PHOTO CREDIT TETRA TECH
GEORGIA GOOD GOVERNANCE 
INITIATIVE
Benchmarking Georgian Municipalities: Final Report 
JUNE 2016
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for 
International Development. It was prepared by Tetra Tech. 
 
Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract 
Number AID-114-C-15-00001, Good Governance Initiative (GGI) in Georgia.
This report was prepared by:
Tetra Tech 
159 Bank Street, Suite 300
Burlington, Vermont 05401 USA
Telephone: (802) 495-0282 
Fax: (802) 658-4247 
E-Mail: international.development@tetratech.com
Principal Contacts: David Smith, Chief of Party (dsmith@ggi.ge) 
Jesse Biddle, Project Manager (jesse.biddle@tetratech.com) 
Kelly Kimball, Deputy Project Manager (kelly.kimball@tetratech.com) 
GEORGIA GOOD GOVERNANCE 
INITIATIVE
BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES: 
FINAL REPORT
JUNE 2016
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 THE PROJECT ........................................................................................................ 1
2.0 THE PILOT STUDY ............................................................................................... 2
3.0 SELECTION OF SERVICES TO BE ASSESSED.................................................. 3
4.0 METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES.......................................................................... 4
5.0 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................ 5
6.0 TRAINING FOR MUNICIPALITIES ..................................................................... 6
7.0 BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION: LESSONS 
LEARNED................................................................................................................ 7
8.0 ADAPTING QUESTIONNAIRES ......................................................................... 8
9.0 GOING BEYOND THE PILOT PROJECT: LEARNING FROM THE PILOT 
SURVEY TO DEVELOP A NATIONWIDE EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENT 
SYSTEM................................................................................................................... 9
9.1 PROMOTING COMPETITION BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES ..................................... 9
9.2 ORGANIZATION...................................................................................................................... 9
9.3 HORIZONTAL EXTENSION: INCLUSION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES (SEE 
APPENDIX III) ...........................................................................................................................10
9.4 VERTICAL EXTENSION: INCLUSION OF NEW SERVICES 
(SEE APPENDIX III)..................................................................................................................10
APPENDIX I: MODIFICATION TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES ................................. 12
A-1.1 LIBRARY......................................................................................................................................12
A-1.2 PRE-SCHOOL............................................................................................................................12
A-1.3 WASTE COLLECTION..........................................................................................................13
APPENDIX II: REVISED QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................. 14
A-2.1 WASTE COLLECTION QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................................................14
A-2.2 LIBRARY QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................................. 20
A-2.3 PRE-SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................................24
APPENDIX III: GOING BEYOND THE PILOT PROJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A BENCHMARKING SYSTEM FOR 
IMPROVING MUNICIPAL SERVICES EFFICIENCY ........................................ 26
A-3.1 CURRENT STATE OF THE PROJECT...............................................................................26
A-3.2 ORGANIZATION....................................................................................................................26
A-3.3 MISSION OF THE TASK GROUP .......................................................................................27
A-3.4 TO KEEP IN MIND..................................................................................................................28
A-3.4.1 Work to be undertaken (MRDI and task group)...........................................28
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 1 
1.0 THE PROJECT 
The objective of the work assigned to the short term technical consultant was to support the Ministry 
of Regional Development and infrastructure (MRDI) in developing a benchmarking system for measuring, 
monitoring, and improving local government performance. This work is part of the Good Governance 
Initiative in Georgia (GGI).
The Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure decided to start with a pilot project including 
three municipalities, and to draw lessons from the experience before extending the study to other 
municipalities.
The benchmarking system will help MRDI to improve transparency, accountability and promote 
competition between Georgian municipalities. One can expect that this will translate into better service 
quality and lower costs.
The external consultant assignment includes needs assessment, developing an efficiency measurement 
and benchmarking system for Georgian municipalities, designing questionnaires for data collection, 
providing training to the three pilot municipalities, and reviewing the lessons learned in the pilot study.
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 2 
2.0 THE PILOT STUDY
The pilot project included three of the twelve Georgian self-governing cities: Akhaltsikhe, Batumi and 
Kutaisi. Akhaltiskhe usual population is 21,600, Batumi 154,100, and Kutaisi 149,100 (2014). Kutaisi and 
Batumi are the 2nd and 3rd largest cities in Georgia. The country has a total of 64 self-governing 
municipalities.
The Tetra Tech team ( ) met with representatives 
of the three pilot municipalities, Akhaltsikhe (December 2, 2015), Batumi and Kutaisi (December 3, 
2015). The team took this opportunity to inform the three cities of MRDI’s wish to implement a 
municipal benchmarking system, of the objectives being pursued, and of the benefits the municipality 
could expect from the new assessment system, once operational. Unfortunately, the team was not able 
to meet employees familiar with the three end users’ services considered in the pilot study, with the 
exception of the library in Akhaltsikhe.
None of the three municipalities expressed specific demand regarding the performance assessment 
system and the municipal services to be investigated. We therefore had to focus on the implicit needs 
deriving from general good governance principles. These imply accountability, transparency, 
responsiveness, as well as efficient, effective, and equitable provision of services. 
The availability of performance indicators, the acquisition of knowledge (data and analyses), and the 
exchange of best practices and expertise between municipalities would help achieve all these goals, with 
the exception of responsiveness (which requires institutional changes). Transparency is in the best 
interest of the citizen, but possibly not, in the short term, in the perceived best interest of elected 
municipal officials, as transparency can release both a positive and a negative image of the municipal 
management.
