What factors have favorably or unfavorably impacted the implementation of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2e) 8. What are the major challenges still facing CSC continuing operations and/or expanding services? Can you provide recommendations to mitigate risks, constraints and/or challenges that may be qualified as “mission critical”? (2f) 88 9. What are some key recommendations that you would make to improve service delivery and CSC sustainability? (2f) 10. What are the major challenges still facing CSC continuing operations and/or expanding services? Can you provide recommendations to mitigate risks, constraints and/or challenges that may be qualified as “mission critical”? (2f) 11. Can you provide an example success story, lesson learned, challenge or outcome (intended or unintended consequence) of how the CSC model may have impacted the community’s quality of life and/or level of engagement with the local municipal government? Effectiveness of CSC and MoPMAR Training 12. Would you qualify the training of CSC and MoPMAR staff as effective? In the affirmative, to what extent do you believe that improved CSC staff knowledge and skills are improving both job performance and citizen satisfaction? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 13. Given lessons learned, what are some key recommendations that you would offer to improve future CSC and Leadership and Management Skills Training Programs? (3f) 89 11.Group Discussion Protocol for Training Service Providers Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of select activities of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will conduct key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys of the EPSP a) sub-contractors (AMIDEAST, the Center for Development Services, and the Institute of National Planning) that provided leadership and management skills training, b) the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) and Citizen Service Center (CSC) project-related personnel who supervise trainees, c) as well as MoPMAR and CSC staff that successfully completed the training programs. The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate the training activities and the degree to which the EPSP training programs have improved knowledge and skills resulting in improved performance in the workplace. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. 1. How was your firm chosen to conduct the training program? (3a) 2. How were the training needs identified? By whom? (3a) 3. Did the EPSP implementing partner or Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) personnel review the training methodology and content before being ap￾proved for implementation? As applicable, provide some salient examples of requested revi￾sions in response to stakeholder comments? (3a) 4. How were individual trainers identified and selected? What is the selection criteria? Declare (3a) 5. Were any changes in content or methodology introduced in the course of implementing the training program? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a, 3b) 6. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of CSC staff? Explain? (3b, 3c) 7. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of MoPMAR young professionals? Explain? (3b, 3c) 8. Was there an after-training assignment for trainees? Explain. In the affirmative, can you pro￾vide examples? (3a) 9. How effective were the trainings for improving the knowledge and skills of the participants? Explain. Can you provide material evidence to support your assertion? (3a) 90 10. Have you observed differences between men and women in their respective levels of im￾proved knowledge and/or skills as a result of the training programs? Explain. Can you pro￾vide material evidence to support your assertion? (3c) 11. Given lessons learned, what would your firm do differently if asked to develop a follow-up training program for MoPMAR personnel and/or to develop a follow-up training program for CSC staff? (3a, 3b, 3c) 91 12.Group Discussion Protocol for Citizen Service Center Customer Service Staff Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are sat￾isfied with the services provided by the CSCs, and b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effective and more responsible local government responsive to community needs. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys in five CSCs in Aswan (Aswan City Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet) governorates. In addition, the evaluation teams will interview project related governorate and district officials, com￾munity leaders, citizen users of CSC services, project-related officials in the Ministry of Planning, Mon￾itoring and Administrative Reform, training service providers as well as the AECOM project team. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. 1. To what extent do you believe that the community is satisfied with the CSC services pro￾vided? (1a) 2. Do you observe that the level of citizen satisfaction with CSC service delivery significantly dif￾fers between men and women? In the affirmative, what is the basis of your observation? Can you provide examples? (1b, 1c) 3. Describe the channels of communication between a) the customer service staff and the citi￾zen user and b) the customer service staff and CSC management. 4. How would you rate the channel of communication between the community and the CSC? (2e) 5. Do you believe that the CSC model demonstrates improved government responsiveness to the community? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2a) 6. Do you believe that the community has changed its willingness to access the services (attitude towards government) as a result of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2b) 7. How effective has the CSC been in helping the public to better utilize government services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2c) 8. Does CSC management respond to your recommendations to improve CSC service delivery? (2e, 2a) 9. To what extent are you satisfied that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corruption? (2d) 92 10. Do you believe that there are additional opportunities for the CSC model to further de￾crease corruption? Explain. Can you provide examples or recommendations? (2d) 11. Do female co-workers receive the same opportunities for career advancement and/or train￾ing as do men co-workers? (2e, 1c) 12. Would you qualify the training of CSC staff as effective? In the affirmative, to what extent do you believe that improved CSC staff knowledge and skills are improving both job perfor￾mance and citizen satisfaction? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 13. Have you observed significant differences in overall performance between men and women in the workplace that may be directly attributable to training? Explain. Can you provide exam￾ples? (3a) 14. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of CSC staff. Explain. (3b, 3c) 15. What are the major challenges facing CSC continuing operations and/or expanding services? Can you provide recommendations to mitigate risks, constraints and/or challenges that may be qualified as “mission critical”? (2f) 93 13.Group Discussion Protocol for Citizen Service Center Managers Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are sat￾isfied with the services provided by the CSCs, and b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effective and more responsible local government responsive to community needs. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys in five CSCs in Aswan (Aswan City Dewan, Nasr El-Nuba, Daraw, and Edfu) and two CSCs in Beheira (Abu Homous and Shobra Kheet) governorates. In addition, the evaluation teams will interview project related governorate and district officials, com￾munity leaders, citizen users of CSC services, project-related officials in the Ministry of Planning, Mon￾itoring and Administrative Reform, training service providers as well as the AECOM project team. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. Effectiveness of CSC Service Delivery 1. To what extent do you believe that the community is satisfied with the CSC services pro￾vided? (1a) 2. Do you observe that the level of citizen satisfaction with CSC service delivery significantly dif￾fers between men and women? In the affirmative, what is the basis of your observation? Can you provide examples? (1b, 1c) 3. Describe the channels of communication between the customer service staff and CSC man￾agement. (2e) 4. How would you rate the channel of communication between the community and the CSC? (2e) 5. Do you believe that the CSC model demonstrates improved government responsiveness to the community? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2a) 6. Do you believe that the community has changed its attitude towards government as a result of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2b) 7. How effective has the CSC been in helping the public to better utilize government services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2c) 8. To what extent are you satisfied that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corruption? (2d) 94 9. Do you believe that there are additional opportunities for the CSC model to further de￾crease corruption? Explain. Can you provide examples or recommendations? (2d) 10. Describe your CSC’s process for responding to customer suggestions and complaints? (2a, 2c, 2d) 11. What are the major challenges facing CSC continuing operations and/or expanding services? Can you provide recommendations to mitigate risks, constraints and/or challenges that may be qualified as “mission critical”? (2f) Effectiveness of CSC Staff Training 12. Have you observed significant differences in overall performance between men and women in the workplace that may be directly attributable to training? Explain. Can you provide exam￾ples? (3a) 13. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of CSC staff. Explain. (3b, 3c) 14. What are the characteristics of a “good” customer service representative? How do you se￾lect them? (2c, 2e) 15. Describe the process that the CSC uses to assess job performance of the CSC staff. (2c, 2e) 16. Does your CSC have a capacity building/training plan for professional development? In the affirmative, please describe. (3a, 2e) 17. Do female co-workers receive the same opportunities for career advancement and/or training as do men co-workers? (2e, 1b. 1c) 18. Would you qualify the training of CSC staff as effective? In the affirmative, to what extent do you believe that improved CSC staff knowledge and skills are improving both job performance and citizen satisfaction? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 19. Have you observed significant differences in overall performance between men and women in the workplace that may be directly attributable to training? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 20. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of CSC staff. Explain. (3b, 3c) 95 14.Group Discussion Protocol for AECOM Implementation Team Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate select EPSP activities carried out by its partner organizations and the degree to which a) citizens and activity stakeholders are sat￾isfied with the services provided by the CSCs, b) the extent to which CSCs have created more effec￾tive and more responsible local government responsive to community needs and c) the degree to which the EPSP training programs have improved knowledge and skills of trainees resulting in im￾proved performance in the workplace. The evaluation team consists of two four-person field teams that will conduct site visits, key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys with a) governorate and district officials b) EPSP-supported CSCs in Aswan and Beheira, c) community leaders, business associations and citizen users of CSC services d) sub-contractors that provided leadership and management skills training, e) MoPMAR and CSC staff that successfully completed the training programs and d) MoPMAR/CSC supervisors of staff trained. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. 1. Describe AECOM’s role in the design and delivery of CSC training activities? Satisfaction 2. As an implementing partner, to what extent are you satisfied with CSC service delivery? (1a) 3. How have the CSC services improved as compared to service delivery under the former ser￾vice delivery system? (1a) 4. How would you rate overall citizen satisfaction with CSC service delivery? Explain. Can you provide examples? (1a) 5. Have you observed differences between men and women in their respective levels of satisfac￾tion with CSC services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (1b, 1c) Effectiveness of Citizen Service Centers 6. Do you believe that the CSC model demonstrates improved government responsiveness to the community? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2a) 7. Do you believe that the community has changed its attitude towards government as a result of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2b) 8. How effective has the CSC been in helping the public to better utilize government services? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2c) 9. To what extent are you satisfied that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corruption? (2d) 96 10. Do you believe that there are additional opportunities for the CSC model to further decrease corruption? Explain. Can you provide examples or recommendations? (2d) 11. Have any cases of corruption in the CSCs been reported since the implementation of the EPSP project in 2012? In the affirmative, provide details of the corruption charges and the outcome of any subsequent investigations. (2d) 12. What factors have favorably or unfavorably impacted the implementation of the CSC model? Explain. Can you provide examples? (2e) 13. What are the major challenges still facing CSC continuing operations and/or expanding services? Can you provide recommendations to mitigate risks, constraints and/or challenges that may be qualified as “mission critical”? (2f) Effectiveness of CSC Staff Training 14. How were CSC staff training needs identified? 15. Would you qualify the training of CSC staff as effective? In the affirmative, to what extent do you believe that improved CSC staff knowledge and skills are improving both job performance and citizen satisfaction? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 16. Have you observed significant differences in overall performance between men and women in the workplace that may be directly attributable to training? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 17. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of CSC staff. Explain. (3b, 3c) Effectiveness of Training for MoPMAR Young Professionals 18. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving overall job per￾formance of MoPMAR young professionals? Explain? (3b, 3c) 19. Do you believe that the trainings in English language proficiency, leadership and management skills training, and conducting project feasibility studies each achieved their intended objectives? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 20. Given lessons learned, what are some key recommendations that you would offer to improve a future Leadership and Management Skills Training Program? (3f) 97 15.Group Discussion Protocol for MoPMAR Trainees of the Leadership and Manage￾ments Skills Training Program Good morning/afternoon. My name is ______________. I am a member of an evaluation team con￾tracted by the USAID SIMPLE Project to conduct an evaluation of select activities of the Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP). The evaluation team will conduct key informant interviews, group discussions, and surveys of the EPSP a) sub-contractors (AMIDEAST, the Center for Development Services, and the Institute of National Planning) that provided leadership and management skills training, b) the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) and Citizen Service Center (CSC) project-related personnel who supervise trainees, c) as well as MoPMAR and CSC staff that successfully completed the training programs. The evaluation team will review, analyze and evaluate the training activities and the degree to which the EPSP training programs have improved knowledge and skills resulting in improved performance in the workplace. The evaluation will seek to document findings, achievements, challenges, lessons learned, conclusions and actionable recommendations to ensure that EPSP activities have the highest potential to achieve and sustain their intended results. Findings of this evaluation will be managed in a confidential and anonymous manner. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is considered vital to this important initiative. I thank you in advance for your valued contribution and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have in the course of our discussion. 1. Did you volunteer or were you nominated to participate in the Leadership and Management Skills Training Program? In the event that you volunteered, describe the reasons why you vol￾unteered. (3b) 2. Can you describe your personal goal for participating in this training program? (3b) 3. Given your experience, to what extent was the training you received relevant to your job? (3a, 3b) 4. Would you qualify the management skills component of the training program as effective? To what extent did the training program improve your management skills as well as directly im￾pact your job performance? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a 5. Would you qualify the leadership skills component of the training program as effective? To what extent did the training program improve your leadership skills as well as directly impact your job performance? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 6. Would you qualify the English language proficiency component of the training program as ef￾fective? To what extent did the training program improve your English language proficiency skills as well as directly impact your job performance? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 7. Would you qualify the project feasibility design component of the training program as effec￾tive? To what extent did the training program improve your ability to design and implement project feasibility studies as well as directly impact your job performance? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3a) 98 8. Rate training components from most effective to least effective for improving your overall job performance as a MoPMAR young professional. Explain? (3b, 3c) 9. Given lessons learned, what are some key recommendations that you would offer to improve a future Leadership and Management Skills Training Program? (3f) 10. Do you believe that the Ministry provided equal training opportunities for both men and women (3c)? 11. Did you take any initiative to transfer acquired knowledge and skills to others? How? 12. Was there an opportunity for every trainee to express their point of view during the training? Did you observe gender balance throughout the training program? Explain. Can you provide examples? (3c) 13. What support was received from the Ministry to apply your newly acquired knowledge and skills in your workplace? (3c, 3a) 14. If you did not complete the training program, what was the reason for not completing? 