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 3 
3.0 SELECTION OF SERVICES TO BE 
ASSESSED
Another expected return of the pilot project is an increase awareness of the benefits municipalities 
could expect from a systematic measurement of resources (inputs), services (outputs) and policy goals 
achievement (outcome). Selected services have to be relatively simple, easy to compare between 
municipalities, and have a straightforward outcome. Most of the cultural services would not met these 
criteria, as cultural activities are too diversified and the outcome to express in physical units (library is 
however an exception). More generally, inclusion criteria can be found in the literature (e.g., the criteria 
for selecting the service provision sector in the report on government services, Australian government, 
Report on Government Services, Productivity commission (2016) ; Steering Committee for the Review 
of Government Service provision (2011) “Criteria for selecting service provision sectors for inclusion in 
the Australian Report on Government Services”- 
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/116587/rogs-inclusion-criteria.pdf).
• Services have similar objectives across municipalities (they should not be municipality-specific) to 
facilitate comparison; 
• There is a significant scope for efficiency, effectiveness, or quality improvement; 
• The service contributes significantly to the community’s well-being ; 
• The cost of data collection and reporting is reasonable (consider the cost–benefit relationship).
At the beginning of the pilot study, Tetra Tech (
) met with the representative of MRDI (
) on November 26, 2015. MRDI expressed the wish that at least one (end-user) soft service 
(education, social services….) and one (end-user) hard service (waste collection, street cleaning….) be 
included in the pilot project.
Finally, three end-users services or “core services” (household waste collection, pre-school, library) and 
four support services (finance, human resources, ITC, fleet management) were included in the pilot 
project.
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 4 
4.0 METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES
The methodology was extensively described in the 2nd intermediary report (Benchmarking: second 
report on methodology, January 2016, 47 pages). The basic model links the resources (or inputs) to the 
outputs and outcomes. Both the resources and the outputs are measured in monetary (GEL) and in 
physical units. Efficiency is measured in relative rather than in absolute terms. Efficiency degree vary 
between 0 (totally inefficient) and 1 (totally efficient). A service producing unit is declared (fully) efficient 
(in input) if it uses the least possible quantity of input to deliver a defined quantity of services (output), 
or efficient in output, if it delivers the highest possible quantity of services (output) with a defined 
volume of resource. The resources used to deliver a certain volume of services, or the volume of 
services delivered with a defined quantity of resources are compared against a standard (the best 
performing municipality or an international standard). The resources and the output(s) have to be 
adequately defined (there might be more than one input and more than one output).
For end-user services, a similar indicator system can be applied to all services. The context is slightly 
different for support services because the administration is the recipient of the services. An indicator of 
the size of the administration is often used to measure the service volume delivered (New Zeeland 
Government (2015) Administrative & Support Services, Benchmarking Report for the financial year 
2013/2014 - http://www.treasury.govt.nz/statesector/performance/bass/benchmarking; NOUSgroup 
(2014) Benchmarking with benefits: Sharing our learning – Driving efficiencies, NFP Benchmarking 
Project, Australia 
http://www.nfpbenchmarking.com.au/sites/default/files/Benchmarking%20with%20Benefits.pdf ).
Several technics are available to measure the degree of efficiency and the potential of improvement 
(reduction of input consumption or increase in output) for each municipality and each service. I 
recommend using DEA (data envelopment analysis) as soon as data are available for about 15 
municipalities (see for example, Norman, N. and Stoker, B. (1991) Data envelopment analysis: the 
assessment of performances, Wiley, New York; also Coelli, T.J. et al. (2005), An introduction to 
efficiency and productivity analysis, Springer – http://facweb.knowlton.ohio￾state.edu/pviton/courses/crp394/coelli_Intro_effic.pdf).
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 5 
5.0 DATA COLLECTION
To measure efficiency in service delivery, we need to collect three kind of data: the resources used to 
deliver the service (inputs), the volume of services (outputs), and the factors influencing production not 
under the control of the management (external or environmental factors). Quality of service need to be 
introduced as a “control variable” (it doesn’t make sense to simply compare resource use when the 
service quality differs significantly). When using DEA to assess efficiency, quality can be included (as an 
output). Additional information on processes and technology will help understand why some units are 
relatively efficient, while others are relatively inefficient.
A questionnaire is the tool for data collection. Writing the questionnaires – one for each service - was a 
significant part of the work during the preparation of the survey. The questionnaires should be 
completed by a person in the organization familiar with the service. It is necessary to ensure that it is 
actually the case. The questionnaires should not simply be sent with a deadline for responding. It is 
important to make personal contact with the person filling the questionnaire before it is sent (to explain 
the purpose of the survey) and after the questionnaire has been received (to ensure that questions are 
clearly and properly understood).
Completing the questionnaires took more time than was expected, the last two questionnaires having 
been received at the beginning of April. We found that some data were missing, and that the 
information provided was of uneven quality. The lack of personal contact with the employees completing 
the questionnaires is certainly one of the reason explaining the difficulties encountered in the data 
collection. One should avoid making the same mistake in the following surveys.
Responses in the questionnaires have been entered into the data base. We have to be careful when 
analyzing the survey results, because some data are missing or may not be accurate (see database, 
missing data in yellow, suspicious data in cyan).
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 6 
6.0 TRAINING FOR MUNICIPALITIES
The training session for municipal employees took place in Kutaisi on April 18. It was possible to 
organize a unique session with participants from the three pilot municipalities. The objectives of the 
session were:
• To explain the basic analytical model (inputs, activities, outputs, quality, customer satisfaction, 
outcome)
• To learn how to identify inputs, outputs, quality, and factor influencing the production not under the 
control of management with practical exercises
• To introduce and discuss the concepts of “frontier”, “best practice”, efficiency
• To explain the idea behind benchmarking, and show how it works
• To introduce participants to process analysis (to understand why the best performing unit is doing 
better than your own organization)
• To propose practical exercises: designing an assessment tool for a municipal service, measuring 
quality
• To discuss (some of) the pilot study results
With a few exceptions, participants were not involved in the pilot study. There were no employees 
from the three end users services selected in the pilot study (waste collection, library, pre-school). 
Therefore, we received no feed-back on the questionnaires, the data collection process, and the 
indicators derived from the data base (see “Training session on performance measurement: 
Municipalities of Akhaltsikhe, Batumi and Kutaisi, April 18, 2016, Appendix IV).
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 7 
7.0 BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY 
IMPLEMENTATION: LESSONS LEARNED
The pilot study was found to be very useful:
• To improve the data collection tool (some of the questions were ambiguous or confusing, some 
were not really useful and could be dropped; before extending the study to other municipalities, the 
questionnaires should be submitted to a person familiar with the service and its technology);
• To improve the process of data collection (the person completing the questionnaire is a key 
element in the process, she or he must be properly informed and have the opportunity to ask for 
clarification);
• To show the usefulness of an in-depth analysis of municipal performances: the first results are 
encouraging and show a clear potential for improvement;
To show that the process of data collection need to be improved: the person responsible for completing 
the questionnaire must be given clear instructions; a personal contact is essential
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 8 
8.0 ADAPTING QUESTIONNAIRES
On the basis of the lessons learned from the pilot project, we have introduced a few modifications in 
the questionnaires. The main changes are the following: we consider that all employees have full-time 
contracts (the notion of full-time equivalent is dropped), simplification (we don’t distinguish permanent 
and non-permanent employees anymore), some simplifications in questions regarding truck technology 
(front/rear loading), and the person completing the questionnaire is asked to provide a telephone 
number. All modifications are summed up in the document “Modification to the questionnaires”, 
Appendix I.
Two options are open for the extension of the survey to other municipalities (same end-user services): 
to keep the same calendar year as in the pilot study (2014) or to shift the reference year forwards by 
one year (2015). The first option makeS it possible to use the data provided by the three municipalities 
in the pilot project (with some adjustments to take account of the few changes in the questionnaire). If 
the second option is retained (reference year 2015), new data will have to be collected in Akhaltsikhe, 
Batumi and Kutaisi (recommended) or data already collected could be used after being adjusted for 
price increase (monetary values only).
The revised questionnaires can be found in the appendix section (Appendix II).
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 9 
9.0 GOING BEYOND THE PILOT PROJECT: 
LEARNING FROM THE PILOT SURVEY 
TO DEVELOP A NATIONWIDE 
EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
9.1 PROMOTING COMPETITION BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES
The objective is to progressively implement a comprehensive benchmarking system for Georgian 
municipalities covering main municipal programs and services. It aims at helping municipalities develop a 
continuous improvement process. The simple fact that you are measuring performances and reporting 
the results can exert pressure on municipal authorities to improve service delivery, adopt good 
practices, and avoid excessive costs. Regular data collection (and dissemination) to assess whether 
municipal services are provided efficiently and whether desired results are achieved is playing about the 
same role, in public administration, as competition in the market, thereby acting as a form of surrogate 
competition (“yardstick competition”). The Netherland Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis has 
“characterized yardstick competition as the practice of linking financial consequences to benchmarking 
results” (CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, “Yardstick competition, theory, design 
and practice”, The Hague, December 2000). To make yardstick competition work, the Ministry (MRDI) 
should modify the transfer formula design. Transfers to municipalities should not correspond to a 
defined percentage of actual expenditures (for pre-school, library or waste collection), but a 
defined percentage of standard expenditures for the service (expenditures of municipalities using 
good practices).
9.2 ORGANIZATION
MRDI set up a task group whose mission is to develop an efficiency measurement system for Georgian 
municipalities based on the pilot project. A group of three, on a half-time basis (equivalent to 1.5 full 
time), should be able to implement the project during the first year. Once the project has attained its full 
rhythm of implementation, the workload might be moderately reduced (3 x 0.33 = one full time 
equivalent). 
The task group main assignments are: final control of the three pilot study questionnaires, collecting 
missing data for the three pilot municipalities and three core services, progressively extend the number 
of participating municipalities and the number of services, collect and proof-check the data, manage the 
data base, analyze the data, assess efficiency degree of each municipality and each service, determine the 
improvement potential, disseminate information, and show municipalities how to adopt better business 
practices and reduce costs.
To assess efficiency in municipal service provision, the task group compare an efficiency indicator for a 
particular municipality to the same indicator for the best performing municipality (or an average of best 
performing municipalities). A comparison to international standards would also be helpful. Tetra-Tech 
external expert has agreed to look for international standards (for the three core services, when needed 
for the support services).
For each service, relevant quality indicators have to be defined (two for each service, as quality has more 
than one dimension). Examples of quality indicators can be easily found in the international literature.
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 10
Every year, the task group will draw up a report that provides, for the mayor and the service managers, 
efficiency and quality of service indicators, as well as an estimate of improvement potential. The report 
will allow for comparison between Georgian municipalities, as well as comparison between Georgian 
municipalities and international standards.