99 ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE Day Date Team A Team B Governorate Site Governorate Site Day 1 Tuesday, August 15, 2017 Aswan Aswan City Cairo MoPMAR Day 2 Wednesday, August 16, 2017 Aswan Aswan City Cairo USAID, MoPMAR Day 3 Thursday, August 17, 2017 Aswan Aswan City Cairo MoPMAR Day 4 Saturday, August 19, 2017 Phone KIIs and Documentation Day 5 Sunday, August 20, 2017 Aswan Dewan CSC Beheira Damanhour Governorate Day 6 Monday, August 21, 2017 Aswan Dewan CSC Beheira Abu Hummus CSC Day 7 Tuesday, August 22, 2017 Aswan Edfu CSC Beheira Abu Hummus CSC Day 8 Wednesday, August 23, 2017 Aswan Edfu CSC Beheira Shobra Kheet CSC Day 9 Thursday, August 24, 2017 Aswan Daraw CSC Beheira Shobra Kheet CSC Day 10 Saturday, August 26, 2017 Phone KIIs and Documentation Day 11 Sunday, August 27, 2017 Aswan Nasr El-Nuba CSC Cairo MoPMAR, Training Providers Day 12 Monday, August 28, 2017 Aswan Daraw CSC Nasr El-Nuba CSC Cairo, Beheira MoPMAR, Training Providers, Shobra Kheet CSC 100 ANNEX V: DATA TABLES AND GRAPHS 101 A. SECONDARY QUANTITATIVE/QUALITATIVE DATA Customer Satisfaction Exit Survey (1) Sample Description Figure (1) graphically represents the percentage and number of CSC customers sampled disaggre￾gated by EPSP-assisted CSC and governorate. FIGURE (1) Distribution of CSC Customers Sampled in each of the EPSP-assisted CSCs (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Number of Customer Respondents=136 Number of Customer Respondents=51 Aswan (44.9%); n=61 Dewan (12.5%); n=17 Daraw (10.3%); n=14 Edfu (25.0%); n=34 Nasr Nubia (7.4%); n=10 Aswan Dewan Daraw Edfu Abu Homou s (51.0%); n=26 Shobra Kheet (49.0%); n=25 Abu Homous Shubra Kheet 102 FIGURE (1a) Number of CSC Customers Available and Sampled in Each of the EPSP-assisted CSCs (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Number of Customer Respondents=136 Number of Customer Respondents=51 Location – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Aswan 61 44.9 44.9 44.9 Dewan 17 12.5 12.5 57.4 Daraw 14 10.3 10.3 67.6 Edfu 34 25.0 25.0 92.6 Nasr El￾Nuba 10 7.4 7.4 100.0 Total 136 100.0 100.0 Location – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Abu Hom￾ous 26 51.0 51.0 51.0 Shobra Kheet 25 49.0 49.0 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 Aswan Daraw Dewan Edfu Nasr Nubia 63 16 17 37 10 61 14 17 34 10 Available Sampled Abu Homous Shobra Kheet 27 25 26 25 Available Sampled 103 Figure (2) graphically represents the CSC customers’ distribution by age disaggregated by CSC and governorate Note: Age was collected as a continuous variable. It was categorized to be graphically presented. Some descriptive statistics calculated from the continuous-type variable is provided to the right of the corresponding graph. FIGURE (2) Distribution of CSC Customers by age Disaggregated by CSC and Governorate (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 133 Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 48 (a) (b) 20 - <35 (21.1%); n=28 35 - <50 (36.1%); n=48 50 - <65 (28.6%); n=38 65+ (14.3%); n=19 20 - <35 35 - <50 50 - <65 65+ 20 - <35 (18.8%); n=9 35 - <50 (45.8%); n=22 50 - <65 (31.3%); n=15 65+ (4.2%); n=2 20 - <35 35 - <50 50 - <65 65+ Average =47.2 Median=45.0 SD =13.5 Min=22 Max=76 Average =44.4 Median=43.0 SD =11.0 Min=23 Max=70 104 Age Descriptives – Aswan Governorate Statistic Std. Er￾ror Age of Partici￾pant Mean 47.22 1.173 95% Confidence Inter￾val for Mean Lower Bound 44.90 Upper Bound 49.54 5% Trimmed Mean 47.11 Median 45.00 Variance 183.081 Std. Deviation 13.531 Minimum 22 Maximum 76 Range 54 Interquartile Range 22 Skewness .124 .210 Kurtosis -.879- .417 105 Categorized Age – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 20 - <35 28 20.6 21.1 21.1 35 - <50 48 35.3 36.1 57.1 50 - <65 38 27.9 28.6 85.7 65+ 19 14.0 14.3 100.0 Total 133 97.8 100.0 Missing System 3 2.2 Total 136 100.0 106 Age Descriptives – Beheira Governorate Statistic Std. Er￾ror Age of Partici￾pant Mean 44.44 1.590 95% Confidence Inter￾val for Mean Lower Bound 41.24 Upper Bound 47.64 5% Trimmed Mean 44.16 Median 43.00 Variance 121.273 Std. Deviation 11.012 Minimum 23 Maximum 70 Range 47 Interquartile Range 18 Skewness .352 .343 Kurtosis -.696- .674 Categorized Age – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 20 - <35 9 17.6 18.8 18.8 35 - <50 22 43.1 45.8 64.6 50 - <65 15 29.4 31.3 95.8 65+ 2 3.9 4.2 100.0 Total 48 94.1 100.0 Missing System 3 5.9 Total 51 100.0 107 Figure (3) graphically represents the CSC customers’ distribution by gender, disaggregated by governorate. FIGURE (3) Distribution of CSC Customers Disaggregated by Gender and Governorate (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Number of Citizen Respondents=125 Number of Citizen Respondents=44 Gender of CSC Customer – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 92 67.6 73.6 73.6 Female 33 24.3 26.4 100.0 Total 125 91.9 100.0 Missing System 11 8.1 Total 136 100.0 Gender of CSC Customer – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 39 76.5 88.6 88.6 Female 5 9.8 11.4 100.0 Total 44 86.3 100.0 Missing System 7 13.7 Total 51 100.0 Male (73.6%); n=92 Female (26.4%); n=33 Male Female Male (88.6%); n=39 Female (11.4%); n=5 Male Female 108 Figure (4) graphically depicts the CSC customers’ distribution by level of educational attainment disaggregated by governorates. Select categories originally assigned to the education level were merged due to a small number of observations. FIGURE (4) Distribution of CSC Customers Disaggregated by level of Educational Attainment and Governorate (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Number of Citizen Respondents=136 Number of Citizen Respondents=51 Illiterate (8.8%); … Can read & write / Prim / Prep / Sec Education (7.4%); n=10 Intermediate Education (43.4%); n=59 Above Intermediate Education (13.2%); … University Education or Above (27.2%); … Illiterate Can read & write / Prim / Prep / Sec Education Intermediate Education Above Intermediate Education University Education or Above Illiterate (3.9%); n=2 Can read & write / Prim / Prep / Sec Education (17.6%); n=9 Intermediate Education (29.4%); n=15 Above Intermediate Education (9.8%); n=5 University Education or Above (39.2%); n=20 Illiterate Can read & write / Prim / Prep / Sec Education Intermediate Education Above Intermediate Education University Education or Above 109 Formal level of Educational Attainment – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Illiterate 12 8.8 8.8 8.8 Can read and write 3 2.2 2.2 11.0 Primary Education 3 2.2 2.2 13.2 Preparatory/Secondary Education 4 2.9 2.9 16.2 Intermediate Education 59 43.4 43.4 59.6 Above Intermediate Education 18 13.2 13.2 72.8 University Education 35 25.7 25.7 98.5 Above University Edu￾cation 2 1.5 1.5 100.0 Total 136 100.0 100.0 Recoded Level of Educational Attainment – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Illiterate 12 8.8 8.8 8.8 Can read and write / Prim / Prep / Sec Edu￾cation 10 7.4 7.4 16.2 Intermediate Education 59 43.4 43.4 59.6 Above Intermediate Education 18 13.2 13.2 72.8 University Education or Above 37 27.2 27.2 100.0 Total 136 100.0 100.0 110 Formal Educational Attainment – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Illiterate 2 3.9 3.9 3.9 Can read and write 3 5.9 5.9 9.8 Primary Education 1 2.0 2.0 11.8 Preparatory/Secondary Education 5 9.8 9.8 21.6 Intermediate Education 15 29.4 29.4 51.0 Above Intermediate Education 5 9.8 9.8 60.8 University Education 17 33.3 33.3 94.1 Above University Edu￾cation 3 5.9 5.9 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 111 Recoded Level of Educational Attainment – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Illiterate 2 3.9 3.9 3.9 Can read and write / Prim / Prep / Sec Edu￾cation 9 17.6 17.6 21.6 Intermediate Education 15 29.4 29.4 51.0 Above Intermediate Education 5 9.8 9.8 60.8 University Education or Above 20 39.2 39.2 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 112 Figure (5) graphically represents the sources by which the CSC customers learned about CSC services in Aswan and Beheira governorates. As shown, the “City Council” represents the most frequently identified main source of information on CSC services in both governorates. The second most frequently identified main source of information is the “family” in Aswan and “work colleagues” in Beheira. Note: “City Council” wasn’t among choices provided in the survey. CSC customers identified it within the category “other” as their main source of information. FIGURE (5) Distribution of CSC Customers’ Most Frequently Named Main Source of Information on CSC Services Disaggregated by Source and Governorate Total Number of CSC Customer Respondents: Aswan=134; Beheira=51 32.8% n=44 21.6% n=29 17.9% n=24 14.2% n=19 5.2% n=7 3.0% n=4 5.2% n=7 60.8% n=31 3.9% n=2 19.6% n=10 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 3.9% n=2 11.8% n=6 Aswan Beheira 113 How did you learn about CSC services? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid My family 29 21.3 21.6 21.6 Work colleagues 24 17.6 17.9 39.6 Community Leaders 19 14.0 14.2 53.7 Newspaper 7 5.1 5.2 59.0 Radio / TV Announce￾ments 4 2.9 3.0 61.9 City Council 44 32.4 32.8 94.8 Other 7 5.1 5.2 100.0 Total 134 98.5 100.0 Missing System 2 1.5 Total 136 100.0 How did you learn about CSC services? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid My family 2 3.9 3.9 3.9 Work colleagues 10 19.6 19.6 23.5 Radio / TV Announce￾ments 2 3.9 3.9 27.5 City Council 31 60.8 60.8 88.2 Other 6 11.8 11.8 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 114 CSC customers were asked to mention the type of service they were requesting on the data collection day; whether it is a private service or a business-related service. Figure (6) shows that about 47.9% (23 citizens) from the Beheira sample were requesting self-employed business￾related services on the survey day versus 9.8% (13 citizens) from the Aswan sample. FIGURE (6) Distribution of CSC Customers by Type of Service Requested on Data Collection Day Disaggregated by Governorate (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Number of Citizens Respondents=133 Number of Citizen Respondents=48 Private Service (81.2%); n=108 Self Business Service (9.8%); n=13 Employer Business Service (9.0%); n=12 Private citizen-related service Business related service for self Private Service (47.9%); n=23 Self Business Service (47.9%); … Employer Business Service (4.2%); n=2 Private citizen-related service Business related service for self 115 What type of service have you requested/ applied for today? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Private citizen related service 108 79.4 81.2 81.2 Business related ser￾vice for self 13 9.6 9.8 91.0 Business related ser￾vice for employer (NGO/Private Sector Firm) 12 8.8 9.0 100.0 Total 133 97.8 100.0 Missing System 3 2.2 Total 136 100.0 What type of service have you requested/applied for today? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Private citizen related service 23 45.1 47.9 47.9 Business related ser￾vice for self 23 45.1 47.9 95.8 Business related ser￾vice for employer (NGO/Private Sector Firm) 2 3.9 4.2 100.0 Total 48 94.1 100.0 Missing System 3 5.9 Total 51 100.0 116 (2) Evaluation Question (1): Satisfaction of Citizens towards Services Provided by the CSCs 2 (a): Evaluating CSC Services CSC customers were asked to evaluate their level of satisfaction regarding the services pro￾vided by the CSC. They were first asked to evaluate the quality of the service(s) they received on the data collec￾tion day. Figure (1.1) shows that the majority of the customers in the sample in both gover￾norates were satisfied. FIGURE (1.1) CSC Customers’ Satisfaction with Quality of Services Received on Survey Day by Gover￾norate (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Number of Citizen Respondents=130 Number of Citizen Respondents=49 . Very Satisfactory (63.8%); … Satisfactory (30.8%); n=40 Neutral (3.1%); n=4 Unsatisfactory (2.3%); n=3 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Satisfactory Satisfactory (40.8%); n=20 (34.7%); n=17 Neutral (14.3%); n=7 Unsatisfactor y (6.1%); n=3 Very Unsatisfactory (4.1%); n=2 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory 117 How would you qualify the service you received today? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 83 61.0 63.8 63.8 Satisfactory 40 29.4 30.8 94.6 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 4 2.9 3.1 97.7 Unsatisfactory 3 2.2 2.3 100.0 Total 130 95.6 100.0 Missing System 6 4.4 Total 136 100.0 How would you qualify the service you received today? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 20 39.2 40.8 40.8 Satisfactory 17 33.3 34.7 75.5 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 7 13.7 14.3 89.8 Unsatisfactory 3 5.9 6.1 95.9 Very Unsatisfactory 2 3.9 4.1 100.0 Total 49 96.1 100.0 Missing System 2 3.9 Total 51 100.0 118 FIGURE 1.1a CSC Customers’ Level of Satisfaction with Quality of Services Received on Survey Day Disaggregated by Gender. a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Gover￾norate Number of Citizen Respondents; Males=90, Fe￾males=29 Number of Citizen Respondents; Males=38, Females=4 66.7% n=60 25.6% n=23 4.4% n=4 3.3 %… 0.0% n=0 51.7% n=15 48.3% n=14 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 Male Female 44.7% n=17 34.2% n=13 10.5% n=4 5.3% n=2 5.3% n=2 50.0% n=2 25.0% n=1 25.0% n=1 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 Male Female 119 How would you qualify the service you received today? – Aswan Governorate Gender of Participant Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Male Valid Very Satisfactory 60 65.2 66.7 66.7 Satisfactory 23 25.0 25.6 92.2 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 4 4.3 4.4 96.7 Unsatisfactory 3 3.3 3.3 100.0 Total 90 97.8 100.0 Missing System 2 2.2 Total 92 100.0 Female Valid Very Satisfactory 15 45.5 51.7 51.7 Satisfactory 14 42.4 48.3 100.0 Total 29 87.9 100.0 Missing System 4 12.1 Total 33 100.0 How would you qualify the service you received today? – Beheira Governorate Gender of Participant Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Male Valid Very Satisfactory 17 43.6 44.7 44.7 Satisfactory 13 33.3 34.2 78.9 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 4 10.3 10.5 89.5 Unsatisfactory 2 5.1 5.3 94.7 Very Unsatisfactory 2 5.1 5.3 100.0 Total 38 97.4 100.0 Missing System 1 2.6 Total 39 100.0 Female Valid Very Satisfactory 2 40.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfactory 1 20.0 25.0 75.0 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 1 20.0 25.0 100.0 Total 4 80.0 100.0 Missing System 1 20.0 Total 5 100.0 120 Subsequently, CSC customers were asked to provide a response that qualified the extent to which they considered “reasonable” the cost of services provided. As shown in Figure (1.2), cit￾izens are in the majority satisfied with the “reasonableness” of the cost of services in both gov￾ernorates. However, Aswan’s CSC customers demonstrate a higher degree of satisfaction than CSC customers in Beheira. FIGURE (1.2) CSC Customers’ Classification of “Reasonableness” of Cost of CSC Services Disaggre￾gated by Level of Satisfaction and Governorate (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Number of Citizen Respondents=134 Number of Citizen Respondents=50 Very Reasonabl e (54.5%); n=73 Reason able (41.8%); n=56 Neutral (1.5%); n=2 Unreasonable (2.2%); n=3 Very Reasonable Reasonable Neutral Unreasonable Very Unreasonable Very Reasonable Reasonable (36.0%); n=18 (44.0%); n=22 Neutral (8.0%); n=4 Unreasona ble … Very Unreasonable (8.0%); n=4 Very Reasonable Reasonable Neutral Unreasonable 121 How would you characterize the cost of services provided by the CSC in your community? – Aswan Governorate Fre￾quency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Per￾cent Valid Very Reasonable 73 53.7 54.5 54.5 Reasonable 56 41.2 41.8 96.3 Neither Reasonable nor Unrea￾sonable 2 1.5 1.5 97.8 Unreasonable 3 2.2 2.2 100.0 Total 134 98.5 100.0 Missing System 2 1.5 Total 136 100.0 How would you characterize the cost of services provided by the CSC in your community? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Reasonable 18 35.3 36.0 36.0 Reasonable 22 43.1 44.0 80.0 Neither Reasonable nor Un￾reasonable 4 7.8 8.0 88.0 Unreasonable 2 3.9 4.0 92.0 Very Unreasonable 4 7.8 8.0 100.0 Total 50 98.0 100.0 Missing System 1 2.0 Total 51 100.0 Level of CSC customers’ satisfaction regarding the provided services by costs and gender. 122 FIGURE (1.2a) Level of CSC Customers’ Satisfaction with Costs of CSC Services Disaggregated by Gen￾der and Governorate (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate. Number of Citizen Respondents; Males=91, Females=33 Number of Citizen Respondents; Males=38, Females=5 57.1% n=52 38.5% n=35 1.1 %… 3.3% n=3 0.0% n=0 51.5% n=17 48.5% n=16 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 Male Female 36.8% n=14 44.7% n=17 2.6% n=1 5.3% n=2 10.5% n=4 20.0% n=1 40.0% n=2 40.0% n=2 0.0% n=0 0.0% n=0 Male Female 123 How would you characterize the cost of services provided by the CSC in your community? Aswan Governorate Gender of Participant Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Male Valid Very Reasonable 52 56.5 57.1 57.1 Reasonable 35 38.0 38.5 95.6 Neither Reasonable nor Unreasonable 1 1.1 1.1 96.7 Unreasonable 3 3.3 3.3 100.0 Total 91 98.9 100.0 Missing System 1 1.1 Total 92 100.0 Female Valid Very Reasonable 17 51.5 51.5 51.5 Reasonable 16 48.5 48.5 100.0 Total 33 100.0 100.0 How would you characterize the cost of services provided by the CSC in your community? – Beheira Governorate Gender of Participant Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Male Valid Very Reasonable 14 35.9 36.8 36.8 Reasonable 17 43.6 44.7 81.6 Neither Reasonable nor Unreasonable 1 2.6 2.6 84.2 Unreasonable 2 5.1 5.3 89.5 Very Unreasonable 4 10.3 10.5 100.0 Total 38 97.4 100.0 Missing System 1 2.6 Total 39 100.0 Female Valid Very Reasonable 1 20.0 20.0 20.0 Reasonable 2 40.0 40.0 60.0 Neither Reasonable nor Unreasonable 2 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 5 100.0 100.0 124 Additionally, CSC customers were asked to state the extent to which they were satisfied with the number of working/operating hours of the CSCs. Figure (1.3) graphically represents that Aswan customers were more satisfied than Beheira customers. The majority of the sampled Aswan customers (64%) indicated that they are “very satisfied” with the operating hours, while the majority of the sampled Beheira customers (58%) indicated that they are merely “satisfied.” The overall satisfaction level in Aswan is 97% as compared to 82% in Beheira. FIGURE (1.3) CSC Customers’ Satisfaction with Number of Operating/Working Hours of CSCs Disaggregated by Level of Satisfaction and Governorate (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Number of Citizen Respondents=133 Number of Citizen Respondents=50 Very Satisfac tory (63.9%); n=85 Satisfac tory (33.1%); n=44 Neutral (2.3%); n=3 Unsatisf actory (0.8%); n=1 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory Very Satisfactory( 24.0%); n=12 Satisfactory (58.0%); n=29 Neutral (12.0%); n=6 Unsatisfacto ry (4.0%); n=2 Very Unsatisfacto ry (2.0%); n=1 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 125 How satisfied are you with the CSC operating hours? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 85 62.5 63.9 63.9 Satisfactory 44 32.4 33.1 97.0 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 3 2.2 2.3 99.2 Unsatisfactory 1 .7 .8 100.0 Total 133 97.8 100.0 Missing System 3 2.2 Total 136 100.0 How satisfied are you with the CSC operating hours? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 12 23.5 24.0 24.0 Satisfactory 29 56.9 58.0 82.0 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 6 11.8 12.0 94.0 Unsatisfactory 2 3.9 4.0 98.0 Very Unsatisfactory 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total 50 98.0 100.0 Missing System 1 2.0 Total 51 100.0 126 (b) CSC Location and Area Figure (1.4) graphically depicts that nearly all CSC customers regard the location of the CSC in their community as “convenient.” Approximately 86% of the CSC customers in Aswan and 63% in Beheira stated that the location CSC is “very convenient” whereas approximately 13% in As￾wan and 35% in Beheira stated that it is merely “convenient.” Figure (1.4): CSC customers’ level of satisfaction with the convenience of the CSC’s location within their respective communities disaggregated by governorate: (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Beheira Governorate. Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 135 Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 49 How would you characterize the location of the CSC in your community? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Convenient 116 85.3 85.9 85.9 Somewhat Convenient 18 13.2 13.3 99.3 Neither Convenient nor Inconvenient 1 .7 .7 100.0 Total 135 99.3 100.0 Missing System 1 .7 Total 136 100.0 Very Convenient (85.9%); n=116 Somewhat Convenient (13.3%); n=18 Neutral (0.7%); n=1 Very Convenient Somewhat Convenient Neutral Somewhat Inconvenient Very Inconvenient Very Convenient (63.3%); n=31 Somewhat Convenient (34.7%); n=17 Somewhat Inconvenient (2.0%); n=1 Very Convenient Somewhat Convenient Neutral Somewhat Inconvenient Very Inconvenient 127 How would you characterize the location of the CSC in your community? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Convenient 116 85.3 85.9 85.9 Somewhat Convenient 18 13.2 13.3 99.3 Neither Convenient nor Inconvenient 1 .7 .7 100.0 Total 135 99.3 100.0 Missing System 1 .7 How would you characterize the location of the CSC in your community? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Per￾cent Valid Very Convenient 31 60.8 63.3 63.3 Somewhat Conven￾ient 17 33.3 34.7 98.0 Somewhat Inconven￾ient 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total 49 96.1 100.0 Missing System 2 3.9 Total 51 100.0 CSC customers were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the customer waiting areas regarding the physical characteristics of the CSC facilities; e.g., space, ventilation, seating, et al. and to the extent to which that the facility is equipped to comfortably accommodate the elderly and persons with disabilities including, for example, ramps, special service windows, public bath￾room facility access, et al. Figure (1.5) graphically represents CSC customer satisfaction levels with the customer waiting areas and with CSC provision for accommodations for the elderly and persons with disabilities disaggregated by governorate. It can be observed that CSC customers in Aswan appear to be more satisfied than Beheira customers; especially as it relates to provision for accommodations for the elderly and persons with disabilities. 128 Figure (1.5): CSC customer satisfaction disaggregated by governorate and a) CSC waiting area, (b) CSC provision of accommodations for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents: Aswan=135; Beheira = 51 Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents: Aswan=135; Beheira = 51 (a) CSC Waiting Area (b) CSC Accommodations for the Elderly and Per￾sons with Disabilities How would you characterize the CSC waiting area? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 108 79.4 80.0 80.0 Satisfactory 23 16.9 17.0 97.0 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 3 2.2 2.2 99.3 Unsatisfactory 1 .7 .7 100.0 Total 135 99.3 100.0 Missing System 1 .7 Total 136 100.0 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 80.0% n=108 17.0% n=23 2.2% n=3 0.7% n=1 0.0% n=0 35.3% n=18 47.1% n=24 9.8% n=5 5.9% n=3 2.0% n=1 Aswan Beheira Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 69.6% n=94 27.4% n=37 0.7% n=1 2.2% n=3 0.0% n=0 17.6% n=9 35.3% n=18 27.5% n=14 11.8% n=6 7.8% n=4 Aswan Beheira 129 To what extent is the CSC facility equipped to comfortably accommodate the elderly and persons with disabilities (e.g. ramp, special service window, public bathroom fa￾cility access, et.al.)? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 94 69.1 69.6 69.6 Satisfactory 37 27.2 27.4 97.0 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 1 .7 .7 97.8 Unsatisfactory 3 2.2 2.2 100.0 Total 135 99.3 100.0 Missing System 1 .7 Total 136 100.0 How would you characterize the CSC waiting area? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 18 35.3 35.3 35.3 Satisfactory 24 47.1 47.1 82.4 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 5 9.8 9.8 92.2 Unsatisfactory 3 5.9 5.9 98.0 Very Unsatisfactory 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 130 To what extent is the CSC facility equipped to comfortably accommodate the el￾derly and persons with disabilities (e.g. ramp, special service window, public bath￾room facility access, et.al.)? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 9 17.6 17.6 17.6 Satisfactory 18 35.3 35.3 52.9 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 14 27.5 27.5 80.4 Unsatisfactory 6 11.8 11.8 92.2 Very Unsatisfactory 4 7.8 7.8 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 (c) CSCs as a Successful Model Citizens were asked to state the extent to which they agreed with the following statement “This CSC is a successful model and it should be replicated in other districts.” More than 95% of As￾wan’s CSC customers and approximately 90% of Beheira’s customers agreed with the afore￾mentioned statement; refer to Figure (1.6). The highest percentage response can be observed in the “totally agree” categorization in both governorates. Figure (1.6): Extent of agreement by CSC customers with the statement “This CSC is a successful model and it should be replicated in other districts” disaggregated by governorate; (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Beheira Governorate. Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 127 Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 48 (a) (b) Totally Agree (58.3%); n=74 Agree (38.6%); n=49 Neutral (0.8%); n=1 Disagree (2.4%); n=3 Totally Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Totally Disagree Totally Agree (54.2%); n=26 Agree (35.4%); n=17 Neutral (6.3%); n=3 Disagree (4.2%); n=2 Totally Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Totally Disagree 131 To what extent do you (CSC customer) agree with the following statement "This CSC is a successful model and it should be replicated in other districts" - Aswan Governorate. Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Totally Agree 74 54.4 58.3 58.3 Agree 49 36.0 38.6 96.9 Neither Agree nor Dis￾agree 1 .7 .8 97.6 Disagree 3 2.2 2.4 100.0 Total 127 93.4 100.0 Missing System 9 6.6 Total 136 100.0 To what extent do you (CSC customer) agree with the following statement "This CSC is a successful model and it should be replicated in other districts" - Beheira Governorate. Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Totally Agree 26 51.0 54.2 54.2 Agree 17 33.3 35.4 89.6 Neither Agree nor Dis￾agree 3 5.9 6.3 95.8 Disagree 2 3.9 4.2 100.0 Total 48 94.1 100.0 Missing System 3 5.9 Total 51 100.0 132 (d) CSCs and Business Owners Three questions in the citizens’ survey were asked of business owners only; the number of busi￾ness owner respondents in the sample includes 18 business owners from Aswan and 23 business owners from Beheira. Business owners were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the CSCs for processing their permits and licenses. Table (1.1) summarizes their reported satisfaction levels disaggregated by governorate. It can be observed that among the 18 business owners from Aswan, 7 were “very satisfied”, 9 were “satisfied”, and 2 were “neutral.” In Beheira, among the 23 business owners, 7 were “very satisfied”, 8 were “satisfied”, and 3 were “neutral.” Unlike Aswan, Beheira business owners have expressed dissatisfaction with the CSC process for their permits and licenses; i.e., 3 were “unsatisfied” and 2 were “very unsatisfied.” TABLE (1.1) Level of Satisfaction of Business Owners with CSC Process for Permits and Licenses by Governorate Level of Satis￾faction Governorate Very Satis￾factory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfac￾tory Very Unsatis￾factory Total Aswan 7 (38.9%) 9 (50.0%) 2 (11.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 18 (100.0%) Beheira 7 (30.4%) 8 (34.8%) 3 (13.0%) 3 (13.0%) 2 (8.7%) 23 (100.0%) In addition, business owners were asked whether the CSC has impacted their business favorably. In Aswan, 12 out of 16 business owners (75%) stated that the CSC has had a favorable impact, whereas 12 out of 24 business owners (50%) stated that the CSC has had a favorable impact in Beheira. Hence, business owners in Beheira Governorate indicate a greater level of dissatisfaction with the CSC role in processing business-related permits and licenses. Has the CSC impacted your business favorably? – Aswan Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 12 8.8 75.0 75.0 No 4 2.9 25.0 100.0 Total 16 11.8 100.0 Missing System 120 88.2 Total 136 100.0 133 Has the CSC impacted your business favorably? – Beheira Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 12 23.5 50.0 50.0 No 12 23.5 50.0 100.0 Total 24 47.1 100.0 Missing System 27 52.9 Total 51 100.0 In a follow-up question, business owners were asked to explain how their business were favorably or unfavorably impacted. In Aswan, there was general agreement that their businesses were fa￾vorably impacted principally because of the ease and quickness of acquiring services. Similarly, in Beheira, those who think that CSC has a positive impact on their business agreed that it is mainly because of saving time and effort in processing government documents. However, in Beheira, those business owners who indicated that the CSC had a negative impact on their business indi￾cated that this was principally due to experiencing constant delay in processing their requests. 134 (3) Evaluation Question (2): Effectiveness of CSCs Creating More Responsive Governments A measure of how responsive government is to its citizenry is whether or not it responds to their suggestions and/or complaints. Accordingly, CSC customers were asked if they have ever used the suggestion/complaint system. If they responded positively, they were asked to evaluate the government’s response. Figure (2.1) graphically depicts the percent distribution of CSC customers that have used the CSC suggestion/complaint system. It is observed that 11.9% in Aswan and 13.7% in Beheira have ever used this system. Figure (2.1): Percent distribution of CSC customers that have used the CSC sug￾gestion/complaint system disaggregated by governorate Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents: Aswan=134; Beheira = 51 Aswan Beheira Yes (11.9%); n=16 Yes (13.7%); n=7 No (88.1%); n=118 No (86.3%); n=44 Yes No 135 Have you ever used the CSC suggestion and complaint system? – Aswan Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Per￾cent Valid Yes 16 11.8 11.9 11.9 No 118 86.8 88.1 100.0 Total 134 98.5 100.0 Missing System 2 1.5 Total 136 100.0 Have you ever used the CSC suggestion and complaint system? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 7 13.7 13.7 13.7 No 44 86.3 86.3 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 The table listed below displays the frequency distribution of the Aswan’s 16 CSC customers who have used the suggestion/complaint system disaggregated by CSC location. CSC Location Number of Citizens Ever Used the Com￾plaint System Aswan 6 Dewan 1 Daraw 2 Edfu 5 Nasr El-Nuba 2 Total 16 Those who used the system were asked to provide the extent to which they were satisfied with the amount of time the CSC takes to respond to their suggestion/complaint. As shown in Table (2.1), 8 out of 11 citizens in Aswan (72%) and 3 out of 6 citizens in Beheira (50%) were satisfied. 136 TABLE (2.1) Level of Satisfaction of Citizens with the Time Taken for CSC to Respond to Suggestions/Complaints by Governorate Level of Satis￾faction Governorate Very Satis￾factory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfac￾tory Very Unsatis￾factory Total Aswan 4 (36.4%) 4 (36.4%) 2 (18.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 11 (100.0%) Beheira 1 (16.7%) 2 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (33.3%) 1 (16.7%) 6 (100.0%) (b) Changing Local Communities Attitudes Toward the Government Among a variety of challenges believed to discourage citizens from applying for government ser￾vices, permits and licenses is the complexity of processes and the protracted delay associated with receiving requested services. Another issue is the lack of availability of CSC staff to attend to service requests. Accordingly, CSC customers were asked if the CSC staff deliver requested services within the prescribed timeframe. As shown in Figure (2.2), 96.7% of the CSC customers from Aswan Governorate confirmed that they received their requested services within the prescribed time. In Beheira Governorate, 76.0% confirmed that they received their requested services within the prescribed time. FIGURE (2.2) CSC Customers’ Confirmation Regarding CSC Staff Delivery of Requested Services within the Prescribed Timeframe by Governorate Total Number of Citizen Respondents: Aswan=120; Beheira=50 Aswan Beheira 96.7% n=116 76.0% n=38 137 . In your experience, do the CSC staff deliver the requested services within the prescribed timeframe? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 116 85.3 96.7 96.7 No 4 2.9 3.3 100.0 Total 120 88.2 100.0 Missing System 16 11.8 Total 136 100.0 In your experience, do the CSC staff deliver the requested services within the prescribed timeframe? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 38 74.5 76.0 76.0 No 12 23.5 24.0 100.0 Total 50 98.0 100.0 Missing System 1 2.0 Total 51 100.0 Figure (2.3) graphically depicts the CSC customers’ level of satisfaction with respect to CSC staff availability to attend to service requests disaggregated by governorate. Figure (2.3): Citizens’ level of satisfaction with the CSC staff availability to attend to service requests disaggregated by governorate: (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Be￾heira Governorate. Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 134 Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 50 Very Satisfact ory (64.2%); n=86 Satisfact ory (32.1%); n=43 Neutral (2.2%); n=3 Unsatisfactory (1.5%); n=2 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory Very Satisfactory (40.0%); n=20 Satisfact ory (40.0%); n=20 Neutral (12.0%); n=6 Unsatisfa ctory (6.0%); n=3 Very Unsatisfactory (2.0%); n=1 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 138 How satisfied are you with the CSC staff’s availability to attend your service request? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 86 63.2 64.2 64.2 Satisfactory 43 31.6 32.1 96.3 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 3 2.2 2.2 98.5 Unsatisfactory 2 1.5 1.5 100.0 Total 134 98.5 100.0 Missing System 2 1.5 Total 136 100.0 How satisfied are you with the CSC staff’s availability to attend your service request? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfactory 20 39.2 40.0 40.0 Satisfactory 20 39.2 40.0 80.0 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 6 11.8 12.0 92.0 Unsatisfactory 3 5.9 6.0 98.0 Very Unsatisfactory 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total 50 98.0 100.0 Missing System 1 2.0 Total 51 100.0 It is suggested that if CSC customers are generally satisfied with the CSC’s performance for de￾livering services, satisfied CSC customers will likely encourage others to use said services. CCS As graphically depicted in Figure (2.4), about 96% of Aswan’s respondents and 86% of Beheira’s respondents are willing to advise others (e.g., family members, friends, associates) to use CSCs services. 139 Figure (2.4): CCS customers’ willingness to advise others to go to the CSC to pro￾cess service requests disaggregated by governorate: Aswan Governorate, and Be￾heira Governorate. Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents: Aswan=134; Beheira = 51 Would you advise other people (family, friends, associates, etc.) to go to the CSC to process their government services? – Aswan Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 128 94.1 95.5 95.5 Maybe 5 3.7 3.7 99.3 No 1 .7 .7 100.0 Total 134 98.5 100.0 Missing System 2 1.5 Total 136 100.0 Would you advise other people (family, friends, associates, etc.) to go to the CSC to process their government services? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 44 86.3 86.3 86.3 Maybe 4 7.8 7.8 94.1 No 3 5.9 5.9 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 Aswan Beheira Yes (95.5%); n=128 Yes (86.3%); n=44 Maybe (3.7%); n=5 Maybe (7.8%); n=4 No (0.7%); n=1 No (5.9%); n=3 Yes Maybe No 140 (c) Helping Public Utilize Services Better In order to help citizens use the services in a better way, guidance should be provided to them, especially on the required steps they should follow for applying for a specific service. Approxi￾mately 94% of the CSC customers in Aswan stated that the CSC staff provides them with ade￾quate and clear instructions on the steps required for receiving services. However, in Beheira, this percent decreased to only about 63%. In your experience, does the CSC provide adequate instructions on what steps should be followed for applying for a service? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 126 92.6 94.0 94.0 No 8 5.9 6.0 100.0 Total 134 98.5 100.0 Missing System 2 1.5 Total 136 100.0 In your experience, does the CSC provide adequate instructions on what steps should be followed for applying for a service? – Be￾heira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 32 62.7 62.7 62.7 No 19 37.3 37.3 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 When asking those who agree that the CSC staff provide adequate guidance/instruction for ap￾plying for services to evaluate the level of their satisfaction with said guidance/instruction, it was found that they are “very satisfied.” As graphically depicted in Figure (2.5), all respondents in Aswan are either “satisfied” or “very satisfied.” A similar conclusion can be drawn from the Beheira respondents with the distinction that 13% are “dissatisfied” with said guidance/instruc￾tions. 141 Figure (2.5): CCS customers’ level of satisfaction with the guidance/ instruction provided by the CSC staff disaggregated by governorate: (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Beheira Governorate. Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 119 Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents = 31 If yes, how would you qualify the instruction or guidance provided by the CSC staff? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfac￾tory 85 62.5 71.4 71.4 Satisfactory 34 25.0 28.6 100.0 Total 119 87.5 100.0 Missing System 17 12.5 Total 136 100.0 If yes, how would you qualify the instruction or guidance provided by the CSC staff? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfac￾tory 9 17.6 29.0 29.0 Satisfactory 18 35.3 58.1 87.1 Unsatisfactory 4 7.8 12.9 100.0 Total 31 60.8 100.0 Missing System 20 39.2 Total 51 100.0 Very Satisfactory (71.40%); n=85 Satisfactory (28.60%); n=34 Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory Very Satisfactory (29.0%); n=9 Satisfact ory (58.1%); n=18 Unsatisfactor y (12.9%); … Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory 142 CSCs also provide the possibility of requesting/processing services through different technologi￾cal approaches such as cell phones, land lines and the CSC Web site. However, as graphically depicted in Figure (2.6), survey results indicate that only 19 of 136 respondents (14%) confirm requesting a CSC service by telephone and 17 of 136 respondents (13%) confirm requesting a CSC service through the Web site. Figure (2.6): CSC customer usage of alternative technological approaches for re￾questing services disaggregated by alternative technological approach and gover￾norate: Aswan Governorate, Beheira Governorate. Have you ever requested a service from the CSC by telephone? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 12 8.8 8.9 8.9 No 123 90.4 91.1 100.0 Total 135 99.3 100.0 Missing System 1 .7 Total 136 100.0 Request a CSC Service by Telephone Processing a Service through the CSC Website 8.9% n=12 9.2% n=12 14.3% n=7 10.6% n=5 Aswan Beheira 143 If yes, how satisfied were you with processing your service request by tele￾phone? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Satisfac￾tory 6 4.4 75.0 75.0 Satisfactory 2 1.5 25.0 100.0 Total 8 5.9 100.0 Missing System 128 94.1 Total 136 100.0 Have you ever accessed the CSC Web site for processing your service request? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 12 8.8 9.2 9.2 No 119 87.5 90.8 100.0 Total 131 96.3 100.0 Missing System 5 3.7 Total 136 100.0 If yes, how would you qualify your experience with processing your service request on the CSC Web site? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Satisfactory 2 1.5 66.7 66.7 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 1 .7 33.3 100.0 Total 3 2.2 100.0 Missing System 133 97.8 Total 136 100.0 144 Have you ever requested a service from the CSC by telephone? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 7 13.7 14.3 14.3 No 42 82.4 85.7 100.0 Total 49 96.1 100.0 Missing System 2 3.9 Total 51 100.0 If yes, how satisfied were you with processing your service request by telephone? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Satisfactory 4 7.8 66.7 66.7 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 1 2.0 16.7 83.3 Unsatisfactory 1 2.0 16.7 100.0 Total 6 11.8 100.0 Missing System 45 88.2 Total 51 100.0 Have you ever accessed the CSC Web site for processing your service request? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 5 9.8 10.6 10.6 No 42 82.4 89.4 100.0 Total 47 92.2 100.0 Missing System 4 7.8 Total 51 100.0 145 If yes, how would you qualify your experience with processing your ser￾vice request on the CSC Web site? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Satisfac￾tory 4 7.8 100.0 100.0 Missing System 47 92.2 Total 51 100.0 (d) Reducing Corruption One of the survey objectives is to measure the extent to which CSCs have helped in reducing different forms of corruption that customers traditionally have experienced when applying for services. The survey attempted to measure this by asking two questions of the CSC customers; one direct and another indirect. The indirect question was to list the types of costs embedded in the fees paid for the services. The aim of this question was to check if CSC customers would mention paying bribes or any sort of in-kind expenses to have their services processed. Figure (2.7) graphically depicts that respond￾ents indicated that they mainly identified transportation feed along with service fees. Figure (2.7): Costs incurred by CSC customers for processing service requests dis￾aggregated by type of cost and governorate: Aswan Governorate and Beheira Gov￾ernorate Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents: Aswan=136; Beheira = 51 Aswan Beheira 77.9% n=106 86.3% n=44 47.1% n=64 33.3% n=17 1.5% n=2 9.8% n=5 Service Fees Transportation Costs Other 146 The cost you pay for having your service attended to in a timely manner include: Service Fees – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 30 22.1 22.1 22.1 Yes 106 77.9 77.9 100.0 Total 136 100.0 100.0 The cost you pay for having your service attended to in a timely manner include: Transportation Costs – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 72 52.9 52.9 52.9 Yes 64 47.1 47.1 100.0 Total 136 100.0 100.0 The cost you pay for having your service attended to in a timely manner include: Other – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 134 98.5 98.5 98.5 Yes 2 1.5 1.5 100.0 Total 136 100.0 100.0 The cost you pay for having your service attended to in a timely manner include: Service Fees – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 7 13.7 13.7 13.7 Yes 44 86.3 86.3 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 147 The cost you pay for having your service attended to in a timely manner include: Transportation Costs – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 34 66.7 66.7 66.7 Yes 17 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 The cost you pay for having your service attended to in a timely manner include: Other – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 46 90.2 90.2 90.2 Yes 5 9.8 9.8 100.0 Total 51 100.0 100.0 Alternatively, the direct question measures the extent of the CSC customers’ satisfaction with the CSC process for reducing corruption. As graphically depicted in Figure (2.8), Aswan CSC customers are more satisfied than Beheira’s customers. In Aswan, approximately 90% of re￾spondents are satisfied (56% very satisfied and 34% satisfied). In Beheira, approximately 62% of respondents are satisfied (12% very satisfied and 50% satisfied). About 12% of Beheira’s re￾spondents were dissatisfied with the CSC process for reducing corruption and 24% were nei￾ther satisfied nor unsatisfied. 148 Figure (2.8): CSC customers’ level of satisfaction with the CSC process for reduc￾ing corruption: (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Beheira Governorate. Total Number of Citizens’ Respondents: Aswan=132; Beheira = 50 To what extent are you satisfied with the CSC process for reducing corruption? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Per￾cent Valid Very Satisfactory 74 54.4 56.1 56.1 Satisfactory 45 33.1 34.1 90.2 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 12 8.8 9.1 99.2 Unsatisfactory 1 .7 .8 100.0 Total 132 97.1 100.0 Missing System 4 2.9 Total 136 100.0 56.1% n=74 34.1% n=45 9.1% n=12 0.8% n=1 0.0% n=0 12.0% n=6 50.0% n=25 24.0% n=12 12.0% n=6 2.0% n=1 Aswan Beheira 149 To what extent are you satisfied with the CSC process for reducing corruption? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Per￾cent Valid Very Satisfactory 6 11.8 12.0 12.0 Satisfactory 25 49.0 50.0 62.0 Neither Satisfactory nor Unsatisfactory 12 23.5 24.0 86.0 Unsatisfactory 6 11.8 12.0 98.0 Very Unsatisfactory 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total 50 98.0 100.0 Missing System 1 2.0 Total 51 100.0 150 General Questions Figure (a.1): CSC customers’ recommendations for improving CSCs provided services disaggregated by recom￾mendation and governorate: Aswan Governorate and Beheira Governorate. Total Number of CSC customers: Aswan=43; Beheira = 34 18.6% n=8 16.3% n=7 11.6% n=5 9.3% n=4 9.3% n=4 9.3% n=4 9.3% n=4 4.7% n=2 0.0% n=0 11.6% n=5 0.0% n=0 23.5% n=8 11.8% n=4 0.0% n=0 8.8% n=3 5.9% n=2 17.6% n=6 20.6% n=7 8.8% n=3 2.9% n=1 Aswan Beheira 151 Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the services that the CSC provides? – Aswan Governorates Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 50 36.8 37.6 37.6 No 83 61.0 62.4 100.0 Total 133 97.8 100.0 Missing System 3 2.2 Total 136 100.0 CSC customers’ recommendations on how to improve the services that the CSC provides – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid One Service Window 7 5.1 16.3 16.3 Selecting and qualifying employees 4 2.9 9.3 25.6 Allocating an area/place for elderly and people with disabilities 2 1.5 4.7 30.2 Increasing the number of employees 5 3.7 11.6 41.9 Working a night shift 8 5.9 18.6 60.5 Other 5 3.7 11.6 72.1 Provide Some facilities (ACs, water older, etc.) 4 2.9 9.3 81.4 Ease the procedures 4 2.9 9.3 90.7 Use of internet and other technology 4 2.9 9.3 100.0 Total 43 31.6 100.0 Missing System 93 68.4 Total 136 100.0 152 Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the services that the CSC provides? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 36 70.6 72.0 72.0 No 14 27.5 28.0 100.0 Total 50 98.0 100.0 Missing System 1 2.0 Total 51 100.0 CSC customer recommendations on how to improve the services that the CSC pro￾vides – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Reducing the service time 3 5.9 8.8 8.8 One Service Window 8 15.7 23.5 32.4 Selecting and qualifying employees 6 11.8 17.6 50.0 Allocating an area/place for elderly and people with disabilities 7 13.7 20.6 70.6 Increasing the number of employees 4 7.8 11.8 82.4 Other 1 2.0 2.9 85.3 Ease the procedures 3 5.9 8.8 94.1 Use of internet and other technology 2 3.9 5.9 100.0 Total 34 66.7 100.0 Missing System 17 33.3 Total 51 100.0 153 Satisfaction Indicators Aswan Service Quality CSC Loca￾tion Service Costs Wait￾ing Area Sup￾porting Elderly and Disa￾bled Quality of guid￾ance pro￾vided by CSC Staff CSC Oper￾ating Hours CSC Staff Availa￾bility Time to Re￾spond to Com￾plaints Ser￾vice Re￾quests by Phone Ser￾vice Re￾quests by Web site CSC Re￾duces Cor￾ruption Very Satis￾fied 83 (61.0%) 116 (85.3%) 73 (53.7%) 108 (79.4%) 94 (69.1%) 85 (62.5%) 85 (62.5%) 86 (63.2%) 4 (2.9%) 6 (4.4%) 2 (1.5%) 74 (54.4%) Satis￾fied 40 (29.4%) 18 (13.2%) 56 (41.2%) 23 (16.9%) 37 (27.2%) 34 (25.0%) 44 (32.4%) 43 (31.6%) 4 (2.9%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 45 (33.1%) Neu￾tral 4 (2.9%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.5%) 3 (2.2%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.2%) 3 (2.2%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.7%) 12 (8.8%) Un￾satis￾fied 3 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.2%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.7%) Very Un￾satis￾fied 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Beheira Service Quality CSC Loca￾tion Service Costs Wait￾ing Area Sup￾porting Elderly and Disa￾bled Quality of guid￾ance pro￾vided by CSC Staff CSC Oper￾ating Hours CSC Staff Availa￾bility Time to Re￾spond to Com￾plaints Ser￾vice Re￾quests by Phone Ser￾vice Re￾quests by Web site CSC Re￾duces Cor￾ruption Very Satis￾fied 20 (39.2%) 31 (60.8%) 18 (35.3%) 18 (35.3%) 9 (17.6%) 9 (17.6%) 12 (23.5%) 20 (39.2%) 1 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (11.8%) Satis￾fied 17 (33.3%) 17 (33.3%) 22 (43.1%) 24 (47.1%) 18 (35.3%) 18 (35.3%) 29 (56.9%) 20 (39.2%) 2 (3.9%) 4 (7.8%) 4 (7.8%) 25 (49.0%) Neu￾tral 7 (13.7%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (7.8%) 5 (9.8%) 14 (27.5%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (11.8%) 6 (11.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%) 12 (23.5%) Unsat￾isfied 3 (5.9%) 1 (2.0%) 2 (3.9%) 3 (5.9%) 6 (11.8%) 4 (7.8%) 2 (3.9%) 3 (5.9%) 2 (3.9%) 1 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (11.8%) Very Unsat￾isfied 2 (3.9%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (7.8%) 1 (2.0%) 4 (7.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.0%) 1 (2.0%) 1 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.0%) 154 B. PRIMARY QUANTITATIVE/QUALITATIVE DATA (ONLINE SURVEYS) Staff Survey (1) Sample Description Figure (1) graphically depicts the number and percent of staff surveyed in the EPSP-assisted CSCs in Aswan and Beheira governorates. Total Number of CSC Staff Respondents = 57 Total Number of CSC Staff Respondents = 18 (a) (b) Figure (1): Distribution of staff surveyed in each of the targeted CSCs; (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Beheira Governorate. CSC Location – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Aswan 17 29.8 29.8 29.8 Daraw 7 12.3 12.3 42.1 Dewan 11 19.3 19.3 61.4 Edfu 14 24.6 24.6 86.0 Nasr El￾Nuba 8 14.0 14.0 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 CSC Location – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Abu Hom￾ous 9 50.0 50.0 50.0 Shobra Kheet 9 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 Aswan (29.8%); n=17 Dewan (19.3%); n=11 Daraw (12.3%); n=7 Edfu (24.6%); n=14 Nasr Nubia (14.0%); n=8 Aswan Dewan Daraw Edfu Nasr Nubia Abu Homous (50.0%); n=9 Shobra Kheet (50.0%); n=9 Abu Homous Shobra Kheet 155 Figure (1a): Distribution of staff surveyed in each of the EPSP-assisted CSCs disaggre￾gated by gender and governorate; (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 57 (Male = 28; Fe￾male =28) Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 16 (Male = 4; Fe￾male = 12) CSC Location – Aswan Governorate Gender Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Male Valid Aswan 8 28.6 28.6 28.6 Daraw 3 10.7 10.7 39.3 Dewan 5 17.9 17.9 57.1 Edfu 9 32.1 32.1 89.3 Nasr El￾Nuba 3 10.7 10.7 100.0 Total 28 100.0 100.0 Female Valid Aswan 8 28.6 28.6 28.6 Daraw 4 14.3 14.3 42.9 Dewan 6 21.4 21.4 64.3 Edfu 5 17.9 17.9 82.1 Nasr El￾Nuba 5 17.9 17.9 100.0 Total 28 100.0 100.0 Aswan Daraw Dewan Edfu Nasr Nubia 28.6% n=8 10.7% n=3 17.9% n=5 32.1% n=9 10.7% n=3 28.6% n=8 14.3% n=4 21.4% n=6 17.9% n=5 17.9% n=5 Male Female Abu Homous Shobra Kheet 25.0% n=1 75.0% n=3 58.3% n=7 41.7% n=5 Male Female 156 CSC Location – Beheira Governorate Gender Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Male Valid Abu Hom￾ous 1 25.0 25.0 25.0 Shobra Kheet 3 75.0 75.0 100.0 Total 4 100.0 100.0 Female Valid Abu Hom￾ous 7 58.3 58.3 58.3 Shobra Kheet 5 41.7 41.7 100.0 Total 12 100.0 100.0 157 Figure (2) shows the CSCs staff distribution by age in both Aswan and Beheira governorates. It should be noted that age was provided as a continuous variable, and it was categorized to be graphically presented. Some descriptive statistics calculated from the continuous￾type variable are provided on the right side of the graph. Figure (2): Distribution of CSCs staff by age (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 52 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 20 - <35 (26.9%); n=14 35 - <50; (61.5%); n=32 50 - 60 (11.5%); n=6 20 - <35 35 - <50 50 - 65 20 - <35 (38.9%) ; n=7 35 - <50 (55.6%) ; n=10 50 - 60 (5.6%); n=1 20 - <35 35 - <50 50 - 65 Average =39.6 Median=40.0 SD =8.3 Min=22 Max=58 Average =37.4 Median=36.0 SD =8.5 Min=25 Max=58 158 Age Descriptives – Aswan Governorate Statistic Std. Er￾ror Age (In Complete Years) Mean 39.58 1.151 95% Confidence Inter￾val for Mean Lower Bound 37.27 Upper Bound 41.89 5% Trimmed Mean 39.49 Median 40.00 Variance 68.837 Std. Deviation 8.297 Minimum 22 Maximum 58 Range 36 Interquartile Range 10 Skewness .187 .330 Kurtosis .094 .650 Categorized Age – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 20 - <35 14 24.6 26.9 26.9 35 - <50 32 56.1 61.5 88.5 50 - 60 6 10.5 11.5 100.0 Total 52 91.2 100.0 Missing System 5 8.8 Total 57 100.0 159 Age Descriptives – Beheira Governorate Statistic Std. Er￾ror Age (In Complete Years) Mean 37.44 1.992 95% Confidence Inter￾val for Mean Lower Bound 33.24 Upper Bound 41.65 5% Trimmed Mean 36.99 Median 36.00 Variance 71.438 Std. Deviation 8.452 Minimum 25 Maximum 58 Range 33 Interquartile Range 13 Skewness .802 .536 Kurtosis .549 1.038 Categorized Age – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 20 - <35 7 38.9 38.9 38.9 35 - <50 10 55.6 55.6 94.4 50 - 60 1 5.6 5.6 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 Figure (3) shows the staff distribution by gender in both Aswan and Beheira governorates. Due to limited number of females, comparing with the number of males, especially in Beheira, the gender￾based analysis is restricted on providing tables in annexes. Figure (3): Distribution of CSCs staff by gender: (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 56 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 16 Male (50.0%); n=28 Female (50.0%); n=28 Male Female Male (25.0%); n=4 Female (75.0%); n=12 Male Female 160 Gender of CSC Staff – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 28 49.1 50.0 50.0 Female 28 49.1 50.0 100.0 Total 56 98.2 100.0 Missing System 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0 Gender of CSC Staff – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 4 22.2 25.0 25.0 Female 12 66.7 75.0 100.0 Total 16 88.9 100.0 Missing System 2 11.1 Total 18 100.0 161 Figure (4) shows the CSCs staff distribution by education level in both Aswan and Beheira gover￾norates. The “University Education” and “Above University Education” were merged, as the latter cate￾gory has a very small number of observations. Figure (4): Distribution of CSCs Staff by education level Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents: Aswan=58; Beheira = 24 Education – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Intermediate Education 23 40.4 43.4 43.4 Above Intermediate Education 7 12.3 13.2 56.6 University Education or Above 23 40.4 43.4 100.0 Total 53 93.0 100.0 Missing System 4 7.0 Total 57 100.0 Intermediate Education Above Intermediate Education University Education or Above 41.4% n=24 12.1% n=7 46.6% n=27 25.0% n=6 12.5% n=3 62.5% n=15 Aswan Beheira 162 Education - – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Intermediate Education 4 22.2 23.5 23.5 Above Intermediate Education 3 16.7 17.6 41.2 University Education or Above 10 55.6 58.8 100.0 Total 17 94.4 100.0 Missing System 1 5.6 Total 18 100.0 Figure (5) shows the CSCs staff distribution by their position in the CSC in both Aswan and Beheira governorates. As shown all staff interviewed in Aswan were from the “front office.” Note that the positions were recoded to be classified into either Managers/Vice Managers or “front office.” Figure (5): Distribution of CSCs staff by position in CSC (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 57 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 osition - – Aswan Governorate Fre￾quency Per￾cent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid “front office” 57 100.0 100.0 100.0 Position – Beheira Governorate Fre￾quency Per￾cent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid “front office” 16 88.9 88.9 88.9 Managers/Vice Managers 2 11.1 11.1 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 “Front office” … Front Office Managers/Vice Managers “Front office” (88.9%); n=16 Managers/Vice Managers (11.1%); n=2 Front Office Managers/Vice Managers 163 Figure (6) shows the CSCs staff distribution by the number of years they have been working in the center in each of Aswan and Beheira governorates. Figure (6): Distribution of CSCs staff according to the number of working years in the center by governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents: Aswan=57; Beheira = 18 Number of years working in CSC - – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 Year 26 45.6 45.6 45.6 2-4 Years 10 17.5 17.5 63.2 5-7 Years 12 21.1 21.1 84.2 8 or More years 9 15.8 15.8 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 Number of years working in CSC - – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 2 - 4 Years 1 5.6 5.6 5.6 5 - 7 Years 7 38.9 38.9 44.4 8 or More years 10 55.6 55.6 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 1 Year 2 - 4 Years 5 - 7 Years 8 or More Years 45.6% n=26 17.5% n=10 21.1% n=12 15.8% n=9 0.0% n=0 5.6% n=1 38.9% n=7 55.6% n=10 Aswan Beheira 164 Also, CSCs staff were asked if they are familiar with all the services provided by the center they are working at. About 94% of each of Aswan’s staff respondents and Beheira’s staff respondents con￾firmed their familiarity and knowledge. Are you familiar with all the services provided by this center? – As￾wan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 51 89.5 94.4 94.4 No 3 5.3 5.6 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Are you familiar with all the services provided by this center? – Be￾heira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 16 88.9 94.1 94.1 No 1 5.6 5.9 100.0 Total 17 94.4 100.0 Missing System 1 5.6 Total 18 100.0 The CSCs staff were also asked if they feel their working space is appropriate enough (e.g., adequate space, sufficiently ventilated, has clean bathroom facilities, etc.). As shown in Figure (8), the majority of staff respondents in both governorates think it is adequate. Figure (8): CSCs staff satisfaction level with the adequacy of their working space in the CSC (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 55 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 Yes (81.8%); n=45 No (3.6%); n=2 To Some Extent (14.5%); n=8 Yes No To Some Extent Yes (55.6%); n=10 To Some Extent (44.4%); n=8 Yes No To Some Extent 165 Is your work space appropriate (e.g., adequate space, sufficiently ventilated, clean bathroom facilities, etc.)? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per￾cent Valid Yes 45 78.9 81.8 81.8 No 2 3.5 3.6 85.5 To Some Extent 8 14.0 14.5 100.0 Total 55 96.5 100.0 Missing System 2 3.5 Total 57 100.0 Is your work space appropriate (e.g., adequate space, sufficiently venti￾lated, clean bathroom facilities, etc.)? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 10 55.6 55.6 55.6 To Some Ex￾tent 8 44.4 44.4 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 (2) Evaluation Question (2): Effectiveness of CSCs 2 (a) Creating More Responsive Government Sampled CSCs staff were asked if they participate in processing customer suggestions/ complaints re￾garding the CSCs services. As shown in Figure (2.1), about 95% of Aswan’s staff respondents and 83% of Beheira’s confirmed their participation, either continuously or occasionally. Figure (2.1): Distribution of CSCs staff by their participation in processing customer suggestion/complaints (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 57 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 Yes (43.9%); n=25 Sometime s (50.9%); n=29 No (5.3%); n=3 Yes Sometimes No Yes (55.6%); n=10 Sometimes (27.8%); n=5 No (16.7%); n=3 Yes Sometimes No 166 Do you participate in processing customer suggestions/ complaints re￾garding the CSC services? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 25 43.9 43.9 43.9 Sometimes 29 50.9 50.9 94.7 No 3 5.3 5.3 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 Do you participate in processing customer suggestions/ complaints re￾garding the CSC services? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 10 55.6 55.6 55.6 Sometimes 5 27.8 27.8 83.3 No 3 16.7 16.7 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 Those who participate in processing customer suggestions/complaints were further asked about the time usually taken to respond to complaints and the approach followed in re-contacting citizens to respond to their complaints. Results for the time (in days) spent to respond to citizens’ complaints show different patterns between Aswan and Beheira CSCs. That is, in Beheira, the number of days mentioned ranges between one day to seven days at most. The highest frequencies go to either 3 or 7 days. In Aswan, however, the number of days mentioned ranges between 2 days to 15 days at most with only one respondent mentioning 25 days. The highest frequencies go to 7, 10, and 15 days. Days usually taken to respond to a complaint – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 2 1 1.8 1.9 1.9 5 2 3.5 3.7 5.6 7 12 21.1 22.2 27.8 10 16 28.1 29.6 57.4 14 2 3.5 3.7 61.1 15 20 35.1 37.0 98.1 25 1 1.8 1.9 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 167 Days usually taken to respond to a complaint – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 1 5.6 6.7 6.7 2 2 11.1 13.3 20.0 3 5 27.8 33.3 53.3 5 1 5.6 6.7 60.0 7 6 33.3 40.0 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 As for the ways CSC staff follow to re-contact the citizens to inform them how their complaints were responded. Figure (2.2) shows that the most common method in both governorates is to ask the citizen to come back after a specific period of time to check the response for his/her complaint. In Aswan, the second highest method is to call them over the phone. In Beheira, however, the sec￾ond highest method used is to send them letters via mail, followed by calling them over the phone, as shown in Figure (2.2). Figure (2.2): Approaches for re-contacting citizens who filed complaints to inform them with responses by governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents: Aswan=54; Beheira = 15 Request to come back after a specific period Calling over the phone Sending letter via mail Sending a text message over the phone 64.8% n=35 50.0% n=27 1.9% n=1 5.6% n=3 66.7% n=10 40.0% n=6 60.0% n=9 0.0% n=0 Aswan Beheira 168 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through sending letter via mail – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per￾cent Valid No 53 93.0 98.1 98.1 Yes 1 1.8 1.9 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through sending an e-mail – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per￾cent Valid No 54 94.7 100.0 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through calling him/her over the phone – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 27 47.4 50.0 50.0 Yes 27 47.4 50.0 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through Sending a text message over the phone – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 51 89.5 94.4 94.4 Yes 3 5.3 5.6 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 169 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through asking him/her to come back after a spe￾cific period – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 19 33.3 35.2 35.2 Yes 35 61.4 64.8 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through: Other – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 54 94.7 100.0 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through sending letter via mail – Beheira Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 6 33.3 40.0 40.0 Yes 9 50.0 60.0 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through sending an e-mail – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 15 83.3 100.0 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 170 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through calling him/her over the phone – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 9 50.0 60.0 60.0 Yes 6 33.3 40.0 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through sending a text message over the phone – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 15 83.3 100.0 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through asking him/her to come back after a spe￾cific period – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 5 27.8 33.3 33.3 Yes 10 55.6 66.7 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 Citizen is usually contacted to provide him/her with a response to his/her complaint through: Other – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 15 83.3 100.0 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 171 CSCs staff were asked to provide some recommendations for improving the current system for citi￾zens’ suggestion/complaint regarding the CSC services. Figure (2.3) presents the highly mentioned recommendations in both governorates. Figure (2.3): CSCs staff recommendations for improving the current citizens; sugges￾tion/complaint system by governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents: Aswan=57; Beheira = 18 Do you use technological tools (e.g., e-mails, Web sites, mobile phone applications, etc.) to provide services to citizens? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 10 17.5 18.5 18.5 No 20 35.1 37.0 55.6 Sometimes 4 7.0 7.4 63.0 Not Availa￾ble 20 35.1 37.0 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Put the suggestion/ complaint box into effect Use of technological approaches (e.g. Internet, e-mails, mobile apps, Web site, etc.) Linking between different departments and continuous follow up Increase the rate of responding to complaints Use of telephone (special hotline for complaints) 29.8% n=17 21.1% n=12 21.1% n=12 17.5% n=10 1.8% n=1 11.1% n=2 11.1% n=2 0.0% n=0 16.7% n=3 27.8% n=5 Aswan Beheira 172 Use of telephone (special hotline for complaints) – Aswan Gov￾ernorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 56 98.2 98.2 98.2 Yes 1 1.8 1.8 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 Use of technological approaches (e.g., Internet, e-mails, mobile apps, Web site, etc.) – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 45 78.9 78.9 78.9 Yes 12 21.1 21.1 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 Increase the rate of responding to complaints – Aswan Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 47 82.5 82.5 82.5 Yes 10 17.5 17.5 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 Put the suggestion/complaint box into effect – Aswan Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 40 70.2 70.2 70.2 Yes 17 29.8 29.8 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 linking between different departments and continuous follow up – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 45 78.9 78.9 78.9 Yes 12 21.1 21.1 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 173 Use of telephone (special hotline for complaints) – Beheira Gov￾ernorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 13 72.2 72.2 72.2 Yes 5 27.8 27.8 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 Use of technological approaches (e.g., Internet, e-mails, mobile apps, Web site, etc.) – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 16 88.9 88.9 88.9 Yes 2 11.1 11.1 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 increase the rate of responding to complaints – Beheira Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 15 83.3 83.3 83.3 Yes 3 16.7 16.7 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 Put the suggestion/complaint box into effect – Beheira Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 16 88.9 88.9 88.9 Yes 2 11.1 11.1 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 Linking between different departments and continuous follow-up – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 18 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 (b) Changing Local Communities Attitudes Toward the Government Generally, in order to support the CSC effectiveness, the CSC working environment should be sup￾ported sufficiently for the CSC staff. This would guarantee that the CSC staff would work efficiently 174 and comfortably which by turn allow them to fully satisfy citizens’ services requests. This has an un￾deniable indirect role in changing local communities’ attitude towards the governments. CSCs selected staff were asked if, from their point of view, they think that the number of staff mem￾bers working in the CSC is sufficient enough such that it can support accomplishing most or all daily requested services. As shown in Figure (2.4), slightly above half of the CSCs staff sampled in Aswan think their number is sufficient and about 30% think however that it is sufficient to some extent. About 14% think it is not sufficient at all. In Beheira, on the other hand, slightly above three quarters think the number of staff members in CSCs is completely sufficient. Figure (2.4): CSCs staff satisfaction level with the sufficiency of the number of staff members: (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 56 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 In your opinion, is the number of staff members sufficient to accomplish most or all daily requested services? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 31 54.4 55.4 55.4 No 8 14.0 14.3 69.6 To Some Ex￾tent 17 29.8 30.4 100.0 Total 56 98.2 100.0 Missing System 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0 Yes (55.4%); n=31 No (14.3%); n=8 To Some Extent (30.4%); n=17 Yes No To Some Extent Yes (77.8%); n=14 To Some Extent (22.2%); n=4 Yes No To Some Extent 175 In your opinion, is the number of staff members sufficient to accomplish most or all daily requested services? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 14 77.8 77.8 77.8 To Some Ex￾tent 4 22.2 22.2 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 Figure (2.5) presents the distribution of the CSCs staff based on the availability of appropriate equip￾ment (e.g. computers, printers, scanners, etc.) that help them accomplish their work assignments. As shown in both governments, all respondents except one in Aswan confirmed the availability of these equipment; either completely or to some extent. Figure (2.5): Availability of appropriate equipment for CSCs staff to accomplish work assignments (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents=54 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents=18 Do you have the appropriate equipment (e.g., computers, printers, scanners, etc.) to enable you to accomplish your work assignments? – Aswan Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 35 61.4 64.8 64.8 No 1 1.8 1.9 66.7 To Some Ex￾tent 18 31.6 33.3 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Yes (64.8%); n=35 No (1.9%); n=1 To Some Extent (33.3%); n=18 Yes No To Some Extent Yes (44.4%); n=8 To Some Extent (55.6%); n=10 Yes No To Some Extent 176 Do you have the appropriate equipment (e.g., computers, printers, scan￾ners, etc.) to enable you to accomplish your work assignments? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 8 44.4 44.4 44.4 To Some Ex￾tent 10 55.6 55.6 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 Those who confirmed the availability of these equipment were further asked to qualify whether this equipment are efficient or not. As shown in Figure (2.6), the vast majority confirmed its efficiency. Only three CSCSs staff respondents in Aswan stated that this equipment is not efficient at all. Figure (2.6): Efficiency of the equipment of the CSCs staff assigned to accomplish work assignments: (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 54 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 Would you qualify this equipment as efficient? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 36 63.2 66.7 66.7 No 3 5.3 5.6 72.2 To Some Ex￾tent 15 26.3 27.8 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Yes (66.7%); n=36 No (5.6%); n=3 To Some Extent (27.8%); n=15 Yes No To Some Extent Yes (83.3%); n=15 To Some Extent (16.7%); n=3 Yes No To Some Extent 177 Would you qualify this equipment as efficient? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 15 83.3 83.3 83.3 To Some Ex￾tent 3 16.7 16.7 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 CSC staff were asked to state their opinion whether the CSCs have succeeded in changing citizens’ willingness to use governmental services (i.e., attitudes toward the government). As shown in Figure (2.7), in Aswan the highest percent (50%) is for the staff respondents who think it has changed their willingness to some extent. In Beheira, all respondents think it has changed their willingness for sure. Figure (2.7): Distribution of CSCs staff based on their opinion on the success of CSCs in changing citizens’ willingness to use governmental services: (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 56 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 In your opinion, have the CSCs succeeded in changing citizens’ willingness to use governmental services (i.e. attitudes toward the government)? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 25 43.9 44.6 44.6 No 3 5.3 5.4 50.0 To Some Ex￾tent 28 49.1 50.0 100.0 Total 56 98.2 100.0 Missing System 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0 Yes (44.6%); n=25 No (5.4%); n=3 To Some Extent (50.0%); n=28 Yes No To Some Extent Yes (88.9%); n=16 To Some Extent (11.1%); n=2 Yes No To Some Extent 178 In your opinion, have the CSCs succeeded in changing citizens’ willingness to use governmental services (i.e. attitudes toward the government)? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 16 88.9 88.9 88.9 To Some Ex￾tent 2 11.1 11.1 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 CSC staff were generally asked to state the extent they agree with the following statement: “The CSC model is successful and it should be replicated in other different districts.” As shown in Figure (2.8), all re￾spondents in both governorates agree with this statement. None has disagreed with it. Figure (2.8): Extent of agreement with the statement “This CSC is a successful model and it should be replicated in other districts” (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 56 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 Totally Agree (46.4%); n=26 Agree (53.6%); n=30 Totally Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Totally Disagree Totally Agree (77.8%); n=14 Agree (22.2%); n=4 Totally Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Totally Disagree 179 To what extent do you agree with the following statement: "The CSC model is successful and it should be replicated in other different districts” – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Totally Agree 26 45.6 46.4 46.4 Agree 30 52.6 53.6 100.0 Total 56 98.2 100.0 Missing System 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0 To what extent do you agree with the following statement: "The CSC model is successful and it should be replicated in other different dis￾tricts” – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Totally Agree 14 77.8 77.8 77.8 Agree 4 22.2 22.2 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 2 (c) Helping Public Utilize Services Better About the technological tools (e.g., e-mails, Web sites, mobile phone applications, etc.) used by the CSCs’ staff to provide services to citizens, Figure (2.9) shows that a considerable portion of staff re￾sponses indicate that such methods are not available already (74% in Aswan and 67% in Beheira). About 44% of the staff respondents in Beheira and 37% in Aswan disconfirmed their use. Figure (2.9): CSCs staff use of technological tools to provide services to citizens: (a) Aswan Governorate Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 54 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 Yes (25.9%); n=14 No (74.0%); n=40 Yes No Yes (22.2%); n=6 No (66.6%); n=12 Yes No 180 Do you use technological tools (e.g., e-mails, Web sites, mobile phone applications, etc.) to provide services to citizens? Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 10 17.5 18.5 18.5 No 20 35.1 37.0 55.6 Sometimes 4 7.0 7.4 63.0 Not Availa￾ble 20 35.1 37.0 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Do you use technological tools (e.g., e-mails, Web sites, mobile phone applications, etc.) to provide services to citizens? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 4 22.2 22.2 22.2 No 8 44.4 44.4 66.7 Sometimes 2 11.1 11.1 77.8 Not Availa￾ble 4 22.2 22.2 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 181 2 (d) Reducing Corruption Figure (2.10) reflects the extent the CSCs staff believe that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corruption. As shown, all staff respondents in both governorates agree with that except two re￾spondents in Aswan. Figure (2.10): Distribution of CSCs staff according to their belief that the CSC model minimizes corruption: (a) Aswan Governorate (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 56 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 18 Do you believe that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corruption? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 32 56.1 57.1 57.1 No 2 3.5 3.6 60.7 To Some Ex￾tent 22 38.6 39.3 100.0 Total 56 98.2 100.0 Missing System 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0 Do you believe that the CSC model minimizes opportunities for corrup￾tion? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 9 50.0 50.0 50.0 To Some Ex￾tent 9 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 (3) Evaluation Question (3): Capacity Development 3 (a) Improving Knowledge Yes (57.1%); n=32 No (3.6%); n=2 To Some Extent (39.3%); n=22 Yes No To Some Extent Yes (50.0%); n=9 To Some Extent (50.0%); n=9 Yes No To Some Extent 182 Results show that 94.7% (n=54) of Aswan CSCs sampled staff and 83.3% (n=18) of Beheira’s have re￾ceived on-the-job training at the CSC. Have you received on-the-job training at the CSC? – Aswan Gov￾ernorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 54 94.7 94.7 94.7 No 3 5.3 5.3 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 Have you received on-the-job training at the CSC? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 15 83.3 83.3 83.3 No 3 16.7 16.7 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 Those who have received a training were asked about the number of courses they have taken. Figure (3.1) presents the percent distribution of the CSCs staff based on the number of training courses they received in both governorates. Figure (3.1): Number of training courses received by the CSCs staff by governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents: Aswan=54; Beheira = 15 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 35.2% n=19 53.7% n=29 9.3% n=5 1.9% n=1 40.0% n=6 20.0% n=3 20.0% n=3 20.0% n=3 Aswan Beheira 183 Number of training courses received by the CSCs staff – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 1-2 19 33.3 35.2 35.2 3-4 29 50.9 53.7 88.9 5-6 5 8.8 9.3 98.1 7-8 1 1.8 1.9 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Number of training courses received by the CSCs staff – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid 1-2 6 33.3 40.0 40.0 3-4 3 16.7 20.0 60.0 5-6 3 16.7 20.0 80.0 7-8 3 16.7 20.0 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 184 And by asking about the names of the courses received, their answers were as presented in Figure (a1) below. Figure (a1): Training programs received by the CSC staff in both governorates Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents: Aswan=54; Beheira = 15 Received a customer service training – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 16 28.1 29.6 29.6 Yes 38 66.7 70.4 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Received a computer skills training – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 18 31.6 33.3 33.3 Yes 36 63.2 66.7 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Customer Service Computer Skills Human Development System/ Supervising the system 70.4% n=38 66.7% n=36 66.7% n=36 7.5% n=4 33.3% n=5 66.7% n=10 13.3% n=2 46.7% n=7 Aswan Beheira 185 Received a human development training – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 18 31.6 33.3 33.3 Yes 36 63.2 66.7 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Received a system/supervising the system training – Aswan Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 49 86.0 92.5 92.5 Yes 4 7.0 7.5 100.0 Total 53 93.0 100.0 Missing System 4 7.0 Total 57 100.0 Received a customer service training – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 10 55.6 66.7 66.7 Yes 5 27.8 33.3 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 Received a computer skills training– Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 5 27.8 33.3 33.3 Yes 10 55.6 66.7 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 186 Received a human development training– Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 13 72.2 86.7 86.7 Yes 2 11.1 13.3 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 Received a system/supervising the system training– Beheira Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 8 44.4 53.3 53.3 Yes 7 38.9 46.7 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 Among those who were trained, 49.2% in Aswan believed that these training courses were sufficient for them, while 58.8% in Beheira believed they were sufficient, however to some extent, as shown in Figure (3.2). Figure (3.2): CSCs staff belief regarding the sufficiency of the received training courses by governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents: Aswan=59; Beheira = 17 Aswan Beheira 39.0% n=23 58.8% 49.2% n=10 n=29 35.3% n=6 11.9% n=7 5.9% n=1 Yes To Some Extent No 187 Do you believe that the training courses received are sufficient for you? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 22 38.6 41.5 41.5 No 6 10.5 11.3 52.8 To Some Ex￾tent 25 43.9 47.2 100.0 Total 53 93.0 100.0 Missing System 4 7.0 Total 57 100.0 Do you believe that the training courses received are sufficient for you? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 8 44.4 53.3 53.3 No 1 5.6 6.7 60.0 To Some Ex￾tent 6 33.3 40.0 100.0 Total 15 83.3 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 About 94.0% of CSCs staff respondents in Aswan and all the CSCs staff respondents in Beheira to￾tally agreed that the received courses have improved their job performance. Have the training courses received to date improved your job performance? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 51 89.5 94.4 94.4 No 1 1.8 1.9 96.3 To Some Ex￾tent 2 3.5 3.7 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 188 Have the training courses received to date improved your job per￾formance? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 15 83.3 100.0 100.0 Missing System 3 16.7 Total 18 100.0 A large portion of CSCs staff showed their willingness to take additional training courses in order to improve their job performance (76.0% in Aswan and 85.7% in Beheira). Do you think you would like to take additional training courses to improve your job performance? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 41 71.9 75.9 75.9 No 13 22.8 24.1 100.0 Total 54 94.7 100.0 Missing System 3 5.3 Total 57 100.0 Do you think you would like to take additional training courses to improve your job performance? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 12 66.7 85.7 85.7 No 2 11.1 14.3 100.0 Total 14 77.8 100.0 Missing System 4 22.2 Total 18 100.0 189 By asking the CSCs staff about the names of the required additional courses, their answers were as presented in Figure (1b). Figure (1b): Additional training courses requested by the CSC staff to improve their job performance by governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents: Aswan=35; Beheira = 11 Need to take customer service course – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 25 43.9 69.4 69.4 Yes 11 19.3 30.6 100.0 Total 36 63.2 100.0 Missing System 21 36.8 Total 57 100.0 Need to take computer skills course – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 21 36.8 58.3 58.3 Yes 15 26.3 41.7 100.0 Total 36 63.2 100.0 Missing System 21 36.8 Total 57 100.0 30.6% n=11 41.7% n=15 45.7% n=16 11.4% n=11 18.2% n=2 18.2% n=2 27.3% n=3 54.5% n=6 Aswan Beheira 190 Need to take human development course – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 19 33.3 54.3 54.3 Yes 16 28.1 45.7 100.0 Total 35 61.4 100.0 Missing System 22 38.6 Total 57 100.0 Need to take system/supervising the system course – Aswan Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 31 54.4 88.6 88.6 Yes 4 7.0 11.4 100.0 Total 35 61.4 100.0 Missing System 22 38.6 Total 57 100.0 Need to take customer service course– Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 9 50.0 81.8 81.8 Yes 2 11.1 18.2 100.0 Total 11 61.1 100.0 Missing System 7 38.9 Total 18 100.0 Need to take computer skills course– Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 9 50.0 81.8 81.8 Yes 2 11.1 18.2 100.0 Total 11 61.1 100.0 Missing System 7 38.9 Total 18 100.0 191 Need to take human development course– Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 8 44.4 72.7 72.7 Yes 3 16.7 27.3 100.0 Total 11 61.1 100.0 Missing System 7 38.9 Total 18 100.0 Need to take system/supervising the system course– Beheira Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 5 27.8 45.5 45.5 Yes 6 33.3 54.5 100.0 Total 11 61.1 100.0 Missing System 7 38.9 Total 18 100.0 Finally, CSCs staff were asked if a training needs assessment is conducted to them continuously to identify targeted training courses. As shown in Figure (3.3), assessment are most probably conducted but commonly not on a regular basis. Figure (3.3): Regularity of needs assessment conducted to CSCs staff to identify tar￾geted training courses: (a) Aswan Governorate, (b) Beheira Governorate Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 61 Total Number of CSCs Staff Respondents = 24 Yes regularly (85.2%) n=52 No (8.2%) n=5 Don't Know (6.6%) n=4 Yes No Don't Know Yes (62.5%) n=15 No (29.2%) n=7 Don't Know (8.3%) n=2 Yes No Don't Know 192 Is a routine training needs assessment conducted to identify targeted training courses? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes, on a regular basis 20 35.1 36.4 36.4 Yes, but not on a regu￾lar basis 26 45.6 47.3 83.6 No 5 8.8 9.1 92.7 Don’t Know 4 7.0 7.3 100.0 Total 55 96.5 100.0 Missing System 2 3.5 Total 57 100.0 Is a routine training needs assessment conducted to identify targeted training courses? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes, on a regular basis 4 22.2 22.2 22.2 Yes, but not on a regu￾lar basis 9 50.0 50.0 72.2 No 5 27.8 27.8 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 193 Questions Targeting Managers/Supervisors Only Managers and supervisors in the targeted CSCs were asked if they conduct a regular training assess￾ment for their employees. Table (3.1) shows that mangers/supervisors in Aswan tend to conduct it but not on a regular basis. In Beheira, most probably they do not conduct needs assessment analysis and if done it would not be on a regular basis. Table (3.1): CSCs managers and supervisors rate of conducting regular training assessment to their employees by governorate Rate Governorate Yes on regular basis Yes but not on regular basis Never Total Aswan 4 (30.8%) 9 (69.2%) 0 (0.0%) 13 (100.0%) Beheira 1 (9.1%) 5 (45.5%) 5 (45.5%) 11 (100.0%) 194 3 (b) Effective Trainings A direct question was asked to CSCs staff in the sample to list the name of the training courses that were most effective to them. The following tables present staff assessment. Table (1a): CSCs Staff assessment for the training program they received by governorate Gov. Training Program Effective Not Effective Total Aswan Customer Service 28 (73.7%) 10 (26.3%) 38 (100.0%) Computer Skills 18 (50.0%) 18 (50.0%) 36 (100.0%) Human Development 28 (77.8%) 8 (22.2%) 36 (100.0%) System/Supervising the system 4 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (100.0%) Be￾heira Customer Service 3 (60.0%) 2 (40.0%) 5 (100.0%) Computer Skills 7 (70.0%) 3 (30.0%) 10 (100.0%) Human Development 2 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (100.0%) System/Supervising the system 6 (85.7%) 1 (14.3%) 7 (100.0%) Customer service training was effective – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 23 40.4 45.1 45.1 Yes 28 49.1 54.9 100.0 Total 51 89.5 100.0 Missing System 6 10.5 Total 57 100.0 Computer skills training was effective – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 33 57.9 64.7 64.7 Yes 18 31.6 35.3 100.0 Total 51 89.5 100.0 Missing System 6 10.5 Total 57 100.0 195 Human development training was effective – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 23 40.4 45.1 45.1 Yes 28 49.1 54.9 100.0 Total 51 89.5 100.0 Missing System 6 10.5 Total 57 100.0 System/supervising the system training was effective – Aswan Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 47 82.5 92.2 92.2 Yes 4 7.0 7.8 100.0 Total 51 89.5 100.0 Missing System 6 10.5 Total 57 100.0 Customer service training was effective– Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 11 61.1 78.6 78.6 Yes 3 16.7 21.4 100.0 Total 14 77.8 100.0 Missing System 4 22.2 Total 18 100.0 Computer skills training was effective– Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 7 38.9 50.0 50.0 Yes 7 38.9 50.0 100.0 Total 14 77.8 100.0 Missing System 4 22.2 Total 18 100.0 196 Human development training was effective– Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 12 66.7 85.7 85.7 Yes 2 11.1 14.3 100.0 Total 14 77.8 100.0 Missing System 4 22.2 Total 18 100.0 System/supervising the system training was effective– Beheira Gover￾norate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid No 8 44.4 57.1 57.1 Yes 6 33.3 42.9 100.0 Total 14 77.8 100.0 Missing System 4 22.2 Total 18 100.0 General Questions Do you have a clear job description? – Aswan Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 42 73.7 73.7 73.7 No 8 14.0 14.0 87.7 Don't Know 7 12.3 12.3 100.0 Total 57 100.0 100.0 Do you have a clear job description? – Beheira Governorate Frequency Percent Valid Per￾cent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 9 50.0 50.0 50.0 No 7 38.9 38.9 88.9 Don't Know 2 11.1 11.1 100.0 Total 18 100.0 100.0 197 ANNEX VI: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SCORECARDS CSC Customer Satisfaction Scorecards Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Aswan Citizen Service Center Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Satis￾fied Satisfied Neutral Unsatis￾fied Very Unsat￾isfied Total % Overall Satisfac￾Weight 5 4 3 2 1 tion Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 47 11 0 3 0 61 93.4% Weight 235 44 0 6 0 285 Convenience of CSC Location n 55 6 0 0 0 61 98.0% Weight 275 24 0 0 0 299 Accessibility Satisfaction 95.7% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 36 21 2 0 0 59 91.5% Weight 180 84 6 0 0 270 Quality of Waiting Area n 55 5 1 0 0 61 97.7% Weight 275 20 3 0 0 298 Quality Satisfaction 94.6% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 38 21 0 1 0 60 92.0% Weight 190 84 0 2 0 276 Operating Hours n 43 15 1 0 0 59 94.2% Weight 215 60 3 0 0 278 Adequacy Satisfaction 93.1% Efficiency Cost of Service n 40 18 1 0 0 59 93.2% Weight 200 72 3 0 0 275 Successful Model & Should be Repli￾cated n 37 19 1 0 0 57 92.6% Weight 185 76 3 0 0 264 Efficiency Satisfaction 92.9% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 43 12 0 0 0 55 95.6% Weight 215 48 0 0 0 263 Accountability Satisfaction 95.6% Timeliness Staff deliver Ser￾vices within Legal Time n 0 52 0 0 0 52 80.0% Weight 0 208 0 0 0 208 Timeliness Satisfaction 80.0% Transparency Process to Reduc￾ing Corruption n 38 17 4 0 0 59 91.5% Weight 190 68 12 0 0 270 Transparency Satisfaction 91.5% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 91.9% 198 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Dewan Citizen Service Center Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Satis￾fied Satisfied Neutral Unsatis￾fied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfac￾Weight 5 4 3 2 1 tion Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 17 0 0 0 0 17 100.0% Weight 85 0 0 0 0 85 Convenience of CSC Location n 15 2 0 0 0 17 97.6% Weight 75 8 0 0 0 83 Accessibility Satisfaction 95.7% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 13 2 1 1 0 17 91.8% Weight 65 8 3 2 0 78 Quality of Waiting Area n 16 1 0 0 0 17 98.8% Weight 80 4 0 0 0 84 Quality Satisfaction 94.6% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 15 2 0 0 0 17 97.6% Weight 75 8 0 0 0 83 Operating Hours n 14 3 0 0 0 17 96.5% Weight 70 12 0 0 0 82 Adequacy Satisfaction 93.1% Efficiency Cost of Service n 9 6 0 2 0 17 85.9% Weight 45 24 0 4 0 73 Successful Model & Should be Repli￾cated n 6 9 0 0 0 15 88.0% Weight 30 36 0 0 0 66 Efficiency Satisfaction 92.9% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 11 3 0 0 0 14 95.7% Weight 55 12 0 0 0 67 Accountability Satisfaction 95.6% Timeliness Staff deliver Ser￾vices within Legal Time n 0 16 0 0 0 16 80.0% Weight 0 64 0 0 0 64 Timeliness Satisfaction 80.0% Transparency Process to Reduc￾ing Corruption n 7 6 3 0 0 16 85.0% Weight 35 24 9 0 0 68 Transparency Satisfaction 85.0% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 91.3% 199 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Daraw Citizen Service Center Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Satis￾fied Satisfied Neutral Unsatis￾fied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfac￾Weight 5 4 3 2 1 tion Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 10 3 1 0 0 14 92.9% Weight 50 12 3 0 0 65 Convenience of CSC Location n 11 2 0 0 0 13 96.9% Weight 55 8 0 0 0 63 Accessibility Satisfaction 94.9% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 11 1 0 0 0 12 98.3% Weight 55 4 0 0 0 59 Quality of Waiting Area n 10 2 1 0 0 13 93.8% Weight 50 8 3 0 0 61 Quality Satisfaction 96.1% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 9 4 1 0 0 14 91.4% Weight 45 16 3 0 0 64 Operating Hours n 8 4 1 0 0 13 90.8% Weight 40 16 3 0 0 59 Adequacy Satisfaction 91.1% Efficiency Cost of Service n 7 6 1 0 0 14 88.6% Weight 35 24 3 0 0 62 Successful Model & Should be Repli￾cated n 9 5 0 0 0 14 92.9% Weight 45 20 0 0 0 65 Efficiency Satisfaction 90.7% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 8 4 0 0 0 12 93.3% Weight 40 16 0 0 0 56 Accountability Satisfaction 93.3% Timeliness Staff deliver Ser￾vices within Legal Time n 0 13 0 0 0 13 80.0% Weight 0 52 0 0 0 52 Timeliness Satisfaction 80.0% Transparency Process to Reduc￾ing Corruption n 8 4 1 0 0 13 90.8% Weight 40 16 3 0 0 59 Transparency Satisfaction 90.8% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 91.0% 200 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Edfu Citizen Service Center Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Satis￾fied Satisfied Neutral Unsatis￾fied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfac￾Weight 5 4 3 2 1 tion Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 10 3 1 0 0 14 92.9% Weight 50 12 3 0 0 65 Convenience of CSC Location n 11 2 0 0 0 13 96.9% Weight 55 8 0 0 0 63 Accessibility Satisfaction 92.8% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 15 15 1 1 0 32 87.5% Weight 75 60 3 2 0 140 Quality of Waiting Area n 22 12 0 0 0 34 92.9% Weight 110 48 0 0 0 158 Quality Satisfaction 90.2% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 18 14 1 1 0 34 88.8% Weight 90 56 3 2 0 151 Operating Hours n 16 17 0 1 0 34 88.2% Weight 80 68 0 2 0 150 Adequacy Satisfaction 88.5% Efficiency Cost of Service n 11 23 0 0 0 34 86.5% Weight 55 92 0 0 0 147 Successful Model and Should be Replicated n 15 13 0 3 0 31 85.8% Weight 75 52 0 6 0 133 Efficiency Satisfaction 86.1% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 18 11 0 0 0 29 92.4% Weight 90 44 0 0 0 134 Accountability Satisfaction 92.4% Timeliness Staff deliver Ser￾vices within Legal Time n 0 26 0 4 0 30 74.7% Weight 0 104 0 8 0 112 Timeliness Satisfaction 74.7% Transparency Process to Reduc￾ing Corruption n 13 17 3 1 0 34 84.7% Weight 65 68 9 2 0 144 Transparency Satisfaction 84.7% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 87.1% 201 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Nasr El-Nuba Citizen Service Center Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Satis￾fied Satisfied Neutral Unsat￾isfied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfaction Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 4 6 0 0 0 10 88.0% Weight 20 24 0 0 0 44 Convenience of CSC Location n 8 1 1 0 0 10 94.0% Weight 40 4 3 0 0 47 Accessibility Satisfaction 91.0% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 8 1 0 1 0 10 92.0% Weight 40 4 0 2 0 46 Quality of Waiting Area n 5 3 1 1 0 10 84.0% Weight 25 12 3 2 0 42 Quality Satisfaction 90.2% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 6 2 1 0 0 9 91.1% Weight 30 8 3 0 0 41 Operating Hours n 4 5 1 0 0 10 86.0% Weight 20 20 3 0 0 43 Adequacy Satisfaction 88.6% Efficiency Cost of Service n 6 3 0 1 0 10 88.0% Weight 30 12 0 2 0 44 Successful Model & Should be Repli￾cated n 7 3 0 0 0 10 94.0% Weight 35 12 0 0 0 47 Efficiency Satisfaction 91.0% Accountabil￾ity Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 5 4 0 0 0 9 91.1% Weight 25 16 0 0 0 41 Accountability Satisfaction 91.1% Timeliness Staff deliver Ser￾vices within Legal Time n 0 9 0 0 0 9 80.0% Weight 0 36 0 0 0 36 Timeliness Satisfaction 80.0% Transparency Process to Reduc￾ing Corruption n 8 1 1 0 0 10 94.0% Weight 40 4 3 0 0 47 Transparency Satisfaction 94.0% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 89.1% 202 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Aswan Governorate Attributes Variables Satisfac￾tion De￾gree Very Sat￾isfied Satisfied Neutral Unsat￾isfied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfaction Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Accessibility Accessible for Elderly & Disabled People n 94 37 1 3 0 135 92.9% Weight 470 148 3 6 0 627 Convenience of CSC Location n 116 18 1 0 0 135 97.0% Weight 580 72 3 0 0 655 Accessibility Satisfaction 95.0% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 83 40 4 3 0 130 91.2% Weight 415 160 12 6 0 593 Quality of Waiting Area n 108 23 3 1 0 135 95.3% Weight 540 92 9 2 0 643 Quality Satisfaction 93.2% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 86 43 3 2 0 134 91.8% Weight 430 172 9 4 0 615 Operating Hours n 85 44 3 1 0 133 92.0% Weight 425 176 9 2 0 612 Adequacy Satisfaction 91.9% Efficiency Cost of Service n 73 56 2 3 0 134 89.7% Weight 365 224 6 6 0 601 Successful Model & Should be Replicated n 74 49 1 3 0 127 90.6% Weight 370 196 3 6 0 575 Efficiency Satisfaction 90.1% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 85 34 0 0 0 119 94.3% Weight 425 136 0 0 0 561 Accountability Satisfaction 94.3% Timeliness Staff deliver Services within Legal Time n 0 116 0 4 0 120 78.7% Weight 0 464 0 8 0 472 Timeliness Satisfaction 78.7% Transparency Process to Reducing Corruption n 74 45 12 1 0 132 89.1% Weight 370 180 36 2 0 588 Transparency Satisfaction 89.1% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 90.3% 203 Summary Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Aswan Governorate Citizen Service Cen￾ters Attributes Variables Satisfaction Percent Aswan Dewan Daraw Edfu Nasr El-Nuba % Overall Satisfac￾tion Accessibility Accessible for Elderly & Disa￾bled People 93.4% 100.0% 92.9% 89.7% 88.0% 92.9% Convenience of CSC Loca￾tion 98.0% 97.6% 96.9% 95.9% 94.0% 97.0% Accessibility Satisfaction 95.7% 98.8% 94.9% 92.8% 91.0% 95.0% Quality Quality of Ser￾vices Provided 91.5% 91.8% 98.3% 87.5% 92.0% 91.2% Quality of Waiting Area 97.7% 98.8% 93.8% 92.9% 84.0% 95.3% Quality Satisfaction 94.6% 95.3% 96.1% 90.2% 88.0% 93.2% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Re￾quests 92.0% 97.6% 91.4% 88.8% 91.1% 91.8% Operating Hours 94.2% 96.5% 90.8% 88.2% 86.0% 92.0% Adequacy Satisfaction 93.1% 97.1% 91.1% 88.5% 88.6% 91.9% Efficiency Cost of Service 93.2% 85.9% 88.6% 86.5% 88.0% 89.7% Successful Model & Should be Replicated 92.6% 88.0% 92.9% 85.8% 94.0% 90.6% Efficiency Satisfaction 92.9% 86.9% 90.7% 86.1% 91.0% 90.1% Accountability Staff Provide Adequate Guidance 95.6% 95.7% 93.3% 92.4% 91.1% 94.3% Accountability Satisfaction 95.6% 95.7% 93.3% 92.4% 91.1% 94.3% Timeliness Staff deliver Services within Legal Time 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 74.7% 80.0% 78.7% Timeliness Satisfaction 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 74.7% 80.0% 78.7% Transparency Process to Re￾ducing Corrup￾tion 91.5% 85.0% 90.8% 84.7% 94.0% 89.1% Transparency Satisfaction 91.5% 85.0% 90.8% 84.7% 94.0% 89.1% Percent of Overall CSC Cus￾tomer Satisfaction within a Given CSC/Governorate 91.9% 91.3% 91.0% 87.1% 89.1% 90.3% 204 FIGURE 1 General Customer Satisfaction with Each Attribute in Aswan Governorate across CSCs FIGURE 2: Aswan Governorate Percent Customer Satisfaction with Each Attribute by CSC Accessibility Quality 95.0% 93.2% 91.9% 90.1% 89.1% 78.7% 94.3% 95.7% 98.8% 94.9% 92.8% 91.0% 94.6% 95.3% 96.1% 90.2% 88.0% 205 Adequacy Efficiency Transparency Timeliness Accountability 93.1% 97.1% 91.1% 88.5% 88.6% 92.9% 86.9% 90.7% 86.1% 91.0% 91.5% 85.0% 90.8% 84.7% 94.