9.3 HORIZONTAL EXTENSION: INCLUSION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES (SEE 
APPENDIX III)
Convince ten to twelve new municipalities to participate in the survey. Inform participants of the survey 
objectives and of the implementation procedure. With fifteen units, it will be possible to apply Data 
envelopment analysis (DEA) to measure the degree of efficiency and to identify the best performing units 
(benchmarks). 
Choose the reference year for the first wave of the survey. It can be 2014 (to be able to use the data 
provided by the three pilot municipalities) or 2015 (probably the best option). 
Before sending the questionnaires, call the contact persons and inform them about the modalities of the 
survey and about the questionnaire. Tell the contact person that she or he will be contacted again a few 
days after receiving the questionnaire (to ensure proper understanding of the questions). Then send the 
questionnaires: set a reasonable deadline for returning the questionnaire (about three weeks).
Once the completed questionnaires have been returned, determine if data are missing, proof-check all 
data (for plausibility). When needed, call the contact person. Send necessary reminders.
Prepare the data base (automatic calculation of indicators).
Use efficiency indicators or DEA, identify the best-in-class (benchmark): data provided by the 
benchmark(s) have to be checked rigorously (as it becomes the metrics).
Measure actual performance of each unit against the benchmark (or an international standard).
Publish and disseminate results: all the main results must be published and provided to municipal 
authorities and to the management of the service.
Change grant design to promote yardstick competition (see a) Promoting competition between 
municipalities).
9.4 VERTICAL EXTENSION: INCLUSION OF NEW SERVICES (SEE APPENDIX III) 
The scope of the survey has to be progressively extended horizontally to include all the main municipal 
services. We recommend a stepwise approach: two new services could be added each year (for 
example, one core service and one support service). Criteria: selected core service represent a 
significant part of the municipal workforce and of expenditures, homogenous output across 
municipalities. 
The task group devote the necessary time to acquire a good knowledge of the service, to understand its 
technology, the way to measure inputs and outputs, quality indicators and factor not under the control 
of the management influencing service provision and costs.
Development of the survey questionnaire: we recommend measurING resources use (inputs) in physical 
units (employees, equipment capacity….) and in monetary units (expenditures in GEL). It is always useful 
to know the detailed composition of expenditures (personnel expenditures, leasing expenditures, and 
other expenditure). Existing questionnaire for support services can be used without major changes (it 
would however be useful to discuss the questionnaires with a person familiar with the service). 
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 11
Each questionnaire should be submitted and discussed with a person familiar with the service. Ask the 
person if factors not under the control of management and quality of services are satisfactorily 
addressed. Also check the likely availability of data.
C. Jeanrenaud/June 2nd, 2016
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 12
APPENDIX I: MODIFICATION TO THE 
QUESTIONNAIRES 
All the changes are highlighted in yellow (see Appendix II) 
A-1.1 LIBRARY
Simplifications: questions regarding full time equivalent employees and permanent and non-permanent 
employees have been dropped; questions regarding opening hours simplified.
Reference period: 2014 (as in the questionnaire sent to the three municipalities) or 2015, I let the choice
open. 
I propose to request the contact persons in the municipalities to give their telephone number.
Municipal service or Municipally owned entity under 3. Organization
It is central to obtain reliable data about output. For that reason, I propose to ensure that the library 
knows precisely how many books or other items are lent, and how many people effectively use the 
services of the library. New questions have thus been introduced.
Output: I propose to make a difference between books and periodical borrowed for the reading room 
or to take home. The reason is that, in some library, users have direct access to books and periodical 
and the library personnel probably have no record of the number of items taken to the reading room.
Active users (another indicator of output): I propose to make a distinction between those who are 
registered as users or have a registration card and those who are known because they have lent at least 
one item during the year.
Expenditures: in the questionnaire, we asked two times total current expenditures; I kept it only one 
time.
A-1.2 PRE-SCHOOL
Simplifications: questions regarding full time equivalent and specialized classes dropped; enrolment rate, 
difficult to understand and not necessary to measure efficiency, dropped; number of pre-school age 
children attending a private kindergarten dropped (never got a response, municipality probably don’t 
know).
The proper term in Georgian language has to be used to translate teacher.
A new section is introduced for class size.
I propose to request the contact persons in the municipalities to give their telephone number.
We propose to always ask the total when there are several components (we have noticed that the sum 
of the parts is sometimes different of the total, which is a sign of a problem).
Expenditures: we propose to separate expenditures for teachers (and assistant teaches) from 
expenditures for “specialized teachers” (such as music teachers).
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 13
A-1.3 WASTE COLLECTION
Simplification: questions regarding full time equivalent employees and permanent and non-permanent 
employees have been dropped.
Question regarding container overflow and spilled trash reformulated (was confusing).
A question have been added to know if the deserved population is different from the municipal 
population. The wording of the question has to be checked, eventually reformulated by a person familiar 
with the institutional context.
To be able to crosscheck the responses regarding the volume of waste collected, we propose to 
estimate the volume in two distinct ways: by asking the volume of waste in m3 dumped to the landfill, 
and by asking the number of truck trip to the landfill (with compaction mechanism and without 
compacting mechanism).
Containers: I realized that some municipalities have different types (and size) of containers. I propose to 
first ask the municipalities to list the different type (size) of containers. In a second question, to ask the 
municipalities to estimate the average size of all neighborhood containers.
Cleaning and discharge have to be translated using the proper term (was apparently a problem in the 
first questionnaire).
We need to know the capacity of trucks, expressed in m3 non-compacted waste, to make comparison 
possible. For that reason, we need to know, for trucks with a compaction mechanism, the volume in m3
(compacted) and the compaction rate (see the new table under 6. Technology).
To simplify, we suppressed some question related to the characteristics of the trucks (front/rear loading)
CJ/29.9.2016 
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 14
APPENDIX II: REVISED QUESTIONNAIRES
A-2.1 WASTE COLLECTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Revised version April 29, 2016
Please complete the questionnaire electronically when possible, and send it to the following e-mail 
address xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx no later than xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you have any question, please call xxxxx or send a mail
Required data and information concern year [year], unless otherwise specified
1. Person completing the questionnaire
First name, surname, function, electronic address, and telephone number of the person filing out the 
questionnaire: 
First name:
 Surname:
 Function: 
 E-mail:
Tel.:
2. Organization
Is household waste collected by
The municipality ☐
A municipally-owned 
corporation/organization ☐
A subcontractor ☐
Is the unit collecting household waste also delivering another services, such as street cleaning?
yes ☐ no ☐
If yes, what is (are) the additional service(s):
Days of operation (per week, up to 7 if there is a collect on Sunday):
Is the units collecting waste for villages which are not part of the municipality of [name]?
Yes ☐ no ☐
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 15
If yes, estimated population of the villages concerned:
3. Type of waste collected
Only household waste ☐
Household and commercial waste ☐
Other type of waste ☐
 
If other type of waste collected by the unit, please specify: …………………….
Any waste separation program in place? 
yes ☐
no ☐
4. Volume of household waste collected
Number of trucks trips to the dumping site per month, trucks with no 
compaction mechanism
Number of trucks trips to the dumping site per month, trucks with compaction
mechanism
Average capacity of trucks with no compaction mechanism in m3
Average capacity of trucks with compaction mechanism in m3 of compacted 
waste
Average capacity of trucks with compaction mechanism in tons
Estimate volume of waste transported to the landfill per year, in m3
5. Technology: Process
More than one response possible
Collection at drop-off points (containers) ☐
Door to door collection (waste not contained) ☐
Door to door or curbside (in bags) ☐
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 16
If waste is collected in neighborhood containers:
Number of containers on municipal area: 
Capacity in m3 per container (if more than one type, list the different size in m3 or liter):
Average capacity of containers in m3:
Container overflow and spilled trash
How frequently do municipal employees face overflowed containers and spilled trash?
Very rarely ☐
Less than 5% of cases ☐
More than 5% but less than 20% ☐
More than 20% of cases ☐
Frequency of container cleaning with water or chemical (per year):
6. Technology: vehicles
Number of trucks used to collect waste in operating conditions (end 2014): 
Number of trucks effectively used to collect waste (end 2014):
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 17
Truck technology (please, put an X in the corresponding box)
Fill one line per truck model
Compaction ratio: If the volume of 4 m3 of household waste represent 2 m3 in the truck after compaction, the compaction ratio is 2. Thus, an 8 m3 truck can 
load 16 m3 of (non-compacted) waste
Capacity: for compaction trucks, indicates the number of m3 of waste compacted
Columns 3, 4 and 8: put an x in the box if the truck has the specified characteristic
Model and year Automatic 
loading
Compaction 
mechanism
Number of 
trucks of 
this type
Capacity in m3
(per truck)
Compaction 
ratio
Regularly used 
to collected 
household 
waste
Usual staff 
(1; 1+1 ;1+2;1+3;
1+4….)
1 ☐ ☐ ☐
2 ☐ ☐ ☐
3 ☐ ☐ ☐
4 ☐ ☐ ☐
5 ☐ ☐ ☐
6 ☐ ☐ ☐
7 ☐ ☐ ☐
8 ☐ ☐ ☐
9 ☐ ☐ ☐
10 ☐ ☐ ☐
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 18
11 ☐ ☐ ☐
Total
Add lines if necessary
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 19
7. Expenditures year], GEL
Expenditures per year
Personnel expenditures : waste collection staff
Personnel expenditures: administrative personnel
Personnel expenditure: technical staff (repair, maintenance...)
Expenditures for consumption (fuel…) and material
Leasing expenditures (trucks…..)
Other expenditures (eventually amount paid to a contractor)
Total
8. Waste collection staff, December [year]
Number of 
employees
Waste collection staff 
Administrative staff
Technical staff
Total staff
9. Process and workload
Average number of hours a garbage trucks is
operating weekly (collect and travel to the dumping site): …………9 hours………
Percentage of the households that are not deserved: ………………….
10. Transport
Total distance in km to discharge all containers using the shortest route: 
Road distance to the dumping site, from the center of the city, in km: 
Are trucks going to the dumping site always with full bin? 
Yes, always with full bin ☐
Most of the time (>85%) ☐
Less than 85% of the time ☐
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 20
A-2.2 LIBRARY QUESTIONNAIRE 
Revised version April 27, 2016
Please complete the questionnaire electronically when possible, and send it to the following e-mail 
address [……@....] no later than […]
If you have any question, please contact [name, surname] per telephone [phone number] or e-mail.
Required data and information concern year [year], unless otherwise specified
1. Person completing the questionnaire
Municipality: 
First name, surname, function, electronic address, and telephone number of the person filing out the 
questionnaire: 
First name:
Surname: 
 Function: 
 E-mail:
Tel:
2. Services
If service provided, put an X in the box
Lending books ☐
Lending multimedia items (CD-Rom, DVD, 
….) 