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 74.7% 80.0% 95.6% 95.7% 93.3% 92.4% 91.1% 206 Beheira Governorate Scorecards Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Abu Homous Citizen Service Center Attributes Variables Satisfac￾tion De￾gree Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatis￾fied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfaction Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Accessibility Accessible for Elderly & Disabled People n 3 7 10 2 4 26 62.3% Weight 15 28 30 4 4 81 Convenience of CSC Location n 14 10 0 1 0 25 89.6% Weight 70 40 0 2 0 112 Accessibility Satisfaction 76.0% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 11 5 4 3 2 25 76.0% Weight 55 20 12 6 2 95 Quality of Waiting Area n 9 12 2 2 1 26 80.0% Weight 45 48 6 4 1 104 Quality Satisfaction 78.0% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 9 8 5 2 1 25 77.6% Weight 45 32 15 4 1 97 Operating Hours n 6 11 6 2 1 26 74.6% Weight 30 44 18 4 1 97 Adequacy Satisfaction 76.1% Efficiency Cost of Service n 8 10 2 2 3 25 74.4% Weight 40 40 6 4 3 93 Successful Model & Should be Replicated n 13 7 2 1 0 23 87.8% Weight 65 28 6 2 0 101 Efficiency Satisfaction 81.1% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 5 10 0 3 0 18 78.9% Weight 25 40 0 6 0 71 Accountability Satisfaction 78.9% Timeliness Staff deliver Services within Legal Time n 0 18 0 8 0 26 67.7% Weight 0 72 0 16 0 88 Timeliness Satisfaction 67.7% Transparency Process to Reducing Corruption n 4 9 6 6 1 26 66.9% Weight 20 36 18 12 1 87 Transparency Satisfaction 66.9% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 75.0% 207 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Shobra Kheet Citizen Service Center Attributes Variables Satisfac￾tion De￾gree Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Unsat￾isfied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfaction Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 6 11 4 4 0 25 75.2% Weight 30 44 12 8 0 94 Convenience of CSC Location n 17 7 0 0 0 24 94.2% Weight 85 28 0 0 0 113 Accessibility Satisfaction 84.7% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 9 12 3 0 0 24 85.0% Weight 45 48 9 0 0 102 Quality of Waiting Area n 9 12 3 1 0 25 83.2% Weight 45 48 9 2 0 104 Quality Satisfaction 84.1% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 11 12 1 1 0 25 86.4% Weight 55 48 3 2 0 108 Operating Hours n 6 18 0 0 0 24 85.0% Weight 30 72 0 0 0 102 Adequacy Satisfaction 85.7% Efficiency Cost of Service n 10 12 2 0 1 25 84.0% Weight 50 48 6 0 1 105 Successful Model & Should be Replicated n 13 10 1 1 0 25 88.0% Weight 65 40 3 2 0 110 Efficiency Satisfaction 86.0% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 4 8 0 1 0 13 83.1% Weight 20 32 0 2 0 54 Accountability Satisfaction 83.1% Timeliness Staff deliver Services within Legal Time n 0 20 0 4 0 24 73.3% Weight 0 80 0 8 0 88 Timeliness Satisfaction 73.3% Transparency Process to Reducing Corruption n 2 16 6 0 0 24 76.7% Weight 10 64 18 0 0 92 Transparency Satisfaction 76.7% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 81.9% 208 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Beheira Governorate Citizen Service Centers Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Sat￾isfied Satisfied Neutral Unsat￾isfied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfaction Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 9 18 14 6 4 51 68.6% Weight 45 72 42 12 4 175 Convenience of CSC Location n 31 17 0 1 0 49 91.8% Weight 155 68 0 2 0 225 Accessibility Satisfaction 80.2% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 20 17 7 3 2 49 80.4% Weight 100 68 21 6 2 197 Quality of Waiting Area n 18 24 5 3 1 51 81.6% Weight 90 96 15 6 1 208 Quality Satisfaction 81.0% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 20 20 6 3 1 50 82.0% Weight 100 80 18 6 1 205 Operating Hours n 12 29 6 2 1 50 79.6% Weight 60 116 18 4 1 199 Adequacy Satisfaction 80.8% Efficiency Cost of Service n 18 22 4 2 4 50 79.2% Weight 90 88 12 4 4 198 Successful Model & Should be Replicated n 26 17 3 2 0 48 87.9% Weight 130 68 9 4 0 211 Efficiency Satisfaction 83.6% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 9 18 0 4 0 31 80.6% Weight 45 72 0 8 0 125 Accountability Satisfaction 80.6% Timeliness Staff deliver Services within Legal Time n 0 38 0 12 0 50 70.4% Weight 0 152 0 24 0 176 Timeliness Satisfaction 73.3% Transparency Process to Reducing Corruption n 6 25 12 6 1 50 71.6% Weight 30 100 36 12 1 179 Transparency Satisfaction 71.6% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 78.3% 209 FIGURE 3 General Customer Satisfaction with Each Attribute Across CSCs in Beheira Governorate. 80.2% 81.0% 80.8% 83.6% 71.6% 70.4% 80.6% 210 Customer Satisfaction Summary Scorecard for Beheira Governorate Citizen Service Centers Attributes Variables Satisfaction Percent Abu Homous Shobra Kheet % Overall Satisfaction Across CSCs Accessibility Accessible for Elderly & Disabled People 62.3% 75.2% 68.6% Convenience of CSC Lo￾cation 89.6% 94.2% 91.8% Accessibility Satisfaction 76.0% 84.7% 80.2% Quality Quality of Services Pro￾vided 76.0% 85.0% 80.4% Quality of Waiting Area 80.0% 83.2% 81.6% Quality Satisfaction 78.0% 84.1% 81.0% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests 77.6% 86.4% 82.0% CSC Operating Hours 74.6% 85.0% 79.6% Adequacy Satisfaction 76.1% 85.7% 80.8% Efficiency Cost of Service 74.4% 84.0% 79.2% CSC is a Successful Model and Should be Replicated in Other Districts 87.8% 88.0% 87.9% Efficiency Satisfaction 81.1% 86.0% 83.6% Accountability Staff Provide Adequate Guidance 78.9% 83.1% 80.6% Accountability Satisfaction 78.9% 83.1% 80.6% Timeliness Staff deliver Services within Legal Time 67.7% 73.3% 70.4% Timeliness Satisfaction 67.7% 73.3% 70.4% Transparency Process to Reducing Cor￾ruption 66.9% 76.7% 71.6% Transparency Satisfaction 66.9% 76.7% 71.6% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satis￾faction within the CSC 75.0% 81.9% 78.3% 211 FIGURE 4 Weighted Average Customer Satisfaction for each CSC in Beheira Governorate FIGURE 5 Customer Satisfaction with each Attribute in Beheira Governorate by CSC Abu Homous Shobra Kheet Total 75.0% 81.9% 78.3% 76.0% 78.0% 76.1% 81.1% 66.9% 67.7% 78.9% 84.7% 84.1% 85.7% 86.0% 76.6% 73.3% 83.1% Abu Homous Shobra Kheet 212 Comparative Analysis: Aswan and Beheira Governorate Customer Satisfaction Score￾cards Attrib￾utes Varia￾bles Percent Satisfaction Disaggregated by CSC and Attribute Beheira Aswan Percent of Overall Customer Satisfaction Across CSCs Abu Hom￾ous Shobra Kheet Sub Total As￾wan Dewan Daraw Edfu Nasr Nubia Sub Total Accessi￾bility CSC Accom￾moda￾tions for El￾derly and Per￾sons with Disabili￾ties (EQ12) 62.3% 75.2% 68.6% 93.4% 100.0% 92.9% 89.7% 88.0% 92.9% 85.9% Con￾ven￾ience of CSC Loca￾tion (EQ8) 89.6% 94.2% 91.8% 98.0% 97.6% 96.9% 95.9% 94.0% 97.0% 95.2% Accessibility Satis￾faction 76.0% 84.7% 80.2% 95.7% 98.8% 94.9% 92.8% 91.0% 95.0% 90.6% Quality Quality of Ser￾vices Pro￾vided (EQ6A) 76.0% 85.0% 80.4% 91.5% 91.8% 98.3% 87.5% 92.0% 91.2% 88.9% Quality of Wait￾ing Area (EQ11) 80.0% 83.2% 81.6% 97.7% 98.8% 93.8% 92.9% 84.0% 95.3% 90.1% Quality Satisfaction 78.0% 84.1% 81.0% 94.6% 95.3% 96.1% 90.2% 88.0% 93.2% 89.5% Adequacy CSC Staff Availability to Attend to Cus￾tomer Ser￾77.6% 86.4% 82.0% 92.0% 97.6% 91.4% 88.8% 91.1% 91.8% 89.3% 213 vice Re￾quest (EQ16) CSC Oper￾ating Hours (EQ15) 74.6% 85.0% 79.6% 94.2% 96.5% 90.8% 88.2% 86.0% 92.0% 87.9% Adequacy Satisfaction 76.1% 85.7% 80.8% 93.1% 97.1% 91.1% 88.5% 88.6% 91.9% 88.6% Efficiency Cost of Service (EQ9) 74.4% 84.0% 79.2% 93.2% 85.9% 88.6% 86.5% 88.0% 89.7% 85.8% CSC is a Successful Model and Should be Replicated in Other Districts (Q23) 87.8% 88.0% 87.9% 92.6% 88.0% 92.9% 85.8% 94.0% 90.6% 89.9% Efficiency Satisfaction 81.1% 86.0% 83.6% 92.9% 86.9% 90.7% 86.1% 91.0% 90.1% 87.8% Accounta￾bility CSC Staff￾Provide Ad￾equate In￾struction & Guidance for Applica￾tion Pro￾cess (EQ14) 78.9% 83.1% 80.6% 95.6% 95.7% 93.3% 92.4% 91.1% 94.3% 90.0% Accountability Satisfac￾tion 78.9% 83.1% 80.6% 95.6% 95.7% 93.3% 92.4% 91.1% 94.3% 90.0% Timeliness CSC staff deliver ser￾vices within the pre￾scribed timeframe (EQ10) 67.7% 73.3% 70.4% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 74.7% 80.0% 78.7% 76.5% Timeliness Satisfaction 67.7% 73.3% 70.4% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 74.7% 80.0% 78.7% 76.5% Transpar￾ency CSC Pro￾cess for Re￾ducing Cor￾ruption (EQ22) 66.9% 76.7% 71.6% 91.5% 85.0% 90.8% 84.7% 94.0% 89.1% 84.2% Transparency Satisfaction 66.9% 76.7% 71.6% 91.5% 85.0% 90.8% 84.7% 94.0% 89.1% 84.2% 214 Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfac￾tion within CSCs/Gover￾norates 75.0% 81.9% 78.3% 91.9% 91.3% 91.0% 87.1% 89.1% 90.3% 86.8% FIGURE 6 Weighted Average Customer Satisfaction across Seven CSCs in Aswan and Beheira Gover￾norates 90.6% 89.5% 88.6% 87.8% 84.2% 76.5% 90.0% 215 FIGURE 7 Customer Satisfaction with each Attribute, Beheira and Aswan Governorates 80.2% 81.0% 80.8% 83.6% 71.6% 70.4% 80.6% 95.0% 93.2% 91.9% 90.1% 89.1% 78.7% 94.3% Beheira Aswan 216 FIGURE 8 Weighted Average General Customer Satisfaction with each CSC in Aswan and Beheira Governorates Abu Homous Shobra Kheet Total Beheira Aswan Dewan Daraw Edfu Nasr El￾Nuba Total Aswan 75.0% 81.9% 78.3% 91.9% 91.3% 91.0% 87.1% 89.1% 90.3% Beheira Governorate Aswan Governorate 217 Customer Satisfaction Scorecards Disaggregated by Gender Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Females Across CSCs in Aswan Governorate Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Sat￾isfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatis￾fied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfaction Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 23 10 0 0 0 33 93.9% Weight 115 40 0 0 0 155 Convenience of CSC Location n 25 8 0 0 0 33 95.2% Weight 125 32 0 0 0 157 Accessibility Satisfaction 94.5% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 15 14 0 0 0 29 90.3% Weight 75 56 0 0 0 131 Quality of Waiting Area n 27 6 0 0 0 33 96.4% Weight 135 24 0 0 0 159 Quality Satisfaction 93.4% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 19 12 1 0 0 32 91.3% Weight 95 48 3 0 0 146 Operating Hours n 18 15 0 0 0 33 90.9% Weight 90 60 0 0 0 150 Adequacy Satisfaction 91.1% Efficiency Cost of Service n 17 16 0 0 0 33 90.3% Weight 85 64 0 0 0 149 Successful Model & Should be Repli￾cated n 19 12 0 1 0 32 90.6% Weight 95 48 0 2 0 145 Efficiency Satisfaction 90.5% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 19 11 0 0 0 30 92.7% Weight 95 44 0 0 0 139 Accountability Satisfaction 92.7% Timeliness Staff Deliver Ser￾vices within Legal Time n 0 29 0 1 0 30 78.7% Weight 0 116 0 2 0 118 Timeliness Satisfaction 78.7% Transparency Process to Reduc￾ing Corruption n 19 11 1 0 0 31 91.6% Weight 95 44 3 0 0 142 Transparency Satisfaction 91.6% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 90.3% 218 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Males Across CSCs in Aswan Governorate Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Sat￾isfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatis￾fied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfaction Weight 5 4 3 2 1 Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 62 25 1 3 0 91 92.1% Weight 310 100 3 6 0 419 Convenience of CSC Location n 80 10 1 0 0 91 97.4% Weight 400 40 3 0 0 443 Accessibility Satisfaction 94.7% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 60 23 4 3 0 90 91.1% Weight 300 92 12 6 0 410 Quality of Waiting Area n 72 15 3 1 0 91 94.7% Weight 360 60 9 2 0 431 Quality Satisfaction 92.9% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 61 27 2 2 0 92 92.0% Weight 305 108 6 4 0 423 Operating Hours n 61 26 3 1 0 91 92.3% Weight 305 104 9 2 0 420 Adequacy Satisfaction 92.1% Efficiency Cost of Service n 52 35 1 3 0 91 89.9% Weight 260 140 3 6 0 409 Successful Model & Should be Repli￾cated n 51 30 1 2 0 84 91.0% Weight 255 120 3 4 0 382 Efficiency Satisfaction 90.4% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 59 20 0 0 0 79 94.9% Weight 295 80 0 0 0 375 Accountability Satisfaction 94.9% Timeliness Staff Deliver Ser￾vices within Legal Time n 0 79 0 3 0 82 78.5% Weight 0 316 0 6 0 322 Timeliness Satisfaction 78.5% Transparency Process to Reduc￾ing Corruption n 48 30 11 1 0 90 87.8% Weight 240 120 33 2 0 395 Transparency Satisfaction 87.8% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 90.2% 219 FIGURE 9 Customer Satisfaction with each Attribute across CSCs in Aswan Governorate by Gen￾der 94.7% 92.9% 92.1% 90.4% 87.7% 78.5% 94.5% 94.9% 93.4% 91.1% 90.5% 91.6% 78.7% 92.7% Male Female 220 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Females Across CSCs in Beheira Governorate Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Sat￾isfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatis￾fied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfac￾Weight 5 4 3 2 1 tion Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 1 3 0 1 0 5 76.0% Weight 5 12 0 2 0 19 Convenience of CSC Location n 4 1 0 0 0 5 96.0% Weight 20 4 0 0 0 24 Accessibility Satisfaction 86.0% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 3 1 1 0 0 5 88.0% Weight 15 4 3 0 0 22 Quality of Waiting Area n 2 3 0 0 0 5 88.0% Weight 10 12 0 0 0 22 Quality Satisfaction 88.0% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 2 2 1 0 0 5 84.0% Weight 10 8 3 0 0 21 Operating Hours n 0 5 0 0 0 5 80.0% Weight 0 20 0 0 0 20 Adequacy Satisfaction 82.0% Efficiency Cost of Service n 1 2 2 0 0 5 76.0% Weight 5 8 6 0 0 19 Successful Model & Should be Repli￾cated n 2 3 0 0 0 5 88.0% Weight 10 12 0 0 0 22 Efficiency Satisfaction 82.0% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 0 3 0 0 0 3 80.0% Weight 0 12 0 0 0 12 Accountability Satisfaction 80.0% Timeliness Staff deliver Ser￾vices within Legal Time n 0 4 0 1 0 5 72.0% Weight 0 16 0 2 0 18 Timeliness Satisfaction 72.0% Transparency Process to Reduc￾ing Corruption n 0 4 1 0 0 5 76.0% Weight 0 16 3 0 0 19 Transparency Satisfaction 76.0% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 80.9% 221 Customer Satisfaction Scorecard for Males Across CSCs in Beheira Governorate Attributes Variables Satisfaction Degree Very Sat￾isfied Satisfied Neutral Unsat￾isfied Very Un￾satisfied Total % Overall Satisfac￾Weight 5 4 3 2 1 tion Accessibility Accessible for El￾derly & Disabled People n 6 11 14 5 3 39 66.2% Weight 30 44 42 10 3 129 Convenience of CSC Location n 22 14 1 0 0 37 91.4% Weight 110 56 3 0 0 169 Accessibility Satisfaction 78.8% Quality Quality of Services Provided n 17 13 4 2 2 38 81.6% Weight 85 52 12 4 2 155 Quality of Waiting Area n 12 18 5 3 1 39 79.0% Weight 60 72 15 6 1 154 Quality Satisfaction 80.3% Adequacy Staff Availability to Attend Requests n 15 17 4 2 0 38 83.7% Weight 75 68 12 4 0 159 Operating Hours n 10 21 5 2 0 38 80.5% Weight 50 84 15 4 0 153 Adequacy Satisfaction 82.1% Efficiency Cost of Service n 14 17 1 2 4 38 78.4% Weight 70 68 3 4 4 149 Successful Model & Should be Repli￾cated n 20 11 3 2 0 36 87.2% Weight 100 44 9 4 0 157 Efficiency Satisfaction 82.8% Accountability Staff Provide Ade￾quate Guidance n 8 14 0 4 0 26 80.0% Weight 40 56 0 8 0 104 Accountability Satisfaction 80.0% Timeliness Staff deliver Ser￾vices within Legal Time n 0 30 0 1 0 31 78.7% Weight 0 120 0 2 0 122 Timeliness Satisfaction 78.7% Transparency Process to Reduc￾ing Corruption n 5 19 8 6 1 39 70.8% Weight 25 76 24 12 1 138 Transparency Satisfaction 70.8% Percent of Overall CSC Customer Satisfaction within the CSC 79.1% 222 FIGURE 10 Customer Satisfaction with each Attribute across CSCs in Beheira Governorate by Gender FIGURE 11 Customer Satisfaction across CSCs within Aswan and Beheira Governorates by Gender 78.8% 80.3% 82.1% 82.8% 70.8% 78.7% 80.0% 86.0% 88.0% 82.0% 82.0% 76.0% 72.0% 80.0% Male Female Aswan Beheira 90.2% 79.1% 90.3% 80.9% Male Female 223 ANNEX VII: ANALYSIS OF TRANSACTION TIME Analysis of Transaction Time for Processing Licenses and Permits Disaggregated by As￾wan Governorate Citizen Service Centers (August 1, 2016 – August 23, 2017) * A detailed analysis of Aswan Governorate “Site Validity Statement” permit (1329 observations) data for August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, reveals that a) 10.5% (n=135) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 43.2% (n=574) were processed within a month of the legal limit, c) 16.3% (n=217) were processed within two months after the legal limit, d) 8.3% (n=110) were processed within Type of License or Permit Citizen Service Center Transaction Legal Time Limit Number of Transactions Processed % Transactions Completed within Legal Time Site Validity Statement Aswan 7 513 3.3 Building Construction Permit 30 205 0.0 Demolition/Destruction Permit 30 66 4.5 Permanent Facilities 15 0 Not Applicable Site Validity Statement Daraw 7 283 23.2 Building Construction Permit 30 181 80.7 Demolition/Destruction Permit 30 3 100.0 Permanent Facilities 15 539 58.3 Site Validity Statement Nasr El￾Nuba 7 229 17.5 Building Construction Permit 30 185 55.6 Demolition/Destruction Permit 30 11 36.4 Permanent Facilities 15 310 31.3 Site Validity Statement Edfu 7 325 5.8 Building Construction Permit 30 57 36.8 Demolition/Destruction Permit 30 5 20.0 Permanent Facilities 15 113 19.5 Site Validity Statement Aswan Gover￾norate 7 1329* 10.2 Building Construction Permit 30 610** 41.3 Demolition/Destruction Permit 30 85+ 12.9 Permanent Facilities 15 927++ 44.6 224 