☐
Lending E-books ☐
Newspaper, magazines for consultation ☐
Inter Library services* ☐
Electronic catalogue available ☐
Computer facilities for users ☐
Computers with internet access available for 
users
☐
Staff give time to respond to users’ enquiries ☐
Printing, copying facilities for users ☐
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 21
* If a user of can borrow books or receive photocopies of documents owned by another library
3. Library organization
Is library a municipal service (operated by municipal employees) or a service provided by a municipality 
owned corporation or organization?
Municipal service ☐
Municipally owned organization ☐
Library branches
Insert x in appropriate boxes
One location only ☐
Multi-branch library (with neighborhood branch) ☐
Specialized library (children,…) ☐
If the library is multi-branch, number of branches: ………….
Is registration mandatory to borrow books or other items?
yes ☐ no ☐
Does the library keeps a record of the books borrowed? 
Validity of reader registration: 
One year ☐ More than 
one year
☐ Permanent ☐
Are books and periodical borrowed for consultation in the reading room registered?
yes ☐ no ☐
4. Statistics (31.12.2015)
Number of books in stocks: 
Number of periodical, including newspapers and magazines (subscription ongoing): 
Number of books bought the last three years [year to year]:
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 22
5. Facilities
Reading room(s) yes ☐ no ☐
If yes, number of reading places:
Number of computers for the users:
Have readers directly access to the collection:
Yes, all 
collections ☐
Partial 
access
☐ No 
access
☐
6. Activity [year] 
Number of books/periodical borrowed (not included those borrowed for use in the reading room): 
Number of books/periodical borrowed for use in the reading room [if registered]: 
Number of multimedia items (CD-ROMs, audio CDs, DVDs, Blue-Rays, video-games) borrowed:
Have an inventory been carried out in [year]: yes ☐ no ☐
7. Active users [years]
Number of users who have renewed there registration card or membership in [year]:
Number of users who have borrowed at least one item in [year]:
8. Opening hours
If more than one branch, opening hours for the main branch
Reading room
Average number of opening hours per day (working days):
Number of working days per week:
Lending service
Average number of opening hours (working days):
Number of working days per week:
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 23
9. Library staff
Library staff at end of [year]
Number of 
employees
Library staff, including administrative employees
Technical personal
Total
10. Expenditures [year], GEL
Municipal library 
expenditures GEL
Personnel expenditures
Purchase of goods and services
Others
Total current expenditures
Annual capital expenditure, average over the last three years [year to year]:
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 24
A-2.3 PRE-SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE
Revised version April 28, 2016
Please complete the questionnaire electronically when possible, and send it to the following e-mail 
address xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx no later than xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you have any question, please call xxxxx or send a mail
Required data and information concern year [year], unless otherwise specified
1. Person completing the questionnaire
Municipality:
First name, surname, function, and electronic address of the person filing out the questionnaire:
First name: 
Surname:
 Function: 
 E-mail: 
Tel: 
2. Organization
Is pre-school a municipal service (operated by municipal employees) or a service provided by a 
municipality owned corporation or organization?
Municipal service ☐
Municipally owned organization ☐
3. Statistics
Pre-school age population (children eligible for enrollment in pre-school) [year]? ……………
Number of children attending pre-school [year]
Age range Number 
Less than 3
3 less than 4
4 less than 5
5 and more
Total
Are children from villages around [municipality] attending pre-school in [municipality]? If yes, how many 
[year]: …………….
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 25
[To MRDI: The formulation of this (new) question has to be checked; the aim is to measure the 
deserved population) 
4. Pre-school personnel, end of [year]
Number 
Teachers [use the proper term in Georgian language]
Assistant teachers [use the proper term in Georgian language]
Specialized teachers (music, …..)
Technical staff (cleaning, security…)
Administrative staff (direction, secretariat…)
Specialized personnel (nurses, speech-therapist, psychologists …)
Other
Total
5. Class size
Total number of pre-school classes:
Number of classes with more than 20 pupils (21 and over):
6. Expenditures [year], GEL
Pre-school 
expenditures 
Expenditures for teachers and assistant teachers
Expenditures for specialized teachers (music…)
Expenditures for technical staff (security, cleaning...)
Administrative staff expenditures (direction, secretariat …)
Specialized personnel expenditures (speech therapist, nurses, psychologist…)
Other current expenditures
Current expenditures total
Annual capital expenditure, average [last 3 years], GEL : …………………………..
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 26
APPENDIX III: GOING BEYOND THE PILOT 
PROJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF A BENCHMARKING 
SYSTEM FOR IMPROVING MUNICIPAL 
SERVICES EFFICIENCY
A-3.1 CURRENT STATE OF THE PROJECT
The objective is to progressively implement a benchmarking system for Georgian municipalities covering 
main municipal programs and services. It aims at helping municipalities develop a continuous system of 
improvement. Performance measures can help reveal inefficiencies, encourage municipalities to adopt 
good practices and to provide services of good quality, and avoid excessive costs.
A pilot study involving Akhaltsikhe, Batumi and Kutaisi was initiated at the request of Ministry of 
Infrastructure and Regional Development (MRDI) with the technical support of Tetra-Tech, an USAID 
contractor. The works began in November 2015. Once the strategic objectives had been defined, three 
core services (pre-school, library and waste collection) and four support services (finance, human 
resources, ITC and fleet service) were selected. The questionnaires for data collection were sent out at 
the end of 2015.
Completing the questionnaires took more time that was expected, and the last two questionnaires were 
received beginning of April. Data collection has not been easy, as Georgian municipalities are not used 
collecting input and output data. Some data are still missing, and the data provided is of uneven quality.
The difficulties experienced in data collection were not unexpected. First, it is first tentative survey to 
measure municipal services efficiency, secondly a personnel contact with the person filling the 
questionnaire is essential to a successful survey (and there was no such contact). The person in charge 
of the survey should call the municipal employee filling the questionnaire, before sending the 
questionnaire, again once the questionnaire has been received, to ensure that the questions are well 
understood, finally after the reception of the completed questionnaire if data are missing or seems not 
plausible.
We learned from the pilot study that some questions were confusing or ambiguous, and that some 
other questions could be dropped. A new version of the questionnaires for the three core services has 
therefore been prepared. One must be aware that the questionnaires have never been discussed with a 
person familiar with the service (head of service, for example). The wording of a question is very 
important, and translation a difficult exercise: it need to be ensure that the questions in the Georgian 
version of the survey are unambiguous.
Data from the three pilot municipalities are still incomplete (highlighted in yellow in the data base), some 
are probably inaccurate (suspicious data in cyan, such as 19.5 employees per waste collecting truck in 
Kutaisi).
A-3.2 ORGANIZATION
• Tetra Tech is forwarding the technical dossier to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Regional 
Development (MRDI), which is taking over the day-to-day operational management of the project: 
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 27
final adjustments of the questionnaires, completing the data base for the three pilot municipalities and 
the three core services, horizontal (new municipalities) and vertical (new services) extension of the 
survey, training and coaching municipalities once the results are available.
• MRDI set up a task group whose mission is to develop an efficiency measurement system for 
Georgian municipalities based on the pilot project. A group of three on a half-time basis (equivalent 
to 1.5 full time) will be able to implement the project during the first year. Once the project has 
attained its full rhythm of implementation, the workload might be moderately reduced (3 x 0.33 = 
one full time equivalent).
A-3.3 MISSION OF THE TASK GROUP
The task group main assignments are: final control of the three questionnaire, collecting missing data for 
the three pilot municipalities and three core services, progressively extend the number of participating 
municipalities and the number of services, collect and proof-check the data, manage the data base, 
analyze the data, assess efficiency degree of each municipality and each service, determine the 
improvement potential et disseminate information, show municipalities how to adopt better business 
practices and reduce costs.
An alternative option would be to entrust the National Statistics Office of Georgia with the data 
collection and the management of the data base. 
MRDI or National Statistics Office need a legal basis for collecting the data. This issue has to be clarified.
As a first step (first year), we recommend not to add new services and to extend the three core 
services to other municipalities. Adding twelve new municipalities to the three pilot units would allow to 
make comparison between fifteen units, enough to obtain meaningful results.
In a second step (year 2), new services could be added (for example, one core service and one support 
service). The questionnaires for the support services in the pilot study are almost final and do not need 
much change (should however be discussed with a person familiar with the service). There is no need to 
collect data for each service every year. A rotating survey – each service being surveyed once every five 
years – largely fits the needs. Municipalities will thus have time to identify and adopt best practices. 
When the main services have been surveyed, MRDI would have to collect the data for a few services 
every year (3 if the total is 15).
To assess efficiency in municipal service provision, the task group compare efficiency indicator for a 
particular municipality to the same indicator for the best performing municipality (or an average of best 
performing municipalities). A comparison to international standards will also be helpful. Tetra-Tech 
external expert has agreed to look for international standards (for the three core services, when 
needed for the support services).
For each services, relevant quality indicators are need (2 for each services, as quality has several 
dimension). The selected quality indicators should be submitted to the managers of the services, this 
would improve the acceptability of the measurement system. Examples of quality indicators can be easily 
found in the international literature.
Every year, the task group will draw up a report that provides, for the mayor and the person 
responsible for the service, efficiency and quality of service indicators, as well as an estimate of the 
potential of improvement. The report will allow for comparison between Georgian municipalities, as 
well as comparison between Georgian municipalities and international standards.
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 28
A-3.4 TO KEEP IN MIND
The key factor of success is the quality of data. The method being based on comparison, the data 
constitutes the performance metric. If there is a bias in the performance metric, the whole exercise 
become meaningless. That is why using several measure of inputs (physical units and expenditures) and 
output (tons, cubic meter, population) is a useful precaution. This means also that it is important to 
proof-check the data when receiving the questionnaire.
Among factor influencing output and resource use, those under the control of management are to be 
distinguished from those not under its control. Example of factor under the control of management: size 
of the containers used to collect waste. Example of factor not under the control of management: waste 
collection is easier if the density of waste is higher (m3 per km), it is more difficult if the streets of the 
city are often congested with traffic. If a municipality spends more than another one to collect one ton 
of waste because the organization of the service, it means that the municipality is not (fully) efficient. If it 
spends more because of congested road, one should not draw this conclusion. It is not always easy to 
decide if a factor is under control or not: are vehicles blocking the access to containers a factor under 
the control of the management (I would say yes, as the municipality could adopt regulatory measure to 
avoid cars being parked in front of containers). Considering pre-school, the characteristics of the 
population is the main factor not under management control (smaller classes are needed to achieve the 
same outcome when pupils belongs to a socially disadvantaged population). To our knowledge, there are 
no meaningful (external) factor influencing service provision of a library.