three months of the legal limit, and e) 22.0% (n=293) required more than three months to complete the transaction. ** A detailed analysis of Aswan Governorate “Building Construction” permit (610 observations) data for August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, reveals that a) 41.3% (n=252) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 21,1% (n=129) were processed within a one-month delay of the legal limit, c) 19.8% (n=121) were processed within a two-month delay of the legal limit, d) 6.9% (n=42) were processed within a three-month delay of the legal limit, and e) 10.8% (n=66) required more than three months to complete the transaction. + A detailed analysis of Aswan Governorate “Demolition/Destruction” permit (85 observations) data for August 2016 to July 31, 2017, reveals that a) a) 12.9% (n=11) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 30.6% (n=26) were processed within a month after the legal limit, c) 22.4% (n=19) were processed within two months after the legal limit, d) 12.9% (n=11) were processed within three months after the legal limit, and e) 21.2% (n=18) required more than three months to complete the transaction. ++ A detailed analysis of Aswan Governorate “Permanent Facilities” permit (937 observations) data for August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, reveals that a) 44.6% (n=418) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 30.7% (n=288) were processed within a month of the legal limit, c) 13.2% (n=124) were processed within two months after the legal limit, d) 9.3% (n=87) were processed within three months of the legal limit, and e) 2.1% (n=20) required more than three months to complete the transaction. When aggregating all Aswan Governorate Citizen Service Centers across all 16 licenses and permits on the August 1, 2016-July 31, 2017 transaction time data series, it is observed that, of the 3,328 transactions conducted, a) that a) 28.12% (n=935) were processed within the legal time limits, b) 34.3% (n=1142) were processed within a one-month delay of the legal limit, c) 16.9% (n=561) were processed within a two-month delay of the legal limit, d) 8.0% (n=265) were processed within a three-month delay of the legal limit, and e) 12.8% (n=425) required more than three months to complete the transaction. Services include: 1) Site Validity Statement, 2) Building Construction Permit, 3) Request for Substantial Modification for a Building Permit, 4) Demolition/Destruction Permit, 5) General Store License, 6) Renewing Temporary Store License, 7) Building Elevation, 8) Request to Modify (Change or Add an Activity) to a Store License, 9) Personal License for a Store Manager or Supervisor, 10) Advertising License, 11) Work Permit, 12) Build a Kiosk, 13) Permanent Facilities, 14) Temporary Facilities, 15) Renewing a Building Construction Permit, and 16) Renewal of a Work Permit. Of the 16 aforementioned services, the sum of 1) Site Validity Statement, 2) Building Construction Permit, 3) Demolition/Destruction Permit and 4) Permanent Facilities licenses/permits represent 88.7% of all transactions processed during the August 1, 2016-July 31, 2017, timeframe. 225 ANNEX VIII: BIBLIOGRAPHY AECOM Reports EDI II Progress Reports: 1 Second Quarter FFY 2013 Progress Report, January-March 2013 2 Third Quarter FFY 2013 Progress Report, April-June 2013 EPSP Progress Reports: 3 First Quarter FFY 2015 Progress Report, October 20, 2014-December 31, 2014 4 Second Quarter FFY 2015 Progress Report, January-March 2015 5 Third Quarter FFY 2015 Progress Report, April-June 2015 6 Fourth Quarter FFY 2015 Progress Report and Year One Annual Report, September 30, 2015 7 First Quarter FFY 2016 Progress Report, October-December 2015 8 Second Quarter FFY 2016 Progress Report, January 2015-March 2016 9 Third Quarter FFY 2016 Progress Report, April-June 2016 10 Fourth Quarter FFY 2016 Progress Report and Year Two Annual Report, September 30, 2016 11 First Quarter FFY 2017 Progress Report, October-December 2016 12 Second Quarter FFY 2017 Progress Report, January-March 2017 AECOM Other Debriefing Materials 13 Analysis of the Training Needs of Young Employees in the Ministry of Planning. Cairo, October 2016 (Report and PowerPoint) 14 EPSP Gender Assessment and Gender Action Plan, June 30, 2015 15 EPSP Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, June 2015 16 EPSP Organization Chart, August 2017 17 Citizen Service Centers Story: USAID-Funded Effective Planning and Services Pro￾ject document (Update on CSC roll-out progress) 18 List of all success/impact stories prepared at EPSP and submitted to USAID; list of all success/impact stories prepared at EPSP and published on USAID/Egypt Facebook page 19-20 PowerPoint presentations (2) on Citizen Service Center roll-out progress; and be￾fore and after CSCs, March 14, 2017 21-25 CSC Transactions Data Set (5 data sets for CSCs in Aswan) AMIDEAST Reports 26-33 Client Progress Reports (8 reports), July-November 2015 34-45 Evaluation Statistics (12 reports), July-October 2015 46 Placement Test Results, June 21, 2015 47 TOEIC Test: Name List and Scores, December 30, 2015 48 AMIDEAST Mid-Program Report: English Language Training for MPMAR. Submitted to AECOM, May 28, 2015 49 AMIDEAST Program Final Report: English Language Training for MPMAR. Submitted to AECOM, December 30, 2015 AMIDEAST Training Materials 50 English Course Practice Audio Files (290 tracks) Center for Development Services (CDS) Reports 51 Leadership Skills Training for the New Employees of the Ministry of Planning, Moni￾toring & Administrative Reform: Inception Report, submitted to AECOM, March 20, 2016 52 Leadership Skills Training for the New Employees of the Ministry of Planning, Moni￾toring & Administrative Reform: Final Report, submitted to AECOM, August 31, 2016 226 CDS Materials 53-59 Trainer manuals (7 manuals): Time Management, Communication, Negotiation, Re￾port-writing, Basics of Management, Presentation Skills, Leadership Skills 60-66 Trainee manuals (7 manuals): Time Management, Communication, Negotiation, Re￾port-writing, Basics of Management, Presentation Skills, Leadership Skills Institute of National Planning (INP) Reports 67 INP Feasibility Study: Preparation & Evaluation Training Program: Report on Pre-as￾sessment, Interviews & Grouping of Candidates. March 29, 2016 68 INP Feasibility Study: Preparation & Evaluation Training Program: End-of-Training Report, July 2016 INP Training Materials 69 Feasibility Study Training Program materials (Presentations, guidelines, exercises, as￾sessments) (180 files) Social Planning, Analysis and Administration Consultants (SPAAC) Re￾ports 70 SPAAC Customer Service Skills Training for Citizen Service Centers: Final Report on Training Workshops In Aswan (September-October 2015) (English and Arabic) SPAAC Training Materials 71 Annex I: Suggested Organizational Structure for Citizen Service Centers 72 Trainer Guide 73 Trainee Guide 74-79 PowerPoints (6 presentations) Miscellaneous Project Documents 80 EPSP Evaluation Statement of Work (SOW) 81 Egyptian Council for Training and Development list of CSC staff who attended Cus￾tomer Service Skills Training, July 17, 2017 82 CSCs Contact list Contracts and Modifications 83 Contract No. 263-C-12-00003 84 Agreement Modification #8, 2012 227 ANNEX IX: PROJECT-RELATED PERSONNEL CONSULTED Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform (MoPMAR) 1 Deputy Minister of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform and Head of EPSP Steering Committee 2 Program Manager 3 Localities Project Manager 4 Different mid-level management positions within MoPMAR 5 Head of the Human Development Sector 6 Director of the Services Sector 7 Director of Governance Center 8 Advisor to the Minister for Local Development and National Projects 9 Supervisor of Trainees Institute of National Planning (INP) 10 Professor, Institute of National Planning, Trainer 11 Professor, Institute of National Planning; Planning Specialist, EPSP 12 Institute of National Planning, Trainer AMIDEAST 13 Program Manager, EPSP 14 English Language Trainer 15 English Language Trainer Egyptian Council for Training and Development (ECTD) 16 Training Program Coordinator 17 Consultant, Trainer Center for Development Services (CDS) 18 Program Support Unit Manager 19 Consultant, Trainer AECOM 20 Chief of Party 21 Crosscutting Team Lead 22 Capacity Building Manager 23 Program Manager 24 Program Coordinator 25 IT Manager 26 IT Specialist EIS 27 Deputy Manager, Engineering for Integrated Systems Company USAID 28 Deputy Director of the Office of Democracy and Governance, USAID 29 Activity Manager of EPSP, USAID 30 Assistant Activity Manager of EPSP, USAID 228 Aswan Governorate and CSCs 31 Deputy Secretary-General, Aswan Governorate 32 Security Manager, Aswan Governorate 33 Head of Aswan City Council 34 CSC Manager, Aswan CSC 35 Deputy CSC Manager, Aswan CSC 36 “Back office” Engineer, Land Surveyors Department, Aswan CSC 37 “Back office” Engineer, Land Surveyors Department, Aswan CSC 38 “Back office” Officer, Business Licenses Department, Aswan CSC 39 Lawyer, Legal Department, Aswan CSC 40 “Back office” Officer, Housing Department, Aswan CSC 41 “Back office” Engineer, Land Surveyors Department, Aswan CSC 42 System Supervisor, Aswan CSC 43 CSC Supervisor, Aswan CSC 44 Front Window Staff, Aswan CSC 45 Front Window Staff, Aswan CSC 46 Front Window Staff, Aswan CSC 47 Front Window Staff, Aswan CSC 48 Front Window Staff, Aswan CSC 49 Information System Supervisor, Aswan CSC 50 Front Window Staff, Aswan CSC 51 Information System Supervisor, Aswan CSC 52 Head of Edfu District 53 Information System Supervisor, Edfu CSC 54 Front Window Staff for People with Disabilities, Edfu CSC 55 Front Window Staff, Edfu CSC 56 System Supervisor, Edfu CSC 57 Front Window Staff, Edfu CSC 58 Complaint Window Representative, Edfu CSC 59 Front Window Staff, Edfu CSC 60 System Supervisor, Edfu CSC 61 Cashier, Edfu CSC 62 Receptionist, Edfu CSC 63 Cashier, Edfu CSC 64 Receptionist, Edfu CSC 65 Complaint Window Representative, Edfu CSC 66 CSC Manager, Edfu CSC 67 Deputy CSC Manager, Edfu CSC 68 Deputy Headof Edfu District Council 69 CSC Manager 70 Deputy CSC Manager 71 Head of Daraw District 72 Front Window Staff, Daraw CSC 73 Front Window Staff, Daraw CSC 74 Receptionist, Daraw CSC 75 Receptionist, Daraw CSC 76 Cashier, Daraw CSC 77 System Supervisor, Daraw CSC 78 Front Window Staff, Daraw CSC 79 Lawyer, Legal Department, Daraw CSC 229 80 “Back office” Officer, Engineering Department, Daraw CSC 81 CSC Manager, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 82 Deputy CSC Manager, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 83 “Back office” Staff, Revenue Department, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 84 “Back office” Staff, Revenue Department, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 85 “Back office” Staff, Shops License Department, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 86 “Back office” Staff, Roads Department, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 87 Monitoring & Evaluation Officer, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 88 Front Window Staff, Naser El-Nuba CSC 89 “Back office” Staff, Property Department, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 90 “Back office” Staff, Land Surveyor Department, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 91 Lawyer, Legal Department, Naser El-Nuba CSC 92 “Back office” Staff, Housing Department, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 93 “Back office” Staff, Investment Service Department, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 94 System Supervisor, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 95 Front Window Staff, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 96 Front Window Staff, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 97 Front Window Staff, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 98 Front Window Staff, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 99 Front Window Staff, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 100 Front Window Staff, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 101 Deputy Head of Nasr El-Nuba District, Nasr El-Nuba CSC 102 Board Member, Aswan Regional Federation 103 Board Member, Aswan Regional Federation 104 Investment Department Head, Aswan Governorate 105 General Secretary, Aswan Governorate 106 Acting CSC Manager, Dewan CSC 107 CSC Manager, Dewan CSC 108 GIS Department Head, Dewan CSC 109 Front Window Staff, Dewan CSC 110 Front Window Staff, Dewan CSC 111 Front Window Staff, Dewan CSC 112 Front Window Staff, Dewan CSC 113 Front Window Staff, Dewan CSC 114 Front Window Staff, Dewan CSC 115 Front Window Staff, Dewan CSC 116 Cashier, Dewan CSC Beheira Governorate and CSCs 117 System Supervisor, Abu Homous CSC 118 CSC Manger, Abu Homous CSC 119 Abu Homous District Head 120 Abu Homous District General Secretary 121 CSCs Supervisor, Beheira Governorate 122 Back-office Staff, Building License Department, Abu Homous CSC 123 Back-office Staff, Shop Licenses, Abu Homous CSC 124 Front Window Staff, Abu Homous CSC 125 Business owner, Abu Homous 126 Business owner, Abu Homous 127 Front Window Staff, Abu Homous CSC 230 128 Front Window Staff, Abu Homous CSC 129 Back-office Staff, Planning Department, Abu Homous CSC 130 Community Leader, Abu Homous District 131 Shobra Kheet District Head 132 Community Leader, Shobra Kheet District 133 Back-office Staff, Head of Building Licenses, Shobra Kheet CSC 134 Back-office Staff, Head of Property Department, Shobra Kheet CSC 135 Back-office Staff, Deputy Manager of Urban Planning, Shobra Kheet CSC 136 Back-office Staff, Head of Shops Licenses, Shobra Kheet CSC 129 Back-office Staff, Deputy Manager of Project Department Licenses, Shobra Kheet CSC 130 Front Window Staff, Shobra Kheet CSC 131 Front Window Staff, Shobra Kheet CSC 132 Front Window Staff, Shobra Kheet CSC 133 Treasury, Shobra Kheet CSC 134 System Supervisor, Shobra Kheet CSC 135 System Supervisor, Shobra Kheet CSC 136 System Supervisor, Shobra Kheet CSC 137 System Supervisor, Shobra Kheet CSC 138 System Supervisor, Shobra Kheet CSC 139 System Supervisor, Shobra Kheet CSC 140 Business Owner, Shobra Kheet CSC 141 Business Owner, Shobra Kheet CSC 142 CSC Manager, Shobra Kheet CSC 231 Annex X: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest The Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest can be found on file with the COR. 232 ANNEX XI: EVALUATION TIMELINE EPSP End-Of-Project Performance Evaluation Timeline, July 2017-January 2018 233 2- 8 9- 15 16- 22 23- 29 30- 5 6- 12 13- 19 20- 26 27- 2 3- 9 10- 16 17- 23 24- 30 1- 7 8- 13 15- 20 22- 27 29- 4 5- 11 12- 18 19- 25 26- 2 3- 9 10- 16 17- 23 24- 30 31- 6 7- 13 14- 20 21- 27 28- P re-S OW Meeting 25-May-17 RF TOP Is s ued to QE D 22-J un-17 QE D S ubmits Technical and F inancial P ropos als to US AID for Review and Comment (COB US ) 12-J ul-17 US AID S ubmits Reques t for Revis ions to Technical and F inancial P ropos als to QE D/S IMP LE (COB E gypt) 20-J ul-17 QE D S ubmits Revis ed Technical/F inancial P ropos als to US AID (COB US ) 25-J ul-17 US AID Is s ues Tas k Order Award to QE D (COB E gypt) 27-J ul-17 QE D Contracts International Cons ultant/Team Leader (Day 1 of 1) 29-J ul-17 S IMP LE Contracts S elect Local Cons ultants /S ub￾Contractor Contracts S elect Local Cons ultants (Day 3 of 3) 29-J ul-17 E valuation Team Des k Review (Day 5 of 5) 3-Aug-17 S IMP LE E valuation Conducts Team P lanning Works hop to Develop Data Collection Ins truments , Coordinate F ield Vis its , F inalize P ropos ed Work P lan for P res entation at the US AID Team P lanning Meeting (Day 7 of 7) 12-Aug-17 E valuation Team Conducts Team P lanning Meeting with US AID 13-Aug-17 E valuation Team Documents US AID Recommended Revis ions and P ilots Revis ed Data Collection Tools (Day 1 of 1) 14-Aug-17 Data Collection P eriod (Day 12 of 12) 27-Aug-17 E valuation Team Conducts Data Analys is Works hop (Day 9 of 9) 11-S ep-17 E valuation Team P repares a 6-8 P age S keletal Report and 15-20 S lide P owerP oint P res entation of F indings , Conclus ions and P reliminary Recommendations for US AID Oral Debrief (Day 3 of 3) 14-S ep-17 S IMP LE F orwards 6-8 P age S keletal Report and 15-20 S lide P res entation of Oral Debrief F indings , Conclus ions and P reliminary Recommendations to US AID (COB E gypt) 14-S ep-17 Oral Debrief to US AID on F indings , Conclus ions and P reliminary Recommendations Note: S chedule P res entation for 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. to allow for additional US AID review time of pres entation materials . 17-S ep-17 QE D Contracts Copy E diting and Infographic Third-P arty S ervices and S ub-Contractor Contracts Third-P arty Trans lation S ervices 23-S ep-17 J anuary Tasks/Deliverables Es timated Date/ Due Date J uly August September October November December 234 Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP) Evaluation Timeline Team Leader P repares Draft Report and S ubmits to QE D/S IMP LE for Review and Comment (Day 9 of 9) 23-S ep-17 International Cons ultant/Team Leader Departs from E gypt for US 24-S ep-17 QE D and S IMP LE E ngage International Cons ultant/Team Leader and Copy E ditor Reques ting Revis ions to Draft Report and S ubmits F inal Vers ion of the Draft Res ults Report to US AID/MOE for Review and Comments (Day 13 of 13) 1-Oct-17 US AID S ubmits Cons olidated Comments on Draft E valuation Report to QE D/S IMP LE for Revis ion (COB E gypt) (Day 10 of 10) 23-Oct-17 QE D S ubmits F inal Revis ed Vers ion of the E valuation Res ults Report to US AID (COB E gypt) 1-Nov-17 US AID Reviews Revis ed F inal Vers ion of the E valuation Report (Day 5 of 5) 9-Nov-17 S IMP LE 's S ub-Contractor Contracts Trans lation S ervices for E xecutive S ummary from E nglis h to Arabic QE D Contracts S ervice P rovider to Generate Infographic (E nglis h only) of E valuation F indings , Conclus ions and Recommendations (Day 1 of 1) 11-Nov-17 Trans lation S ub-Contractor Conduct Trans lation of F indings , Conclus ions and Recommendations from E nglis h to Arabic for S takeholder P owerP oint P res entation (Day 5 of 5) 16-Nov-17 QE D S ubmits Arabic Trans lation of E xecutive S ummary for US AID Approval and Infographic (E nglis h Only) for US AID Review and Comments 23-Nov-17 S IMP LE S ubmits Anonymized Datas ets and S upporting Technical Documentation to US AID for Review and Comment. (COB/E gypt) (Day 1 of 1) 29-Nov-17 QE D S ubmits Revis ed Infographic (E nglis h Vers ion) to US AID for Written Approval 6-Dec-17 US AID Reviews Revis ed Infographic (E nglis h Vers ion) and P rovides QE D Written Approval for Trans lation into Arabic (COB E gypt) (Day 3 of 3) 11-Dec-17 QE D S ubmits Arabic Trans lation of Infographics to US AID for Review and Comment (COB US ) (Day 3 of 3) 18-Dec-17 US AID Reviews Arabic Trans lation of Infographics and P rovides Written Approval (COB E gypt) (Day 3 of 3) 21-Dec-17 235 Effective Planning and Services Project (EPSP) Evaluation Timeline QE D P os ts E valuation Report (E nglis h), E xpanded E xecutive S ummary (E nglis h and Arabic) and Infographics (E nglis h and Arabic) to the Development E xperience Clearinghous e and forwards Hyperlink to US AID (Day 1 of 1) 28-Dec-17 E valuation Team Conducts Oral Debriefing of F indings , Conclus ions and Recommendations to S takeholders as per US AID Dis s emination P lan (Day 1 of 1) 14-J an-18 US AID Conducts Review and Comments on Anonymized Datas ets and S upporting Technical Documentation (Day 10 of 10) 11-F eb-18 US AID P rovides Written Authorization to QE D/S IMP LE to P os t Anonymized Datas ets and S upporting Technical Documentation to the Development Data Library (DDL) (Day 1 of 1) 12-F eb-18 QE D P os ts Anonymized Datas ets and S upporting Technical Documentation to the Development Data Library (DDL) (Day 4 of 4) 19-F eb-18 236 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523