A-3.4.1 WORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN (MRDI AND TASK GROUP)
a) In the immediate future (MRDI) 
Clarify the legal basis regarding data collection: to facilitate data collection, there must be a legal 
obligation for the municipalities to provide data to MRDI or at least a strong incentive. If that would be 
helpful, the Tetra-Tech expert can do some research on the solution adopted in Switzerland and in 
some other European countries.
Constitute a task group with an adequate time budget.
b) In the immediate future (task group)
Discuss each of the three core service questionnaires with a person familiar with the service (head of 
service or person with responsibilities in the service provision. This has not yet be done). If needed, 
make the required (small) changes in the questionnaire. There is no need to contact a person in one of 
the three pilot municipality, a person familiar with the service in Tbilisi would do the job.
Submit for discussion (same persons):
• Factors influencing service provision not under the control of management (at that stage, only waste 
collection). One possible indicator is the daily (or weekly) volume of waste in m3 per km of road 
(total volume of waste collected divided by the length of the trip to deserve all containers in 
the city, routing must be optimized);
• Choice of quality indicators (to get a clearer idea about the availability of the data).
• Population deserved if different from the "usual population" of the city (population deserved may 
vary from service to service).
Introduce questions to collect indicators to assess the greater or lesser difficulty of service provision 
(factor not under control of the management) if not yet in the questionnaire.
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 29
c) Introduction new municipalities in the survey (horizontal extension)
1. First step is to convince ten to twelve new municipalities to participate in the survey. Inform 
participants of the survey objectives and of the implementation procedure.
2. Ask municipalities to appoint a contact person (one per service, head of service or person familiar 
with the service).
3. Choose the reference year for the first wave of the survey. It can be 2014 (to be able to use the 
data provided by the three pilot municipalities) or 2015 (probably the best option). If the first 
reference year is 2015, there are two options for the three pilot municipalities: use data which have 
already been collected (2014) and adjust monetary values for price increase, or collect data for 
2015. I recommend the second option.
4. Before sending the questionnaires, call the contact persons and inform them about the modalities of 
the survey and about the questionnaire. Tell the contact person that she will contacted after the 
receipt of the questionnaire (to ensure proper understanding of the questions). 
5. Send the questionnaires: set a deadline for returning the questionnaire (about three weeks).
6. Once the completed questionnaires are received, determine if data are missing, proof-check all data 
(for plausibility). When needed, call the contact person. Send necessary reminders.
7. Prepare the data base (automatic calculation of indicators).
8. Identify the best-in-class (benchmark): data provided by the benchmark have to be checked 
rigorously.
9. For each service, the data base should provide information on national benchmarks as well as 
on international benchmarks (or standards).
10. Publishing and disseminating results: all the main results must be published and provided to municipal 
authorities and to the management of the service.
d) Adding new services
1. Choice of the new services to be investigated: two services per year (for example, one core service 
and one support service). Criteria: selected core service represent a significant part of the municipal 
workforce and expenditure, homogenous output across municipalities (culture would not be a good 
choice).
2. The task group devotes the necessary time to acquire a good knowledge of the service, to 
understand its technology, the way to measure inputs and outputs, quality indicators and factor not 
under the control of the management influencing service provision and costs.
3. Development of the survey questionnaire: we recommend to measure resources use (inputs) in 
physical units (employees, equipment capacity….) and in monetary units (expenditures in GEL). It is 
always useful to know the detailed composition of expenditures (personnel expenditures, leasing 
expenditures, and other expenditure). The existing questionnaire for support services (finance, 
human resources, ITC and fleet) can be used without major changes (it would be useful to discuss 
the questionnaires with a person familiar with the service). Do not write the questionnaire (core 
service) before having a good understanding of the service (technology, resources, output, quality 
measurement).
4. Each questionnaire should be submitted and discussed with a person familiar with the service. Ask 
the person if factors not under the control of management are satisfactorily addressed. Also check 
the likely availability of data.
e) Disseminating information, training and coaching
The MRDI task group help municipalities to interpret and use the survey results, encourage them to 
compare their own performances to those of best performing municipalities and to international 
standards.
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 30
The MRDI task group also provide training and coaching in process analysis and benchmarking. It should 
explain how to use the survey results to improve efficiency and service quality, using process 
reengineering and structural (regulatory) measures.
The dissemination of the survey results has to reach all users, not only the management of the service 
(the mayor, municipal executive and council).
Improving efficiency often requires painful and unpopular corrective actions that politician are reluctant 
to take, such as reducing the number of jobs. Governments do everything possible to avoid taking 
unpopular measures. Simply showing municipal governments that the cost of service provision could be 
reduced without affecting users' benefits will usually lead to no change in the way services are delivered. 
There are a multitude of examples showing that governments can very well live with an oversized and 
inefficient administration. Municipal governments will take tough action only if they have no other choice 
(serious financial distress) or if there is a strong incentive for change (intergovernmental transfers 
designed to promote efficiency).
It would be worth thinking about how to bring underperforming municipalities to take action to reduce 
costs and improve service quality: give municipality sufficient time to adapt (if, for example, the 
workforce has to be reduced by 20%, this could be achieved not immediately but over five years, using 
natural turnover), share the benefits of cost reduction with municipalities (part of the money spared can 
be invested in new municipal projects)...
C. Jeanrenaud/May 16, 2016
GOOD GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI) IN GEORGIA – BENCHMARKING GEORGIAN MUNICIPALITIES 31
U.S. Agency for International Development
Good Governance Initiative (GGI) in Georgia
11, George Balanchine Street
Tbilisi, 0131 Georgia 
Tel: 995-032-254-4000
www.usaid.gov/georgia